SERVILLANO DELA CRUZ, APPLICANT-APPELLEE, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N

Dela Cruz versus Director of Lands

The Case

This is the story of a small parcel of land in Binmaley, Pangasinan, and of a man who asked the State to confirm that it was his. Servillano Dela Cruz filed an application for registration of title over a lot described in Plan Psu-132804, and the Director of Lands, speaking through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed him. The case matters because it gathers into one decision the two things every applicant for judicial confirmation of an imperfect title must prove: that the land is alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest possessed it in the manner and for the length of time the law demands. It is a working lesson in how those two elements are actually proven in court.

Procedural History

The application was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 39, and docketed as a land registration case. After pre-trial and trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its Decision on June 17, 1994, granting the application and ordering registration of the land in favor of ten named persons, each with a one-tenth share, pro indiviso, with the one-half conjugal share of the deceased Francisca Estrada made subject to estate and inheritance taxes.

The Office of the Solicitor General received a copy of that Decision only on May 21, 2012, and filed its Notice of Appeal on June 4, 2012. The appeal thus reached the Supreme Court, which decided it by affirming the trial court.

Facts

On October 23, 1992, Servillano Dela Cruz filed an application for registration of land title over a parcel of land situated in Binmaley, Pangasinan, containing an area of three hundred sixty-one square meters. He alleged that he was the owner in fee simple with improvements thereon, that the land was last assessed for taxation at three thousand nine hundred eighty pesos, that he knew of no mortgage or encumbrance, that he had acquired title through sale, and that he presently occupied the property. He attached to his application the tracing cloth plan, blue print plans, technical descriptions, the surveyor's certificate, and the certificate of assessment.

On January 17, 1994, Perfecto D. Daroy, the Land Investigator and Inspector, and Tomas S. Reyes, the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer, issued a report stating that the subject land is within the alienable and disposable land under Project Number 38, Land Classification Map 698, approved on November 21, 1927.

At trial, the applicant also presented Tax Declaration Number 49931 dated February 26, 1945, declared in the name of his predecessor-in-interest, Ramon E. Melendez, as owner, with payment of taxes beginning in 1946. On this evidence the trial court granted the application, and the Director of Lands appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the evidence adduced by the applicant was insufficient to prove that the subject land is alienable and disposable land.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in ruling that the applicant's predecessors-in-interest had occupied and possessed the subject land for the length of time and in the manner required by law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14, paragraph 1 of the Property Registration Decree provides:

SECTION 14. Who may apply. — The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives: (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 very provision under which the applicant claims, and it supplies both elements the Court examines: the character of the land as alienable and disposable, and the quality and duration of the possession.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the evidence was sufficient. The applicant showed that the subject parcel formed part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain as early as 1927, through the report of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer certifying that the land is within the alienable and disposable zone under Project Number 38, Land Classification Map 698, classified as such on November 21, 1927. The Court relied on its earlier holding that such a certification is sufficient proof of the real character of the land, and that it enjoys the presumption of regularity in the absence of contradictory evidence.

On the second issue, the Court likewise held for the applicant. He proved that he and his predecessor-in-interest, Ramon E. Melendez, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, adverse, and notorious possession of the land under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership earlier than June 12, 1945, as evidenced by the tax declaration of February 26, 1945, with payment of taxes beginning in 1946. The Court explained that while tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would pay taxes on property not in his actual or at least constructive possession. Such a voluntary declaration manifests the declarant's desire to obtain title, announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, and strengthens his bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.

The Court concluded that the case falls squarely within Section 14, paragraph 1 of the Property Registration Decree, and affirmed the trial court.

Doctrine

Two rules every Bar candidate should be able to write. First, to prove that land subject of a registration application is alienable and disposable, the applicant must establish a positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation, an executive order, an administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, or a legislative act or statute; a certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer attesting that the land lies within the alienable and disposable zone is sufficient evidence of that character and enjoys the presumption of regularity. Second, under Section 14, paragraph 1 of the Property Registration Decree, the applicant must show open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable land of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier, whether personally or through predecessors-in-interest; tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive proof of ownership but are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner and corroborate a bona fide claim of acquisition.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the June 17, 1994 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 39, and denied the appeal of the Director of Lands for lack of merit.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer certification that the land is within the alienable and disposable zone, plus an old tax declaration in the name of the predecessor-in-interest, together satisfy Section 14, paragraph 1 of the Property Registration Decree. Examiners use this case to test the sufficiency of evidence in land registration, especially the probative value of a certification and of tax declarations as indicia of possession in the concept of owner.