IN RE: APPLICATION FOR ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE SPS. RUBEN RICASIO AND VALENTINA RICASIO, APPLICANT-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Ricasio versus Republic

The Case

This is the spouses Ruben Ricasio and Valentina Ricasio against the Republic of the Philippines. The spouses applied for original registration of title to a parcel of land, by way of confirmation of imperfect title, before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of San Pablo City. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the application. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean restatement of what an applicant must prove to confirm an imperfect title over public land: possession of the exact character and duration the law demands, and proof that the land itself is alienable and disposable. It is a burden-of-proof case, and the burden is always on the applicant.

Procedural History

The spouses filed their application for registration by way of confirmation of imperfect title before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of San Pablo City. The Republic filed the only opposition. After trial, the Municipal Trial Court rendered a decision granting the application, approving title, and directing the Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding certificate of title in the names of the spouses. The Republic appealed. The appeal went straight to the Supreme Court, which noted that the case was submitted for decision without an appellees' brief. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court.

Facts

The subject lot is Lot 1 of a consolidation and subdivision plan in the San Pedro Cadastre, with an area of 5,740 square meters, situated in Barangay San Lucas II, San Pablo City. On May 22, 2003, the spouses Ruben and Valentina Ricasio filed an application for registration, by way of confirmation of imperfect title. They alleged that they bought the lot from the spouses Simeon and Teresita Gutierrez by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 7, 2002. They alleged that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been paying realty taxes since time immemorial, and had been in continuous, open, peaceful, uninterrupted, and adverse possession of the lot in the concept of an owner since 1937.

The Republic opposed the application. No other opposition was filed, so the trial court received the spouses' evidence. Ruben testified that he bought the lot from Simeon, who had inherited it from his father Faustino Gutierrez, and that Simeon had possessed it for more than forty years, as shown by tax declarations, the earliest for the year 1948. He testified that he built a perimeter wall and a small rest house, and that the lot is agricultural, planted with fruit-bearing trees. A former neighbor, Gloria Aquillo, corroborated that Simeon was the former owner and that the lot was planted to coconut trees. A special investigator of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Community Environment and Natural Resources Office, in Los Baños, Laguna, testified that the lot falls within the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain.

The documentary evidence included the Deed of Absolute Sale and reconstituted tax declarations for the years 1948, 1952, 1972, 1974, 1980, 1985, 1992, 1994, and 2003. The first two were in the name of Faustino, the rest in the name of Simeon, except the last, which was in the name of the spouses. The trial court granted the application, finding that the spouses and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, public, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession in the concept of an owner for more than fifty years. The Republic appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the spouses and their predecessors-in-interest have been in continuous, exclusive, and actual possession and occupation of the subject land in the manner and for the length of time required by law to justify confirmation of an imperfect title.
• Whether or not the application for confirmation of title may be granted despite the absence of proof that the subject parcel forms part of the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree Number 1529 provides:

(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.

This is the governing standard for the spouses' application, and it fixes both the character of the possession and the date from which it must be counted.

Section 48, paragraph b, of Commonwealth Act Number 141, as amended, provides:

(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 domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title.

The Court explains that the phrase "for at least thirty years" was replaced by "since June 12, 1945, or earlier" by Presidential Decree Number 1073, and that the later decree requires alienable and disposable land, not merely agricultural land of the public domain.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the spouses failed to discharge their burden. In land registration cases, the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that he is the real and absolute owner in fee simple of the land applied for. The Court stressed that the phrase "adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful and in concept of an owner" is a mere conclusion of law that requires evidentiary support. It quoted with approval the definition of possession from Director of Lands versus Intermediate Appellate Court:

Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood.

The Court also recalled the rule in Edaño versus Court of Appeals that an applicant must prove his own title and should not rely on the absence or weakness of the evidence of the oppositors. Here, the spouses presented no specific facts showing the nature and duration of their possession or that of their predecessors. The tax declarations showed that the lot was planted to only 37 trees in 1948, 33 trees in 1972, and 20 trees in 1980. No testimony proved who planted them, and the decline in number over thirty-two years showed casual cultivation, which does not constitute possession under claim of ownership. The tax declarations themselves were not persuasive evidence of ownership, for a mere declaration of land for taxation purposes is not proof of ownership absent actual possession. Worse, the areas did not match: the lot is 5,740 square meters, while some tax declarations and the deed of sale covered 5,360 square meters, and the earlier declarations covered 2,000 square meters, with no explanation given. Insufficient identification of the land cannot ripen into ownership.

On the second issue, the Court held that the spouses presented no evidence on when the land became alienable and disposable. The annotation on the subdivision plan, stating that the survey is inside an alienable and disposable area per a map certified on December 31, 1925, was inadequate to establish classification as of that date. The Court quoted Republic versus Alconaba:

It is settled that a person who seeks registration of title to a piece of land must prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence.

In sum, the spouses failed to prove a registrable title over the subject lot.

Doctrine

• In land registration, the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that he is the real and absolute owner in fee simple of the land applied for. He must prove his own title and cannot rely on the weakness of the opposition's evidence.
• Possession, to count under Section 14, paragraph 1, of Presidential Decree Number 1529, must be open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious, in the concept of an owner, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, and over alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
• The phrase "adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful and in concept of an owner" is a conclusion of law that must be supported by evidence of specific acts and their duration. Mere casual cultivation is not possession under claim of ownership.
• Tax declarations are not proof of ownership absent actual possession, and a mismatch in the area declared and the area applied for casts doubt on the identity of the land.
• The applicant must prove not only that the land is alienable and disposable, but when it became so. A mere annotation on a plan is not enough.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of San Pablo City, and dismissed the spouses' application for registration and confirmation of title. The Republic won.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the burden is on the applicant to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession in the concept of an owner since June 12, 1945, over land shown to be alienable and disposable. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of confirmation of imperfect title, the weight of tax declarations, and the requirement of proof of the date of classification of public land.