Source: http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/46267
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 13:00:06+00:00

Document:
SPOUSES PHILIP RECTO AND ESTER C. RECTO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, GENEROSO R. GENEROSO, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
This is a petition for review on certiorari challenging the January 16, 2003 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 65407 which reversed the September 7, 1998 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas, Branch 6 in Land Registration Case No. T-320. Likewise assailed is the appellate court’s October 17, 2003 resolution denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
On February 19, 1997, petitioner spouses Philip Recto and Ester C. Recto, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas, Branch 6, an application for registration of title over a 23,209 square meter lot, designated as Lot 806, Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre, Plan Ap-04-010485, situated in Barangay San Rafael, Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of Batangas, under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree. They also prayed in the alternative that their petition for registration be granted pursuant to Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141, or the Public Land Act.
Petitioners alleged that on June 4, 1996, they purchased Lot 806 from sisters Rosita Medrana Guevarra and Maria Medrana Torres for the amount of P6,943,534.40. The two, in turn, inherited the lot from their deceased parents, Vicente and Eufemia Medrana. Maria, born on October 22, 1917, declared that since 1945, her father was already the owner of Lot 806. She became aware of her father’s possession of the subject lot in the concept of owner in 1930 when she was 13 years of age. The possession of the subject lot by the Medrana family prior to 1945 was corroborated by Rosita, who testified that in 1935 when she was 13 years of age, she first came to know that her father was the owner of Lot 806. The sisters added that during the lifetime of Vicente, he planted rice and corn on the lot with the help of their tenant. After his demise, they continued to plant the same crops through hired farmers.
(2) Tax Declarations of the lot for the years 1948, 1955, 1968, 1974, 1980, 1987, 1989 and 1994 (in the name of Vicente Medrana); 1996 (in the name of Rosita Guevarra and Maria Torres); and 1998 (in the name of Philip and Ester Recto).
(c) the lot is not within a previously issued patent, decree or title.
(g) the lot does not encroach upon an established watershed, riverbed and river bank protection.
(5) Report from the Land Management Bureau that the land involved is not covered by any land patent or by land application pending issuance of patent.
(6) Report from the Forest Management Service, DENR that the subject lot falls within Alienable and Disposable lands, Project No. 30 of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, per BFD LC Map No. 582 certified on December 31, 1925.
(7) Report from the Land Management Sector, DENR that Plan Ap-04-010485, Lot 806, Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre, situated in the Barangay of San Rafael, Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of Batangas, is not a portion of nor identical to any previously approved isolated survey.
There being no opposition to the petition from any private individual, an Order of General Default was issued by the trial court.
WHEREFORE, and upon previous confirmation of the Order of General Default, this Court hereby adjudicates and decrees Lot 806, Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre on plan Ap-04-010485, situated in San Rafael, Sto. Tomas, Batangas, with an area of 23,209 square meters, in favor of and in the names of Spouses Philip Recto and Ester C. Recto, Filipino citizens and residents of 1322 Palm Avenue, Dasmariñas Village, Makati City.
Once this Decision shall have become final let the corresponding decree of registration be issued.
The Republic, represented by the Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals contending that petitioners failed to – (1) offer in evidence the original tracing cloth plan of the land; (2) prove possession of the lot for the period required by law; and (3) overthrow the presumption that subject property forms part of the public domain.
On January 16, 2003, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court on the sole ground of failure to offer in evidence the original tracing cloth plan of the land.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration praying that in view of their compliance with all the substantive and procedural requirements for registration, save for the submission of the tracing cloth plan, the case be remanded to the trial court for the presentation of the said tracing cloth plan. The Solicitor General, on the other hand, interposed no objection to petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
On October 17, 2003, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Hence, the instant petition praying for the remand of the case before the trial court.
In its Comment, the Solicitor General manifested that in the interest of justice, he will not to oppose the petition.
The provisions of Section 48(b) and Section 48(c), Chapter VIII, of the Public Land Act are hereby amended in the sense that these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the applicant himself or thru his predecessor-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945.
Thus, before one can register his title over a parcel of land, the applicant must show that – (a) he, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier; and (b) the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
In the instant case, Rosita and Maria the predecessors-in-interest of petitioners, categorically testified that they, and prior to them their father, had been cultivating and possessing Lot 806 in the concept of owners. Maria, having been born on October 22, 1917, and Rosita on October 29, 1922, were 13 years of age when they became aware of their family’s possession of Lot 806 in 1930 and 1935, respectively. At 13, they were undoubtedly capable and competent to perceive their father’s possession of Lot 806 in the concept of owner. Moreover, the trial court found their testimonies to be worthy of belief and credence. Considering that the judge below is in a better position to pass judgment on the issue, having personally heard the witnesses testify and observed their deportment and manner of testifying, her findings deserve the highest respect.
Petitioner questions the credibility of claimant Divinaflor who testified on the possession of Marcial Listana for the period required by law. The issue of credibility is unavailing considering that the judge below is in a better position to pass judgment on the issue having personally heard the witnesses testify and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. Being in a better position to observe the witnesses, the trial court’s appreciation of the witness’ testimony, truthfulness, honesty, and candor, deserves the highest respect.
… [A] person is competent to be a witness if (a) he is capable of perceiving at the time of the occurrence of the fact and (b) he can make his perception known. True, in 1939, Divinaflor was not born yet, but in 1945, he was four years old, residing in Maramba, Oas, Albay, where the subject lot is located. As his testimony goes, he and Marcial Listana were barrio mates, and that he usually passes by the subject land. The fact that Divinaflor was only a child at the required inception of possession does not render him incompetent to testify on the matter. It is well-established that any child regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive, and perceiving can make known his perception to others and that he is capable of relating truthfully facts for which he is examined. The requirements of a child’s competence as a witness are: (a) capacity of observation; (b) capacity of recollection; and (c) capacity of communication. There is no showing that as a child, claimant did not possess the foregoing qualifications. It is not necessary that a witness’ knowledge of the fact to which he testifies was obtained in adulthood. He may have first acquired knowledge of the fact during childhood, that is, at the age of four, which knowledge was reinforced through the years, up until he testified in court in 1990. There is reason to reject petitioner’s claim that Divinaflor is incompetent to testify regarding Listana’s possession since it appears undisputed that Divinaflor grew up in Maramba, Oas, Albay, and had occasion to see Listana possessing the land.
Finally, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the belated declaration of the property for tax purposes does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the predecessors were not in possession of the land as required by law since 1945. Petitioner capitalizes on the fact that the earliest tax declaration presented took effect only in 1980 while the certificate of tax payment is dated 1990. While this Court has held in a long line of cases that tax declarations or tax receipts are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, it does not necessarily follow that belated declaration of the same for tax purposes negates the fact of possession, especially in the instant case where there are no other persons claiming any interest in Lot 10739.
So also, there is no doubt that Lot 806 is an alienable land of the public domain having been released and certified as such on December 31, 1925. As further certified by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of the DENR, the entire area of Lot 806 is an agricultural land; within an alienable and disposable zone; not within a reservation area nor within a forest zone; and does not encroach upon an established watershed, riverbed, and riverbank protection. Petitioners were thus able to successfully meet the requisite for original registration of title, to wit: open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of an alienable and disposable land under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
On the first challenge, the petitioner invokes the case of Director of Lands v. Reyes, where it was held that “the original tracing cloth plan of the land applied for which must be approved by the Director of Lands” was “a statutory requirement of mandatory character” for the identification of the land sought to be registered. As what was submitted in the case at bar to identify the subject property was not the tracing cloth plan but only the blueprint copy of the survey plan, the respondent court should have rejected the same as insufficient.
We affirm. No reversible error was committed by the appellate court in ruling that Exhibit “O,” the true certified copy of the white paper plan, was sufficient for the purpose of identifying the land in question. Exhibit “O” was found by the appellate court to reflect the land as surveyed by a geodetic engineer. It bore the approval of the Land Registration Commission, and was re-verified and approved by the Bureau of Lands on April 25, 1974 pursuant to the provisions of P.D. No. 239 withdrawing from the Land Registration Commission the authority to approve original survey plans. It contained the following material data: the barrio (poblacion), municipality (Amadeo) and province (Cavite) where the subject land is located, its area of 379 square meters, the land as plotted, its technical descriptions and its natural boundaries. Exhibit “O” was further supported by the Technical Descriptions signed by a geodetic surveyor and attested by the Land Registration Commission. In fine, Exhibit “O” contained all the details and information necessary for a proper and definite identification of the land sought to be registered, thereby serving the purpose for which the original tracing cloth plan is required. The fact therefore that the original survey plan was recorded on white paper instead of a tracing cloth should not detract from the probative value thereof. x x x.
In the case at bar, Lot 806 was sufficiently identified by the blue print copy of the plan (Exhibit “R”) and the technical description (Exhibit “S”) thereof both approved by Land Management Services, DENR. Also, per report of the Land Management Sector, Plan Ap-04-010485, Lot 806, Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre, situated in the Barangay of San Rafael, Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of Batangas, is not a portion of, nor identical to any previously approved isolated survey. Petitioners also submitted before the Court of Appeals a certified true copy of the original tracing cloth plan as well as a certification from the Land Registration Authority attesting to the fact that the original plan of Plan-Ap-04-010485 in Diazo Polyester film is on file with their office. Under the circumstances, therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the trial court solely on the ground that petitioners failed to present the original tracing cloth plan.
Having met all the requirements for registration of title including the presentation of sufficient evidence to identify the land sought to be registered, there is no more need to remand the case before the trial court for the presentation of the tracing cloth plan.
WHEREFORE, the January 16, 2003 decision and October 17, 2003 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 65407 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. the September 7, 1998 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas, Branch 6 in Land Registration Case No. T-320, ordering the issuance of a decree of registration over Lot 806, Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre, Plan Ap-04-010485 in the name of petitioners is REINSTATED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Quisumbing, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
 Rollo, p. 31. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Edgardo F. Sundiam.
 Rollo, p. 41. Penned by Judge Flordelis Ozaeta Navarro.
 Plan, Records, p. 11; Technical Description, Records, p. 13.
 Deed of Sale, Exhibit “A-4”, Records, p. 5.
 Born on October 29, 1922 (TSN, August 27, 1997, p. 161).
 TSN, 27 August 1997, Records, pp. 158-163.
 Exhibit “R”, Records, p. 11.
 Exhibit “S”, Records, p. 13.
 Records, pp. 65-74. See also Certification of the Office of the Municipal Assessor of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, Records, p. 64.
 Order dated July 31, 1997, Records, p. 150.
 The dispositive portion thereof reads – “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision dated September 7, 1998 of the RTC, Branch 6, Tanauan, Batangas in Land Reg. Case No. T-320 (LRA Record No. N-67944) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
 Republic v. Lao, G.R. No. 150413, 1 July 2003, 405 SCRA 291, 295.
Incidentally, P.D. No. 1073 set 31 December 1987 as the deadline for judicial confirmation of imperfect and incomplete titles to alienable and disposable land of the public domain. This deadline was extended to 31 December 2000 by R.A. No. 6940 (See Republic v. Spouses Kalaw, G.R. No. 155138, 8 June 2004).
 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116372, 18 January 2001, 349 SCRA 451, 460.
 Records, pp. 64 and 74.
 Director of Lands v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-27594, 28 November 1975, 68 SCRA 177, 188-189.
 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62680, 9 November 1988, 167 SCRA 150, 154, citing Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 229 Phil. 20 (1986).
 Supra, note 30, pp. 153-155.
 Executive Order No. 131, approved on January 30, 1987.

References: v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.