Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50126:gr-158897-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:00:25+00:00

Document:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. FREDESVINDA ALMEDA CONSUNJI, Respondent.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking the nullification of the July 1, 2003 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 68000, which affirmed the Decision2 dated April 14, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tanauan, Batangas, Branch 6, in Land Registration Case No. T-622 LRA Record No. N-69517. The RTC granted the application of respondent Fredesvinda Almeda Consunji for original registration of title over Lot Nos. 1399, 2232, and 2601, all of Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre.
As culled from the records of the case, the facts indicate that on April 19, 1999, respondent filed an application for the registration of Lot Nos. 1399, 2232, and 2601 - all of Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre before the RTC of Tanauan, Batangas, Branch 6. The case was docketed as Land Registration Case No. T-622 LRA Record No. N-69517. Lot No. 1399 is 4,490 square meters, Lot No. 2232 has an area of 3,649 sq. m., while Lot No. 2601 is 106,426 sq. m. big.
In her application, respondent declared, among other things, that she is the sole and exclusive owner in fee simple of the lands by virtue of inheritance and possession together with the improvements thereon; that the applicant had acquired the lands by inheritance from her deceased uncle, Claro T. Almeda, who, by his Last Will and Testament executed on March 22, 1975, bequeathed to her the three parcels of land; that she has been in possession of the lots as her paraphernal properties; that as exclusive owner of the properties, she has been in continuous, peaceful, exclusive, public, and adverse possession of the assets together with her predecessors-in-interest for more than 60 years.
After all the interested parties and appropriate government agencies had been notified of the application, the trial court issued a notice of initial hearing.3 When the jurisdictional requirements for the application were ascertained, an Order4 of General Default was issued by the trial court on October 15, 1999 against all persons with the exception of the Director of Lands.
f) a Memorandum21 from the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) stating that based on existing records and investigation undertaken on the properties, said landholdings are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program pursuant to R.A. No. 6657; however, the same are not subject of any land dispute or case nor covered by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27.
WHEREFORE, and upon previous confirmation of the Order of General Default, the Court hereby adjudicates and decrees: Lot 2232, Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre, on plan Ap-04-012267, situated in the Barangay of San Bartolome, Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of Batangas, with an area of 4,490 square meters; Lot 1399, Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre, on plan As-04-000008, situated in the Barrio of San Antonio, Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of Batangas with an area of 3,649 square meters; and Lot 2601, Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre, on plan Ap-04-012266, equivalent to Psu-199323, with an area of 106,426 square meters, situated in Barangay San Antonio, Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Province of Batangas, in favor of and in the name of Fredesvinda Almeda-Consunji, Filipino citizen, of legal age, married to David M. Consunji and a resident of 4688 Pasay Road, DasmariÃ±as Village, Makati City, subject to the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
The Republic of the Philippines appealed the case to the CA, contending that the court a quo erred in finding that respondent has established possession over the subject properties for the period required by law. In addition, it asseverated that respondent failed to overthrow the presumption that the questioned properties form part of the public domain.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the assailed decision dated April 14, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas, Branch 6 is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS ESTABLISHED POSSESSION OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES FOR THE PERIOD REQUIRED BY LAW.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE TAX DECLARATIONS AS EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION.
Even assuming that the Court may review findings of fact, the petition still lacks merit. Petitioner argues that respondent failed to testify on the specific acts of ownership exercised by her kin, Claro Almeda. It puts emphasis on the fact that neither the said kin nor any tenant or tiller of the vast tracts of land was presented to support respondent's claim of her predecessors-in-interest's "open, exclusive, notorious possession" of the land.
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that she was able to prove her title to the land in question through the clear, competent, and persuasive documentary evidence presented before the trial court as well as her testimony and that of the other witness, Andres Sanchez, who has been residing continuously in the area of San Antonio, Sto. Tomas, Batangas from 1930 up to the present.
(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 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.
Q You mentioned that [the] three lots you identified were formerly owned by Claro Almeda. Since when did you come to know this Claro Almeda?
A I was ten (10) years old when I came to know him, sir.
Q And are you familiar with him since you were 10 year[s] old?
A Yes, sir, because he is the adjoining owner of the lot farmed by my father, sir.
A More or less, 40 years old, sir.
A The same age, sir.
A They were good friends being adjoining owners, sir.
Q Do you know what were planted in Lot No. 2601 and Lot No. 1399 when you first came to know these lots?
A Rice, corn and citrus, sir.
Q When did you reach the age of ten?
Q Are they the same crops planted to those two parcels of land?
Q Are there also coconut trees on this land?
Q Do you know up to when was this Claro Almeda the owner of these two lots?
A Until his death, sir.
Q Do you know how long ago he died?
A More or less about 20 years back, sir.
Q Do you know who succeeded to be the owner and possessor of these properties?
A His niece named Freddie Almeda, sir.
Q Why do you know that she is the present owner?
A She is the one visiting the place after the demise of Claro Almeda, sir.
Q So, since 20 years ago, you have already seen Fredesvinda Almeda already coming to this property?
A She is one [and] the same person, your Honor.
Q Then she was [sic] the one whom you see now taking care and visiting this land?
Q Since the time you came to know about this property when you were 10 years old up to now, do you know if there are other person [sic] claiming interest in this property?
A None that I know of, sir.
Q In other words, since then up to now, all you know is that this was owned and possessed by Claro Almeda and presently by Fredesvinda Almeda, the applicant?
Q Then she was the one whom you see now taking care and visiting this land?
Q Since the time you came to know about this property when you were 10 years old up to now, do you know if there are other person [sic] claiming interest in this property.
A San Bartolome, Sto. Tomas, Batangas, sir.
Q You testified already that as early as your [sic] were ten year [sic] old, you were also going to this property owned by Claro Almeda containing half a hectare and you already mentioned the boundary owners. Can you tell us what are the crops planted during your early days when you come [sic] to know about this land?
Sanchez had resided in and frequented the areas since he was a child. Clearly, therefore, his testimony was significant and he was able to prove his familiarity with Almeda and respondent's ownership and possession of the subject lots. He sufficiently provided direct and categorical testimony consisting of specific acts of ownership to substantiate respondent's claim that she and her predecessor-in-interest have possessed and occupied the challenged lots even before June 12, 1945. Notwithstanding the fact that no tenant was presented as a witness to prove at least 30 years of possession by respondent, this, still, does not destroy the credibility of Sanchez.
A Since my uncle, Claro Almeda, died on September 3, 1978, sir.
Q And what is the character of your possession?
A Continuous, open and without any other claimants, sir.
Q And your possession is in what concept?
Q As far as your recollection is concerned, can you testify before the this Court when was the first time you became aware that Claro T. Almeda is the owner and possessor's [sic] of the parcels of land in question?
A When I was still young about 15 years old, sir.
Q When were you born?
A October 19, 1923, sir.
Q So you were 15 years old then, that was 1938?
Q Do you mean to tell the Court that prior to the Japanese occupation, it was already your uncle in possession [sic] of these parcels of land?
A Open, continuous, adverse and with a concept of an owner, sir.
Q As far as you can remember, Mrs. Witness, how did your uncle utilize these parcels of land during his time [of] ownership from 1938 until his death on September 3, 1978?
A Yes, sir, he used to plant citrus, rice, corn and coconut trees.
A Lots 2601 and 1399, sir.
Q How about with respect to Lot 2232?
Petitioner, however, contends that the appellate court erred in considering the tax declarations as evidence of respondent's possession of the questioned lands given that the tax receipts were all relatively recent, the oldest of which only dates back to 1975.
Petitioner asserts that reliance on the certification issued by the CENRO, officially stating that the properties are alienable, is incorrect inasmuch as the issuing officer did not testify in court; therefore, such evidence "in point of strict law" may be "constitutive of hearsay."
The only plausible conclusion then is that respondent has acquired a registrable title over the subject lots anchored on her predecessor-in-interest's possession tracked down from even before the Japanese occupation, and her own possession of more than 20 years, reckoned from the death of her uncle on September 3, 1978 to the filing of the application of registration on April 19, 1999.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Court AFFIRMS the July 1, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68000, as well as the Decision dated April 14, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas, Branch 6, in Land Registration Case No. T-622 LRA Record No. N-69517, granting respondent's application for original registration of title over Lot Nos. 1399, 2232 and 2601, all of Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio with Associate Justices B.A. Adefuin-De La Cruz and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring; rollo, pp. 31-38.
2 Penned by Judge Flordelis Ozaeta Navarro, records, pp. 232-236.
5 TSN, October 28, 1999, p. 2.
8 TSN, November 15, 1999, pp. 2-3.
12 Records, Exhibit "J," p. 82.
13 Id., Exhibit "K," p. 83.
14 Id., Exhibit "L," p. 84.
15 Id., Exhibit "M," p. 86.
16 Id., Exhibit "Z," p. 132.
17 Id., Exhibit "U," p. 133.
18 Id., Exhibits "V" and "W," pp. 141 and 151.
19 Id., Exhibit "X," p. 165.
20 Id., Exhibit "Ba," p. 214.
21 Id., Exhibit "Ba-1," p. 227.
25 Pamplona Plantation Company, Inc. v. Tinghil, G.R. No. 159121, February 3, 2005, 450 SCRA 421, 427.
26 Rabanal v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 160858, February 28, 2006, 483 SCRA 601, 608, citing Senoja v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 160341, October 19, 2004, 440 SCRA 695.
27 EJR Crafts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154101, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 340, 349, citing Potenciano v. Reynoso, 449 Phil. 396, 405 (2003), Fortune Guarantee and Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 428 Phil. 783, 797 (2002).
28 Vernon T. Reyes v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 141924, January 23, 2007; underscoring supplied.
29 Del Rosario-Igtiben v. Republic, G.R. No. 158449, October 22, 2004, 441 SCRA 188, 194.
30 TSN, October 28, 1999, p. 2.
31 Id. at 3-5; underscoring supplied.
32 TSN, November 15, 1999, pp. 2-3; underscoring supplied.
33 Id. at 7-8; underscoring supplied.
34 Limcoma Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Republic, G.R. No. 167652, July 10, 2007.
35 G.R. No. 160421, October 4, 2004, 440 SCRA 79.
37 Exhibit "M," records, p. 86.
39 Republic v. Bibonia, G.R. No. 157466, June 21, 2007.
40 Buenaventura v. Republic, G.R. No. 166865, March 2, 2007.

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