REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SCIENCE PARK OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, MR. RICHARD ALBERT I. OSM…

Republic of the Philippines versus Science Park of the Philippines, Inc

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 Science Park of the Philippines, Inc., which I will call SPPI. SPPI applied for original registration of an imperfect title over a parcel of land in Malvar, Batangas, invoking Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree. The Republic opposed, insisting that the land was never shown to be alienable and disposable and that SPPI never proved the possession required by law. The case matters because it is the Court's cleanest recent statement of two things every examinee must know: the two-document rule for proving alienability, and the exact quality and duration of possession that judicial confirmation of imperfect title demands.

Procedural History

SPPI filed its application for original registration with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Malvar-Balete, Batangas, which, after trial, granted the application. The Republic moved for reconsideration, and the trial court denied the motion. The Republic then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court in a Decision dated October 12, 2017. The Republic sought reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied in a Resolution dated February 9, 2018. The Republic then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

On November 20, 2014, SPPI filed an application for original registration of a parcel of land containing 7,691 square meters, known as Lot 5809 of the Malvar Cadastre, situated in Barangay Luta Norte, Malvar, Batangas. SPPI claimed that the land formed part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and that it and its predecessors-in-interest had possessed and occupied the land openly, continuously, exclusively, and notoriously under a bona fide claim of ownership since before June 12, 1945. SPPI traced its title to a Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 17, 2013, executed in its favor by Cenen D. Torizo.

To prove alienability, SPPI presented a certification issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of Batangas City stating that the land lies within the alienable and disposable zone under Project Number 39, Land Classification Map Number 3601, based on DENR Administrative Order Number 97-37, together with certified photocopies of the map and the administrative order. To prove possession, SPPI presented the testimony of Nelia Linatoc-Cabalda, born in 1936, who testified that as a child of about seven years, around 1943, she knew of Gervacio Lat's ownership and cultivation of the land, where she and other children played and gathered fruits. SPPI also presented a tax declaration in Gervacio's name dated 1955, a deed of sale by Gervacio's daughter to the spouses Linatoc in 1968, an extrajudicial settlement among the Linatoc heirs in 1995, and a sale by Ernesto Linatoc to Cenen in 2012.

The trial court took judicial notice of the authenticity of the administrative order, relying on a stipulation made in a prior land registration case between the same government prosecutor and the same counsel for SPPI. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that SPPI had proven both alienability and the required possession. The Republic brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the grant of SPPI's application for original registration of its imperfect title.
• Whether or not the trial court properly took judicial notice of the authenticity of DENR Administrative Order Number 97-37 based on a stipulation made in another case.
• Whether or not SPPI proved that the land was alienable and disposable at the time of the filing of its application.
• Whether or not SPPI proved open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation in the concept of owner since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14 (1) of Presidential Decree Number 1529, 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 provision under which SPPI sought judicial confirmation of its imperfect title, and it supplies the three elements the applicant must establish.

Section 3 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.

This governs the procedural question of whether the trial court could take judicial notice of the administrative order without presenting its custodian.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the applicant in a land registration case bears the burden of proving, by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, that its possession and occupation were of the nature and duration required by law. The applicant must overcome the presumption that the State owns the land.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the judicial notice. As a general rule, courts may not take judicial notice of the records of other cases, even those pending before the same court. But there is an exception: in the absence of objection, and as a matter of convenience, a court may treat the record of another case as read into the pending case, provided the opposing party is given the opportunity to object. Here, the government prosecutor did not object to dispensing with the testimony of the records custodian, having made the same stipulation in the earlier case, and he satisfied himself that the copy of the administrative order was duly certified. The conditions of the exception were met.

On the third issue, the Court held that the land need not have been declared alienable and disposable since June 12, 1945. The phrase "since June 12, 1945" qualifies the bona fide claim of ownership, not the alienability of the land. The applicant need only show that the land was alienable and disposable at any time prior to the filing of the application. SPPI satisfied this.

On the fourth issue, however, the Court ruled against SPPI. Possession, to be open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious, must be shown by specific acts of dominion. The claimant must show the nature and extent of cultivation, or the number of crops planted, or the volume of produce harvested. Nelia's childhood recollection of playing and gathering fruits amounted only to casual cultivation, which is not the possession the law requires. Neither was the duration proven: the earliest tax declaration in Gervacio's name was dated 1955, short of the June 12, 1945 requirement. That the 1955 declaration cancelled an earlier one did not help, because there was no evidence identifying the owner under the earlier declaration or its effectivity date. Payment of realty taxes and declaration of the land in 1955 give rise only to the presumption that ownership and possession were claimed in that year.

Doctrine

First, under Section 14 (1) of the Property Registration Decree, the applicant must establish three elements: that the land forms part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain at the time of the filing of the application; that the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest have 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.

Second, the phrase "since June 12, 1945" qualifies the bona fide claim of ownership, not the alienability of the land. The land need only be alienable and disposable at any time prior to the filing of the application.

Third, to prove alienability, the applicant must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the DENR's official records, and a certificate of land classification status issued by the CENRO or the PENRO.

Fourth, possession must be shown by specific acts of dominion. The claimant must show the nature and extent of cultivation, or the number of crops planted, or the volume of produce harvested. Failing this, the supposed planting and harvesting amount only to casual cultivation, which does not satisfy the requirement of exclusivity and notoriety.

Fifth, a tax declaration and payment of realty taxes create only a presumption that ownership and possession were claimed in the year of the declaration.

Disposition

The petition was granted. The Court reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 12, 2017 and its Resolution dated February 9, 2018, and denied SPPI's application for original registration of the subject land.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the phrase "since June 12, 1945" qualifies the bona fide claim of ownership, not the alienability of the land, but the possession itself must still be proven by specific acts of dominion, not by casual cultivation or a tax declaration that comes too late. Examiners use this case to test the two-document rule for proving alienability, the exception to judicial notice of records of other cases, and the exact quality and duration of possession required for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.