Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49833:gr-167652-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:40:07+00:00

Document:
LIMCOMA MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari to annul the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated January 31, 2005, in CA-G.R. CV No. 79958,1 which set aside the Order2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosario, Batangas in LRC Case No. RY2K1-050, and dismissed the petitioner's application for registration of a parcel of land.
On September 24, 2001, petitioner Limcoma Multi-Purpose Cooperative3 filed with the RTC an application for registration and confirmation of title over a parcel of land designated as Lot 972-A No. Csd-04-015172-D (subject lot), Cad 426, Rosario Cadastre, consisting of 646 square meters under the Property Registration Decree.4 The subject lot was originally part of Lot 972 and, subsequently, segregated as Lot 972-A. Petitioner alleged that it is the owner in fee simple of the subject lot and the improvements thereon, and that it has been in the open, exclusive, peaceful, and continuous possession thereof for more than 30 years, reckoned from the time of possession of its predecessors-in-interest.
In the alternative, the petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 485 of the Public Land Act, as amended, based on its and its predecessor-in-interest's open, exclusive, and continuous possession of the subject lot for a period of more than 30 years prior to the filing of its application.
Considering that there were no private oppositors to the application, the RTC issued an Order6 allowing petitioner to present its evidence ex-parte before the Clerk of Court, who was appointed Commissioner for that purpose.
At the ex-parte reception of evidence, petitioner presented the testimonies of Olivia P. Gomez, Arsenia P. Alcantara, and Lorenzo P. Limbo.
In turn, Arsenia Alcantara identified Lot 972 and declared that it was previously owned by her parents-in-law, the Spouses Andres and Trinidad, who had occupied and possessed said lot, in the concept of owner, since 1938. In 1982, Lot 972 was donated by the couple to their son, Venustiano. She came to know of her in-laws' ownership of Lot 972 a year after she and Venustiano were married in 1953. In this regard, Arsenia testified that the Spouses Andres and Trinidad planted and harvested several coconut trees, other crops, and vegetables thereon. She and Venustiano, likewise, stored thereat some of their equipment and things used in their bakery. When Venustiano became the owner thereof, they put up a perimeter fence on Lot 972 and continued to use the property as a storage site for materials utilized in their bakery.
Thereafter, Lot 972 was segregated into Lots 972-A and 972-B. Lot 972-A was the subject of the petitioner's application for registration before the RTC while Lot 972-B was donated18 by Venustiano to their daughter, Trinidad Alcantara.19 Finally, Arsenia identified and ratified the Deed of Sale evidencing petitioner's acquisition of the subject lot.
On cross-examination, Arsenia confirmed that there were no adverse claimants over the subject lot, and her in-laws' possession thereof was peaceful, adversarial, continuous, and open, which they (Venustiano and her) eventually continued in like manner.
Lorenzo Limbo corroborated Arsenia's testimony on the Spouses Andres and Trinidad's possession and ownership of the subject lot since 1938. Lorenzo testified that he was born and raised in Poblacion, Rosario, Batangas, the same place where the subject lot is located.20 He was a resident thereof for 59 years. In addition, Lorenzo declared that he knows the subject lot which was originally part of Lot 972, and ownership thereof by the Spouses Andres and Trinidad, because Lorenzo's family used to own a parcel of land near the property. In fact, the Spouses Andres and Trinidad were compadres21 of Lorenzo's father. Lorenzo was already a teenager in 1938 when the Spouses Andres and Trinidad possessed and tilled Lot 972 encompassing the subject lot.22 As a boy, Lorenzo frequented the property near Lot 972, and, from 1938, he observed the Spouses Andres and Trinidad working on and utilizing the land as storage site for their business.
Lorenzo's familiarity with Lot 972 and its previous owners was solidified by his marriage to Trinidad's sister, which makes Lorenzo, Venustiano's uncle by affinity. Indeed, Lorenzo asseverated that the Spouses Andres and Trinidad were the recognized and acknowledged owners of Lot 972, and they remained owners thereof when he got married on January 18, 1951. He recalled that the Spouses Andres and Trinidad's possession was open, continuous, and exclusive, that they planted citrus on the said lot, and that the perimeter area was surrounded by madre de cacao, bamboos, and some wire. The subject lot is not tenanted, is located outside a military reservation or forest zone, and is without adverse claimants.
Based on the testimonies of the witnesses and documentary exhibits, the applicant LIMCOMA Multi-Purpose Cooperative has the possession of the subject lot in open, continuous, adverse to the whole world and in the concept of an owner.
WHEREFORE, finding the application sufficient in form and substance, it being supported by sufficient evidence, this Court, as recommended, finds that LIMCOMA MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE has a registrable title over a parcel of land located at Barangay Namuco, Rosario, Batangas in Lot 972-A, Cad 426, Rosario Cadastre of the Subdivision Plan, Csd-04-015172-D, containing an area of SIX HUNDRED FORTY-SIX (646) SQUARE METERS and order its registration in the name of LIMCOMA MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE.
In reversing the trial court, the CA ruled that petitioner failed to (1) demonstrate the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier, required by the Property Registration Decree and the Public Land Act; and (2) overcome the presumption that the subject lot is public and alienable land.
On the other hand, petitioner maintains that it has occupied the subject lot since 1938, by virtue of its predecessors-in-interest's possession, and that it has duly established the character of the land as public and alienable. Petitioner submits that, at any rate, Lot 972, including the subject lot, was converted into private property through the Spouses Andres and Trinidad's exclusive and continuous possession of more than 30 years, from 1938 to 1982, thereby making it susceptible to prescription.
2. Corollarily, whether or not the subject lot acquired a private character in 1968, thus within the operation of the laws on prescription.
In disposing of the foregoing issues, the provisions of both the Property Registration Decree and the Public Land Act invoked by the petitioner bear close scrutiny.
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public dominion, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
Parenthetically, Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree deals with the acquisition of private lands by prescription.
We resolve the first issue in the affirmative and depart from the findings of the appellate court.
This is to certify that the parcel of land identified as Lot 972-A, Csd-04-015172-D, situated at Barangay Namuco, Rosario, Batangas containing an area of SIX HUNDRED FORTY-SIX METERS and shown at the reverse side hereof has been verified to be within the ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE ZONE under Project No. 27-A, land Classification Map No. 718 certified on 26 March 1928.
The DENR-CENRO Report, likewise, contains the foregoing notation. Further, the subject lot has been classified as commercial for tax purposes. These documents all point to the undeniable fact that the subject lot is public alienable land and, thereby, overcome the presumption that such forms part of the public dominion.
In the recent case of Buenaventura v. Republic,32 we ruled that said Certification is sufficient to establish the true nature or character of the subject property as public and alienable land. We similarly ruled in Republic v. Court of Appeals33 and intoned therein that the certification enjoys a presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence.
Both the DENR-CENRO Certification and Report constitute a positive government act, an administrative action, validly classifying the land in question.34 As adverted to by the petitioner, the classification or re-classification of public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral, or forest lands is now a prerogative of the Executive Department of the government.35 Clearly, the petitioner has overcome the burden of proving the alienability of the subject lot.
Coming now to the issue of whether the petitioner proved possession since June 12, 1945, or earlier, we find that it had adequately established its open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the subject lot since 1938, tacked to that of its predecessors-in-interest, the Spouses Andres and Trinidad, and the Spouses Venustiano and Arsenia.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the petitioner did not present "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence to show the true nature of its possession of the subject lot, and that even granting that the Spouses Andres and Trinidad possessed and occupied the lot since 1938 in the concept of owner, such did not redound to applicant's benefit, absent proof of a valid transfer to Venustiano, the petitioner's immediate predecessor-in-interest.
We are not in accord with this ruling.
The testimonies of petitioner's witnesses consistently declared that the Spouses Andres and Trinidad occupied and possessed the subject lot in the concept of owner since 1938. Worth noting is the testimony of Lorenzo Limbo who had resided in and frequented the area since he was a child and is thus familiar with the Spouses Andres' and Trinidad's ownership of Lot 972. He gave direct and categorical testimony consisting of specific acts of ownership36 to substantiate the petitioner's claim that the Spouses Andres and Trinidad possessed and occupied the subject lot. Lorenzo Limbo certainly knew from whereof he spoke as his father was the compadre of the Spouses Andres and Trinidad, he eventually married Trinidad's sister, and he had been a longtime neighbor of the Alcantaras.
Moreover, petitioner proffered in evidence the TDs showing payment of realty taxes by the Spouses Andres and Trinidad from 1938 which was subsequently continued by Venustiano and Arsenia. Although as a rule, tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property and serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession.37 These tax declarations bolster the petitioner's claim that its predecessors-in-interest possessed and occupied the lot in question since 1938.
Anent the holding of the appellate court that the Spouses Andres' and Trinidad's possession of the subject lot did not redound to petitioner's benefit, such does not find support in law.
(1) The present possessor may complete the period necessary for prescription by tacking his possession to that of his grantor or predecessor-in-interest.
To emphasize, Venustiano is a compulsory heir of the Spouses Andres and Trinidad. Intestate succession is another means by which ownership and other real rights over property are transmitted.39 Effectively, upon his parents' death, ownership and real rights over the subject lot, including the right of possession, were vested in Venustiano. Consequently, upon his sale of the subject lot to the petitioner, he transmitted his rights thereto. Therefore, petitioner must be permitted to tack possession of the subject lot to that of the Spouses Andres and Trinidad, and Venustiano.
Prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership.41 We have had occasion to rule in numerous instances that open, exclusive, and continuous possession for at least 30 years of alienable public land ipso jure converts the same to private property.42 The conversion works to summon into operation Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree which, in turn, authorizes the acquisition of private lands through prescription.
Spouses Venustiano and Arsenia represented to petitioner that the subject lot was donated to Venustiano by his parents in 1982. This donation, even if void, serves as basis of the petitioner's good faith, absent a showing that it knew of a defect in its title or mode of acquisition.44 Good faith remains notwithstanding petitioner's mistaken belief that the donation was valid. Article 526, paragraph 3 of the Civil Code specifically provides that "mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith."
It stands to reason, therefore, that the petitioner has acquired registrable title over the subject lot anchored on its predecessors-in - interest's possession traced back to 1938, and its own possession of 10 years, reckoned from 1991 to the filing of the application for registration in 2001.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The January 31, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED, and the April 10, 2003 Order of the Regional Trial Court granting the petitioner's application for registration of the subject lot, is hereby REINSTATED. No costs.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring; rollo, pp. 63-75.
2 Penned by Executive Judge Pablo R. Chavez, promulgated on April 10, 2003; id. at 58-61.
3 Exhibit "O," records, p. 147.
4 Presidential Decree No. 1529.
5 Commonwealth Act No. 141.
7 Exhibit "P," records, p. 149.
8 Exhibit "LL," id. at 8.
11 Copies of TD Nos. 36409, 4988, 14218, 6781, 5300, 0452, 005-00818, 005-01281, 005-01286, 005-01333, and 005-01334 issued by the Municipal Assessor of Rosario, Batangas presented during the ex-parte presentation of evidence; TSN, January 17, 2003, p. 41.
12 Supposedly the TD indicating the transfer of ownership of the subject lot from the Spouses Andres and Trinidad to Venustiano; TSN, January 17, 2003, p. 43.
13 Exhibit "T," records, p. 177.
14 Exhibit "DD," id. at 188.
15 TSN, January 17, 2003, p. 43.
16 Annex "A," rollo, pp. 31-32.
17 TSN, January 17, 2003, pp. 44-45; Exhibit "KK" and "LL," records, pp. 199-201.
18 Deed of Donation, Exhibit "JJ," id. at 194-195.
19 Trinidad Alcantara, Arsenia's daughter, is different from Trinidad Alcantara, Arsenia's mother-in-law.
20 Lorenzo was born on September 5, 1923; TSN, November 7, 2002, p. 31.
21 Generally, connotes a closer and more intimate relationship between friends.
22 Lorenzo was 13 years old in 1938; TSN, November 17, 2002, p. 32.
23 At the time of his testimony in 2002, Lorenzo was a balikbayan in Batangas and permanently resided in San Diego, California, U.S.A.
26 Del Rosario-Igtiben v. Republic, G.R. No. 158449, October 22, 2004, 441 SCRA 188, 192.
27 Reyes v. Republic, G.R. No. 141924, January 23, 2007; Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144057, June 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 442, 448; Del Rosario-Igtiben v. Republic, supra note 26, at 193; Menguito v. Republic, 401 Phil. 274, 284-285 (2000).
28 Del Rosario-Igtiben v. Republic, id.
29 Buenaventura v. Republic, G.R. No. 166865, March 2, 2007.
30 Two of the recognized exceptions are: (1) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; and (2) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion [Buenaventura v. Republic, id. at 27, citing Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank, 400 Phil. 1349 (2000); Nokom v. National Labor Relations Commission, 390 Phil. 1228, 1243 (2000); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Embroidery and Garments Industries (Phils.), Inc., 364 Phil. 541, 546-547 (1999); Sta. Maria v. Court of Appeals, 349 Phil. 275, 282-283 (1998)].
31 Exhibit "NN," records, p. 198.
33 440 Phil. 697, 711 (2002).
34 See Republic v. Carrasco, G.R. No. 143491, December 6, 2006.
35 Petition, rollo, p. 24, citing Bureau of Forestry v. Court of Appeals, 153 SCRA 351; see Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra note 33, at 710.
36 Planting and harvesting of citrus and other crops, and use of the land as storage site for their business.
37 Republic v. Carrasco, supra note 34, citing Republic v. Alconaba, 427 SCRA 611, 616 (2004); Republic v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 328 (1996).
38 G.R. No. 76564, May 25, 1990, 185 SCRA 693, 700.
39 Civil Code, Article 774, in relation to Article 712.
40 Civil Code, Article 1117.
41 See Article 1106, Civil Code, provides: "By prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law."
42 Buenaventura v. Republic, supra note 29; Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra note 27, at 452; Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108998, August 24, 1994, 235 SCRA 567, 576, citing Director of Lands v. IAC, 214 SCRA 604 (1984) and Pineda v. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 602 (1979).
Art. 1127. The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his ownership.
Art. 1134. Ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of ten years.
44 See Article 526, Civil Code.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

Art. 1127

Art. 1134