THE DIRECTOR, LANDS MANAGEMENT BUREAU, PETITIONER VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND AQUILINO L. CARIÑO, RESPONDENTS.

Director of Lands versus Cariño

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Director of the Lands Management Bureau against the Court of Appeals and Aquilino L. Cariño. The Director asks the Supreme Court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's order granting Cariño's application for registration of a parcel of sugar land in Cabuyao, Laguna. The case matters because it is a classic illustration of the burden of proof in land registration and confirmation of imperfect title, and of the Regalian doctrine: all lands not shown to have been acquired from the State belong to the State.

Procedural History

On May 15, 1975, Aquilino Cariño filed a petition for registration of Lot No. 6 with the then Court of First Instance of Laguna. The Director of Lands was the only oppositor. On February 5, 1990, Branch XXIV of the Regional Trial Court of Laguna granted the petition and ordered the registration and confirmation of title in Cariño's favor. The Director appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on November 11, 1993 affirmed the trial court's decision. The Director then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court.

Facts

Cariño sought registration of Lot No. 6, a sugar land of about 43,614 square meters in Barrio Sala, Cabuyao, Laguna, forming part of a bigger tract surveyed as Psu-108952. He claimed the land was originally owned by his mother, Teresa Lauchangco, who died in 1911, and was later administered by him for his siblings after their father's death in 1934.

In 1949, Cariño and his brother Severino became co-owners of Lot No. 6 through an extrajudicial partition among their mother's heirs. In 1963, through another deed of extrajudicial settlement, sole ownership of Lot No. 6 was adjudicated to Cariño. The Land Investigator reported that the land was agricultural, free from conflict, not covered by any public land application, and declared for taxation purposes in Cariño's name.

Cariño was the lone witness for his petition. The trial court granted it, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Director elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that Cariño failed to prove fee simple title or the possession required by law, and failed to overcome the presumption that the land is part of the public domain.

Issues

• Whether or not Cariño submitted proof of fee simple title or proof of possession in the manner and for the length of time required by law to justify confirmation of an imperfect title.
• Whether or not Cariño overcame the presumption that the land is a portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic.

Applicable Provisions

Section 48, paragraph (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 1942 and Republic Act No. 3872, the law prevailing when the petition was filed in 1975, provides:

Section 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, 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 claim and the issuance of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit: x x x (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 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. 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.

This provision fixes the thirty-year period of possession in concept of owner that the applicant must prove, counted immediately before the filing of the application.

Ruling

The Court granted the petition. On the first issue, it held that Cariño produced not a single muniment of title to support his claim under the Land Registration Act, such as a royal grant, a special grant, an adjustment title, a title through purchase, or a possessory information title. Even treating the petition as one for confirmation of imperfect title under the Public Land Act, it must fail for insufficiency of evidence.

The Court stressed that possession of public land, however long, never confers title unless the occupant proves possession under claim of ownership for the required period. Registration is not justified simply because no one opposes the application. Cariño could trace his own possession only to 1949, when the land was adjudicated to him, giving him just twenty-six years by 1975. His attempt to tack his possession to his parents' failed: aside from his own assertion, he offered no sufficient evidence that his mother possessed the land before 1911. The earliest tax declaration was issued in 1949 in his and his brother's names, and the exhibit the trial court relied on as his parents' tax declaration was in fact in his own name. Tax receipts and declarations are mere indicia of a claim of ownership, not proof of ownership.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Regalian doctrine presumes all lands belong to the State unless alienated in accordance with law. The juris et de jure presumption that the land had become private property cannot apply absent proof. Cariño also could not rely on the amendment allowing possession since June 12, 1945, because his possession began only in 1949.

Doctrine

• Under Section 48, paragraph (b) of the Public Land Act, an applicant for confirmation of imperfect title must prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural land of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application.
• Possession of public land, however long, never confers title unless the occupant proves possession under claim of ownership for the required period sufficient to constitute a grant from the State.
• The applicant bears the burden of proving his title even if no one opposes the application; courts may deny registration on the ground that the facts do not show fee simple ownership.
• Tax declarations and tax receipts are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership; they are mere indicia of a claim of ownership.
• Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands belong to the State unless alienated in accordance with law; the presumption that land is part of the public domain must be overcome by well-nigh incontrovertible evidence.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court were set aside, and Lot No. 6 was declared public land under the administrative supervision and power of disposition of the Bureau of Lands Management, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Possession of public land, however long, never confers title unless it is proven to be open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious, in concept of owner, for the full period required by law. Examiners use this case to test the burden of proof in land registration, the weight of tax declarations, and the Regalian doctrine.