THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, MONICO RIVERA AND ESTRELLA NOTA, RESPONDENTS.

Director of Lands versus Rivera

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the Director of Lands against Monico Rivera and Estrella Nota, arising from a cadastral proceeding for the Oas Cadastre in Albay. The Director of Lands challenged the confirmation and registration of a parcel of land in the names of the spouses Rivera and Nota, arguing that their evidence of possession was insufficient. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats findings of fact on possession in land registration cases, and how tax declarations, even old and imperfect ones, may serve as indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.

Procedural History

The Director of Lands filed a cadastral proceeding for the Oas Cadastre before the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay, involving Lot Number 10704. When the case was called for initial hearing, no one appeared to oppose, and the court issued an order of general default against the whole world. The claimant was allowed to present his evidence. The trial court found that the claimant and his predecessor in interest had satisfactorily possessed and occupied the land in the concept of owner openly, continuously, adversely, notoriously, and exclusively since 1926, and ordered the registration and confirmation of the lot in the names of the spouses Monico Rivera and Estrella Nota.

The Director of Lands appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the finding of possession since 1926 was not sufficiently supported by the evidence, since the earliest tax declaration presented took effect only in 1949. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that there was competent evidence of the possession and that the trial court's finding on the credibility of witnesses carries great weight on appeal. The motion for reconsideration was denied, and the Director of Lands brought the present petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Lot Number 10704 is a parcel of land containing an area of 68,179 square meters, partly cocal and corn land, situated at Cagmanaba, Oas, Albay, bounded on the North, South, and West by Burias Pass and on the East by Lot 10976. The land was originally owned by Eliseo Rivera, who began possessing and occupying it in the concept of owner openly, continuously, adversely, notoriously, and exclusively since 1926. He planted corn in the vacant spaces and some coconut seedlings which later bore fruit.

On January 7, 1928, the spouses Ignacio Almazar and Gregoria Rivera purchased the land from Eliseo Rivera by a notarial deed of absolute sale. The land was declared in the name of Gregoria Rivera under a tax declaration, and later under another tax declaration beginning with the year 1949. They continued planting corn. On May 22, 1971, Monico Rivera and his wife Estrella Nota purchased the land from Gregoria Rivera by deed of absolute sale, and the land was declared in their names under subsequent tax declarations. They built a house as their abode, continued planting corn and harvesting coconuts, and paid the taxes due on the land.

The land was surveyed in the name of the claimant, the cadastral survey costs were paid, and all taxes were paid up to the current year. The trial court found that the claimant, together with his predecessor in interest, had possessed and occupied the land in the concept of owner since 1926, very much earlier than June 12, 1945, and ordered its registration. The Director of Lands appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

• Whether or not the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the spouses Monico Rivera and Estrella Nota, together with their predecessor in interest, were in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the land in the concept of owner for the required period is a question of fact that is binding on the Supreme Court in a petition for review under Rule 45.
• Whether or not the tax declarations presented by the claimants, including the earliest one, sufficiently support their claim of possession in the concept of owner.
• Whether or not Monico Rivera was competent to testify regarding the possession of his vendor, Gregoria Rivera, since 1926.

Applicable Provisions

Section 48 of the Public Land Act, as amended, provides:

Sec. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest thereon, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims, and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit: xxx xxx xxx (b) those who by themselves or through their predecessor-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 or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. They 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.

This provision is the basis for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles, and it defines the possession required of the applicant or his predecessor in interest.

Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1073 provides:

Section 4. The provisions of Section 48(b) and Section 48 (c), Chapter VIII, of the Public Land Act are hereby amended in the sense that these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the applicant himself or thru his predecessor-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945.

This provision fixes the reckoning date of June 12, 1945, and it is the standard against which the claimants' evidence of possession must be measured.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the question of whether the spouses Monico Rivera and Estrella Nota were in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of ownership under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least thirty years prior to 1973 is a question of fact which was resolved affirmatively by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Such a factual finding is generally binding upon the Supreme Court, which should limit itself to questions of law in an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court found no reversible error in the assailed judgment.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the contention of the Director of Lands that the earliest tax declaration presented by the claimant was for 1949. The Court noted that the earlier tax declaration in the name of Gregoria Rivera is an ancient notarized document, torn at the bottom, but the jurat at the back clearly shows that the declaration was subscribed in December 1927. This was the tax declaration that was cancelled by the later one beginning with the year 1949. Considering the date of the earliest tax declaration, which shows it is not of recent vintage to support a pretended possession of property, the Court believed that the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in affirming the finding of the trial court that Monico Rivera's assertion of possession under claim of ownership is tenable. The Court explained that although tax declarations or realty tax payment of property 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 be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.

On the third issue, the Court found reason to reject the appellant's claim that Monico was incompetent to testify regarding Gregoria's possession. Aside from the fact that Monico Rivera and his wife Estrella Nota bought the property from Gregoria Rivera, it appears undisputed that the latter was the sister of Eliseo Rivera, the father of Monico, and that the claimant was born on Lot Number 10704 and grew up there.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain that the question of whether an applicant and his predecessor in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of public land in the concept of owner for the required period is a question of fact. Findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are generally binding on the Supreme Court in a petition for review under Rule 45, which should limit itself to questions of law. Tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership, but they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. Under Section 48 of the Public Land Act, as amended by Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1073, the applicant must show open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, by himself or through his predecessor in interest, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945.

Disposition

The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the decision appealed from and affirmed it, so the Director of Lands lost and the registration and confirmation of Lot Number 10704 in the names of the spouses Monico Rivera and Estrella Nota stood.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership but are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner. Examiners like to use this case to test the rule that factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals on possession are binding on the Supreme Court in a petition for review under Rule 45, and to test the evidentiary weight of tax declarations in land registration cases.