REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SARMIENTO [G.R. No. 169397. March 13, 2007]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SARMIENTO

[G.R. No. 169397. March 13, 2007]

 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest by John Paul C. Ladiao (21 Sept 2015)

Topic: Survey of the Land – Form & Contents Sections 15-19

FACTS:

Restituto Sarmiento (respondent) through his brother-attorney-in-fact Magdaleno Sarmiento (Magdaleno) filed on November 29, 2000 with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Taguig, Metro Manila an application for registration1 of a parcel of land, delineated as Lot 535-D under Approved Survey Plan Swo-13-000465 with a total land area of 2,664 square meters and located at Barangay Wawa, Taguig, Metro Manila (the lot).

Respondent claimed to have acquired the lot through donation under a Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob dated July 16, 1988 executed by his father, Placido Sarmiento (Placido), which lot formed part of Lot 535 that was allegedly inherited by Placido from Florentina Sarmiento (Florentina). 

Respondent further claimed that he and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, uninterrupted, adverse, and public possession of the lot in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years.

To discharge the onus, respondent relies on the blue print copy of the conversion and subdivision plan approved by the DENR Center which bears the notation of the surveyor-geodetic engineer that "this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area, Project No. 27-B. L.C. Map No. 2623, certified on January 3, 1968 by the Bureau of Forestry."

By Decision of May 20, 2005, the appellate court held that as the lot was sufficiently identified by the blue print copy of the plan and the technical description, the presentation of the original tracing cloth ceased to become indispensable for the grant of the application. 

The appellate court thus affirmed the decision of the MeTC. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution28 of August 19, 2005, petitioner now comes before this Court on a petition for review on certiorari.

On January 17, 2001, the Solicitor General, through the Prosecutor of Taguig who was deputized to assist in the case, filed, as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), an Opposition to respondent’s application for registration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the blue print copy of the conversion and subdivision plan approved by the DENR Center which bears the notation of the surveyor-geodetic engineer that "this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area, certified by the Bureau of Forestry." is a sufficient proof that the land in question has been declared alienable.

HELD:

NO. The application for registration filed by respondent is DENIED.

To prove that the land in question formed part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, petitioners relied on the printed words which read: "This survey plan is inside Alienable and Disposable Land Area, Project No. 27-B as per L.C. Map No. 2623, certified by the Bureau of Forestry on January 3, 1968," appearing on Exhibit "E" (Survey Plan No. Swo-13-000227).

This proof is not sufficient. Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, provides: "All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. . . ."

In the present case, petitioners cite a surveyor-geodetic engineer's notation in Exhibit "E" indicating that the survey was inside alienable and disposable land. Such notation does not constitute a positive government act validly changing the classification of the land in question. Verily, a mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain. By relying solely on the said surveyor's assertion, petitioners have not sufficiently proven that the land in question has been declared alienable.

DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. v. BASES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [G.R. No. 192896. July 24, 2013]

DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC.

v. BASES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

[G.R. No. 192896. July 24, 2013]

 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest by John Paul C. Ladiao (21 Sept 2015)

Topic: Survey of the Land – Form & Contents Sections 15-19

FACTS:

Petitioner Dream Village Neighborhood Association, Inc. (Dream Village) claims to represent more than 2,000 families who have been occupying a 78,466-square meter lot in Western Bicutan, Taguig City since 1985 "in the concept of owners continuously, exclusively and notoriously."

On October 16, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 172 amending Proclamation No. 2476 by limiting to Lots 1 and 2 of the survey Swo-13-000298 the areas in Western Bicutan open for disposition.

Now charging the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) of wrongfully asserting title to Dream Village and unlawfully subjecting its members to summary demolition, resulting in unrest and tensions among the residents, on November 22, 1999, the latter filed a letter-complaint with the COSLAP to seek its assistance in the verification survey of the subject 78,466-sq m property, which they claimed is within Lot 1 of Swo-13-000298 and thus is covered by Proclamation No. 172. They claim that they have been occupying the area for thirty (30) years "in the concept of owners continuously, exclusively and notoriously for several years," and have built their houses of sturdy materials thereon and introduced paved roads, drainage and recreational and religious facilities. Dream Village, thus, asserts that the lot is not among those transferred to the BCDA under R.A. No. 7227, and therefore patent applications by the occupants should be processed by the Land Management Bureau (LMB).

On April 1, 2004, the COSLAP received the final report of the verification survey and a blueprint copy of the survey plan from Atty. Rizaldy Barcelo, Regional Technical Director for Lands of DENR. Specifically, Item No. 3 of the DENR report states:

3. Lot-1, Swo-000298 is inside Proclamation 172. Dream Village Neighborhood Association, Inc. is outside Lot-1, Swo-13-000298 and inside Lot-10, 11 & Portion of Lot 13, Swo-00-0001302 with an actual area of 78,466 square meters. Likewise, the area actually is outside Swo-00-0001302 of BCDA.

On the basis of the DENR’s verification survey report, the COSLAP resolved that Dream Village lies outside of BCDA, and particularly, outside of Swo-00-0001302, and thus directed the LMB of the DENR to process the applications of Dream Village’s members for sales patent, noting that in view of the length of time that they "have been openly, continuously and notoriously occupying the subject property in the concept of an owner, x x x they are qualified to apply for sales patent on their respective occupied lots pursuant to R.A. Nos. 274 and 730 in relation to the provisions of the Public Land Act."

The CA in its Decision dated September 10, 2009 ruled that the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the complaint because the question of whether Dream Village is within the areas declared as available for disposition in Proclamation No. 172 is beyond its competence to determine, even as the land in dispute has been under a private title since 1906, and presently its title is held by a government agency, the BCDA, in contrast to the case of Bañaga relied upon by Dream Village, where the disputed land was part of the public domain and the disputants were applicants for sales patent thereto.

Dream Village’s motion for reconsideration was denied in the appellate court’s Order of July 13, 2010, thus the petition for Review in the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the area occupied by Dream Village, on the basis of the DENR’s verification survey report, that sits on the abandoned C-5 Road, which lies outside the area of BCDA, declared in Proclamation Nos. 2476 and 172 as alienable and disposable.

HELD:

NO. The petition is DENIED.

The mere fact that the original plan for C-5 Road to cross Swo-00-0001302 was abandoned by deviating it northward to traverse the southern part of Libingan ng mga Bayani does not signify abandonment by the government of the bypassed lots, nor that these lots would then become alienable and disposable. They remain under the title of the BCDA, even as it is significant that under Section 8(d) of R.A. No. 7227, a relocation site of 30.5 has. was to be reserved for families affected by the construction of C-5 Road. It is nowhere claimed that Lots 10, 11 and 13 of Swo-00-0001302 are part of the said relocation site. These lots border C-5 Road in the south, making them commercially valuable to BCDA, a farther argument against a claim that the government has abandoned them to Dream Village.

Article 1113 of the Civil Code provides that "property of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription."

Thus, under Article 422 of the Civil Code, public domain lands become patrimonial property only if there is a declaration that these are alienable or disposable, together with an express government manifestation that the property is already patrimonial or no longer retained for public service or the development of national wealth. Only when the property has become patrimonial can the prescriptive period for the acquisition of property of the public dominion begin to run.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANTOS [G.R. No. 160453. November 12, 2012]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANTOS

[G.R. No. 160453. November 12, 2012]

 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest by John Paul C. Ladiao (21 Sept 2015)

Topic: Survey of the Land – Form & Contents Sections 15-19

FACTS:

Alleging continuous and adverse possession of more than ten years, respondent Arcadio Ivan A. Santos III (Arcadio Ivan) applied on March 7, 1997 for the registration of Lot 4998-B (the property) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Parafiaque City. The property, which had an area of 1,045 square meters, more or less, was located in Barangay San Dionisio, Parañaque City, and was bounded in the Northeast by Lot 4079 belonging to respondent Arcadio C. Santos, Jr. (Arcadio, Jr.), in the Southeast by the Parañaque River, in the Southwest by an abandoned road, and in the Northwest by Lot 4998-A also owned by Arcadio Ivan.

On May 21, 1998, Arcadio Ivan amended his application for land registration to include Arcadio, Jr. as his co-applicant because of the latter’s co-ownership of the property. He alleged that the property had been formed through accretion and had been in their joint open, notorious, public, continuous and adverse possession for more than 30 years.

Nonetheless, respondents insist that the property was already classified as alienable and disposable by the Government. They cite as proof of the classification as alienable and disposable the following notation found on the survey plan, to wit:

Surveyed in accordance with Survey Authority NO. 007604-48 of the Regional Executive Director issued by the CENR-OFFICER dated Dec. 2, 1996.

This survey is inside L.C. Map No. 2623, Proj. No. 25 classified as alienable/disposable by the Bureau of Forest Dev’t. on Jan. 3, 1968.

On May 10, 2000 the RTC granted the application for land registration.

On May 27, 2003, the CA affirmed the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the land property survey inside L.C. Map No. 2623, Proj. No. 25 by the Bureau of Forest Dev’t. on Jan. 3, 1968 is classified as alienable and disposable by the Government.

HELD:

NO. The Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals; DISMISSES the application for registration.

To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must conclusively establish the existence of a positive act of the Government, such as a presidential proclamation, executive order, administrative action, investigation reports of the Bureau of Lands investigator, or a legislative act or statute. Until then, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.

These rulings of the Court indicate that the notation on the survey plan of Lot 4998-B, Cad-00-000343 to the effect that the "survey is inside a map classified as alienable/disposable by the Bureau of Forest Dev’t" did not prove that Lot 4998-B was already classified as alienable and disposable. Accordingly, respondents could not validly assert acquisitive prescription of Lot 4988-B.

The State exclusively owned Lot 4998-B and may not be divested of its right of ownership. Article 502 of the Civil Code expressly declares that rivers and their natural beds are public dominion of the State.18 It follows that the river beds that dry up, like Lot 4998-B, continue to belong to the State as its property of public dominion, unless there is an express law that provides that the dried-up river beds should belong to some other person.

SPOUSES FORTUNA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES [G.R. No. 173423, March 05, 2014]

SPOUSES FORTUNA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

[G.R. No. 173423, March 05, 2014]

 

Land Titles and Deeds Case Digest by John Paul C. Ladiao (22 Sept 2015)

Topic: Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles – Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act, C.A. 141

FACTS:

In December 1994, the spouses Fortuna filed an application for registration of a 2,597-square meter land identified as Lot No. 4457, situated in Bo. Canaoay, San Fernando, La Union. The application was filed with the RTC and docketed as LRC No. 2372.

The spouses Fortuna claimed that they, through themselves and their predecessors-in-interest, have been in quiet, peaceful, adverse and uninterrupted possession of Lot No. 4457 for more than 50 years, and submitted as evidence the lot’s survey plan, technical description, and certificate of assessment.

In its Decision dated May 7, 2001, the RTC granted the application for registration in favor of the spouses Fortuna.

In its decision dated May 16, 2005, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision. Although it found that the spouses Fortuna were able to establish the alienable and disposable nature of the land, they failed to show that they complied with the length of possession that the law requires, i.e., since June 12, 1945.

Through the present petition, the spouses Fortuna seek a review of the CA rulings.

They contend that the applicable law is Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act (PLA), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 1942. RA No. 1942 amended the PLA by requiring 30 years of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession to acquire imperfect title over an agricultural land of the public domain. This 30-year period, however, was removed by PD No. 1073 and instead required that the possession should be since June 12, 1945. The amendment introduced by PD No. 1073 was carried in Section 14(1) of the PRD.

The spouses Fortuna point out that PD No. 1073 was issued on January 25, 1977 and published on May 9, 1977; and the PRD was issued on June 11, 1978 and published on January 2, 1979. On the basis of the Court’s ruling in Tañada, et al. v. Hon. Tuvera, etc., et al., they allege that PD No. 1073 and the PRD should be deemed effective only on May 24, 1977 and January 17, 1979, respectively. By these dates, they claim to have already satisfied the 30-year requirement under the RA No. 1942 amendment because Pastora’s possession dates back, at the latest, to 1947.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act (PLA), as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 1942 is applicable for registration of a 2,597-square meter land identified as Lot No. 4457 in favor of the spouses Fortuna.

HELD:

NO. the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED insofar as these dismissed the spouses Antonio and Erlinda Fortuna’s application of registration of title.

Although Section 6 of PD No. 1073 states that “[the] Decree shall take effect upon its promulgation,” the Court has declared in Tañada, et al. v. Hon. Tuvera, etc., et al. that the publication of laws is an indispensable requirement for its effectivity. “[A]ll statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.” Accordingly, Section 6 of PD No. 1073 should be understood to mean that the decree took effect only upon its publication, or on May 9, 1977. This, therefore, moves the cut-off date for applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title under Section 48(b) of the PLA to May 8, 1947. In other words, applicants must prove that they 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 of ownership, for at least 30 years, or at least since May 8, 1947.

The spouses Fortuna were unable to prove that they possessed Lot No. 4457 since May 8, 1947.

Even if the Court assumes that Lot No. 4457 is an alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain, the spouses Fortuna’s application for registration of title would still not prosper for failure to sufficiently prove that they possessed the land since May 8, 1947.

Your Smile :)

Lyrics and vocal arrangement composed by John Paul Ladiao for his wife, Arvisminda Luz Fernandez on their wedding day (July 14, 2012) with the help of a talented friend, Mr. Darwil Torres who composed, performed the guitar lines and directed and edited the music video.

Your Smile :)

i see your smile, your smile
i see-hee your smile
youre the one, that i adore and i coudn't ask for more

it is your smile, your smile
it ee-is your smile
everyday, day by day and whatever comes my way

and the world goes round and round,
as sweet as, as it sound
and from this day, come what may,
if ever words can say

in this life - in my life,
in your life...

i love your smile, your smile
i lo-hove your smile
youre the one, that i adore and i coudn't ask for more

i need your smile, your smile
i nee-ded your smile
everyday, day by day and whatever comes my way

and the world goes round and round,
as sweet as, as it sound
and from this day, come what may,
if ever words can say

in this life - in my life,
in your life...