Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83039:57034&catid=1584&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:16:48+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 189970, June 02, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO S. RANESES, Respondent.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO S. RANESES, Respondent.
Before this Court is a petition1 for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking the reversal of the Decision2 dated June 18, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 90383, which affirmed the Orders dated October 11, 20073 and November 27, 20074 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), of Pasig City (Taguig City Hall of Justice), Branch 153 in Land Registration Case (LRC) No. N-11573-TG.
On March 26, 2007, respondent Crisanto S. Raneses (respondent) filed an Application5 for Original Registration of Land Title docketed as LRC No. N-11573-TG over two parcels of land identified as Lot No. 3085-A, Csd-00-001621 and Lot No. 3085-B, Csd-00-001621 both located at Barangay Napindan, Taguig City, Metro Manila with a total area of twenty-two thousand six hundred (22,600) square meters (subject properties).
Catalina Raneses (Catalina), the mother of respondent, also testified that she and her husband Pedro had been in possession of the subject properties since the Japanese occupation. She narrated that Pedro cultivated the subject properties for palay production. However, after Pedro’s death in 1982, the subject properties were no longer used for palay production, and were, instead, at times leased out for the production of watermelons.
WHEREFORE, the application is Granted. Judgment is hereby rendered declaring applicant Crisanto S. Raneses, the owner in fee simple of Lot 3085-A, Csd-00-001621, with an area of Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Forty (15,240) square meters situated in Brgy. Napindan, City of Taguig, Metro Manila; and Lot 3085-B, Csd-00-001621 with an area of seven thousand three hundred sixty (7,360) square meters situated in Brgy. Napindan, City of Taguig, Metro Manila.
After this Order shall become final and executory, let the Land Registration Authority issue the corresponding decree of registration.
On October 25, 2007, the LLDA filed its Opposition22 to the application alleging that the subject properties are below the 12.50-meter elevation, hence, forming part of the bed of Laguna Lake and are, therefore, inalienable, indisposable and incapable of registration. To support its cause, the LLDA attached to its Opposition a Memorandum23 dated September 24, 2007 (ECD Memorandum) prepared and signed by no less than Engr. Magalonga of the ECD and concurred by the ECD’s Division Chief-III, Engr. Donato C. Rivera, Jr. which stated that upon the projection of the subject properties in the LLDA’s topographic map, the same were below the reglementary elevation of 12.50 meters. Moreover, the LLDA posited that in the absence of any declaration by the Director of Lands, the subject properties remain inalienable and indisposable.
In its Order24 dated October 25, 2007, the RTC directed respondent to comment on the Opposition of LLDA. In the meantime, petitioner through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its Notice of Appeal25 on November 7, 2007. For orderly proceedings, the RTC took note of the Notice of Appeal as it awaited the respondent’s comment in order for it to judiciously resolve the pending Opposition of the LLDA.26 In compliance with the RTC’s Order, respondent filed his Comment and Motion27 to the said Opposition, arguing that the RTC should give more credence to the Inter-Office Memorandum as the findings therein were based on an actual field inspection rather than the ECD Memorandum, the findings of which were based on a mere table survey. Moreover, respondent argued that the ECD Memorandum should not be considered by the RTC as the same was not formally offered in evidence. Respondent prayed that his Comment and Motion be noted. He also manifested before the RTC that he is amenable to the reopening of the case so that the LLDA can present controverting evidence, if it wants to, and for him to present his rebuttal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, no probative value is therefore attached to the basis of LLDA’s opposition filed fourteen (14) days late after the application for registration of Crisanto S. Raneses was granted.
For the LLDA’s failure to take any action against its second assailed Order, the RTC, in its Order30 dated January 8, 2008, approved the Notice of Appeal filed by the OSG and directed the transmittal of the records of this case to the CA.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us DISMISSING the appeal filed in this case and AFFIRMING the Orders dated October 11, 2007 and November 27, 2007 rendered by Branch 153 of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region stationed in Pasig City in LRC Case No. N-11573- TG.
Petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration32 which the CA, however, denied in its Resolution33 dated October 5, 2009.
Essentially, the sole issue the petition presents is whether or not the subject properties in this case are alienable or disposable land of the public domain.
The petition is impressed with merit.
In this case, the records do not support the findings made by the RTC and the CA that the subject properties are part of the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain.
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in- interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945, 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.
Thus, under Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529, a petition may be granted upon compliance with the following requisites: (a) that the property in question is alienable and disposable land of the public domain; (b) that the applicants by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation; and (c) that such possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Respondent failed to hurdle this burden.
It bears noting that in support of his claim that the subject properties are alienable and disposable, respondent merely presented the Conversion- Subdivision Plan which was prepared by Engr. Montallana with the annotation that the subject properties were “inside alienable and disposable land area [P]roj. [N]o. 27-B as per LC Map No. 2623 certified by the Bureau of Forestry on January 3, 1968”42 and the Inter-Office Memorandum from the LLDA.
In Republic v. Dela Paz43 citing Republic v. Sarmiento,44 this Court ruled that the notation of the surveyor-geodetic engineer on the blue print copy of the conversion and subdivision plan approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Center, that “this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area, Project No. 27-B. L.C. Map No. 2623, certified on January 3, 1968 by the Bureau of Forestry,” is insufficient and does not constitute incontrovertible evidence to overcome the presumption that the land remains part of the inalienable public domain.
While we may have been lenient in some cases and accepted substantial compliance with the evidentiary requirements set forth in T.A.N. Properties, we cannot do the same for Tensuan in the case at bar.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 18, 2009 in CA-G.R. CV No. 90383, affirming the Orders dated October 11, 2007 and November 27, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 153 in Land Registration Case No. N-11573-TG, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The application for registration of title filed by respondent Crisanto S. Raneses over two parcels of land identified as Lot No. 3085-A, Csd-00-001621 and Lot No. 3085-B, Csd-00-001621 both located at Barangay Napindan, Taguig City, Metro Manila, is DISMISSED.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Brion,* and Bersamin, JJ., concur.
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated May 30, 2014.
2 CA rollo, pp. 65-75. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of this Court) and Marlene Gonzales-Sison concurring. Records, pp. 61-67.
8 TSN, October 1, 2007, pp. 12-14. Perusal of the records though showed that the earliest Declaration of Real Property can be traced as early as 1970. Please see records, p. 49.
11 Also referred to as Catalina Raneses in other pleadings and documents.
13 TSN, October 1, 2007, pp. 9-12, 14-16.
19 TSN, October 1, 2007, pp. 18-22.
26 RTC Order dated November 15, 2007, id. at 81.
31 Supra note 2, at 74.
32 CA rollo, pp. 78-86.
34 Supra note 1, at 16.
35 440 Phil. 697, 710-711 (2002).
38Republic v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 171631, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 610, 618 (citations omitted).
39Aranda v. Republic, G.R. No. 172331, August 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 140, 146-147.
40 Mercado v. Valley Mountain Mines Exploration, Inc., G.R. Nos. 141019, 164281 & 185781, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 13, 45.
41Republic v. Naguiat, 515 Phil. 560, 565 (2006).
43 Supra note 38, at 620. Italics supplied.
44 547 Phil. 157, 166-167 (2007), further citing Menguito v. Republic, 401 Phil. 274 (2000).
45 For lands with an area below 50 hectares as provided under Section G(1) of DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 20 dated May 30, 1988 entitled: Delineation of Regulatory Functions and Authorities. Please see Republic v. Jaralve, G.R. No. 175177, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 495, 519.
46 For lands with an area over 50 hectares as provided under Section F(1) of the same DAO. This delineation, with regard to the offices authorized to issue certificates of land classification status, was retained in DAO No. 38 dated April 19, 1990 entitled: Revised Regulations on the Delineation of Functions and Delineation of Authorities. Please see Republic v. Jaralve, id.
47Republic v. Roche, G.R. No. 175846, July 6, 2010, 624 SCRA 116, 121-122, citing Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., 578 Phil. 441, 452-453 (2008).
48 G.R. No. 171136, October 23, 2013, p. 12.

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