REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE ALBERTO ALBA, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MANUEL C. BLANCO, JR., RESPONDENT.

Republic versus Alba

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, against Jose Alberto Alba, who applied for the original registration of title over five parcels of land in Nabas, Aklan, and who was represented in the proceedings by his attorney-in-fact, Manuel Blanco, Junior. The Republic opposed the application on the ground that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest had not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the lands since June 12, 1945. The case matters because it gathers into one decision the two questions that recur in every land registration case: whether the tracing cloth plan is indispensable, and what kind of evidence truly proves possession in the concept of an owner.

Procedural History

Alba filed his application for original registration with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Ibajay-Nabas, sitting in Ibajay, Aklan. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed it. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment on January 31, 2001, granting the application and directing that a decree of registration issue in Alba's favor. The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning errors on jurisdiction, on the failure to adduce the Official Gazette, on the failure to submit the original tracing cloth plan, and on the failure to prove possession in the concept required by law. On September 8, 2005, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court, finding no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings. The Republic then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, insisting on two points: that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction because the original tracing cloth plan was never submitted, and that Alba failed to prove possession in the concept required by law.

Facts

Alba purchased for value a parcel of land known as Lot No. 9100, situated in Barangay Rizal, Municipality of Nabas, Province of Aklan. The lot was subdivided under an approved survey plan into five lots, designated as Lot No. 9100-A with an area of 50,000 square meters, Lot No. 9100-B with 49,999 square meters, Lot No. 9100-C with 50,000 square meters, Lot No. 9100-D with 35,001 square meters, and Lot No. 9100-E with 28,037 square meters, for a total area of 213,037 square meters, more or less.

Alba applied in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court for the original registration of title over the five lots under the Property Registration Decree. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the application, contending that he and his predecessors-in-interest had not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the lands since June 12, 1945.

At the trial, Alba relied on tax declarations, a deed of sale from his predecessors-in-interest, the approved survey plan, and the technical descriptions. His witnesses, Manuel Blanco and Atty. Gideon de Pedro, testified that the lands had been possessed since time immemorial, and that a predecessor had used the cogonal lands for pasture and for planting coconut trees. No specific acts of cultivation, development or maintenance were detailed. No other person appeared to oppose the application. The trial court granted it, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the application despite the failure of the respondent to submit the original tracing cloth plan of the land applied for registration.
• Whether or not the respondent proved possession and occupation of the land in the concept and for the period required by law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 17 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Property Registration Decree, provides:

Section 17. What and where to file. The application for land registration shall be filed with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the land is situated. The applicant shall file, together with the application, all original muniments of titles or copies thereof and a survey plan of the land approved by the Bureau of Lands. The clerk of court shall not accept any application unless it is shown that the applicant has furnished the Director of Lands with a copy of the application and all annexes.

This provision makes the approved survey plan a mandatory attachment, and the Court uses it to frame the tracing cloth plan question.

Section 14, paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 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 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 provision that supplies the three requisites of the application and that the respondent failed to satisfy.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled against the Republic. Although the submission of the approved tracing cloth plan is mandatory, the Court held that the requirement may be excused where other competent evidence proves the identity and location of the land. The purpose of the plan is to establish the true identity and location of the property and to avoid boundary overlaps, and that purpose was served here by the approved plan and the technical descriptions, both approved by the Regional Technical Director of the Land Management Services, which were identified, marked and offered in evidence, with no glaring and irreconcilable discrepancy in area. The Court treated this as substantial compliance.

On the second issue, the Court ruled for the Republic. Section 14, paragraph 1 of the Property Registration Decree yields three requisites: that the property is alienable and disposable land of the public domain; that the applicant, personally or through predecessors-in-interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation; and that the possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Only the second was controverted, and the respondent failed it. His witnesses gave only general statements of possession since time immemorial, which are mere conclusions of law, not evidence. The Court stressed that the law speaks of possession and occupation, and occupation demands actual, not constructive or fictional, possession:

The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction. Actual possession of a land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property.

The tax declarations alone did not suffice, for they become a basis of a claim of ownership only when coupled with proof of actual possession. The respondent therefore failed to prove continuous, exclusive and adverse possession in the concept of an owner, and his application must fail.

Doctrine

First, the submission of the original tracing cloth plan is mandatory under Section 17 of the Property Registration Decree, but substantial compliance is allowed where a duly approved survey plan and technical descriptions sufficiently establish the identity and location of the land, especially absent any glaring discrepancy in area. Second, under Section 14, paragraph 1, the applicant must prove three requisites, and possession must be actual possession and occupation, not constructive or fictional. General statements that one has possessed the land since time immemorial are mere conclusions of law and do not discharge the burden. Tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership and support a claim only when coupled with proof of actual possession.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissed the application for land registration, and ordered the respondent to pay the costs of suit.

Remember This

Memorize the line that possession and occupation are not synonymous, so that occupation demands actual possession and not a mere fiction. Examiners use this case to test substantial compliance with the tracing cloth plan requirement and the quantum of evidence needed to prove possession under Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree.