MARTINEZ VS REPUBLIC (2006)
published since the other lot (LOT 370) was omitted due to the
Applicant: Martinez
FACTS: Martinez filed a PETITION FOR REGISTRATION in his name
of three parcels of land located in Cortes, Surigao del Sur with an
area of 3700sqm. He alleged that:
a) He had acquired the property in 1952 through purchase
from his uncle whose predecessors-in-interest were
traceable upto 1870s;
b) He had remained in continuous possession of the lots;
c) The lots remained unencumbered;
d) They became private property through prescription;
e) He had to initiate the proceedings since the Director of
Land Management Services failed to do so despite the
completion of the cadastral survey.
RTC Surigao del Sur set the case for initial hearing and ordered the
publication of the notice.
Republic opposed the application on the grounds that:
a) Martinez’s possession was not in accordance with Sec48(b)
of CA141;
b) His muniments of title were insufficient to prove bona-fide
acquisition and possession of the property;
c) The lots formed part of the public domain.
RTC issued an ORDER OF GENERAL DEFAULT because no party
appeared to oppose the application during the hearing, and
subsequently, decreed the registration of the lots in the name of
Martinez. RTC concluded that Martinez and his predecessors have
been in the open, continuous, public possession of the lots for over
100 years.
LRA informed RTC that only 2 lots were referred to in the Notice
lack of an approved survey plan.
CA reversed RTC and ordered the dismissal of the application on
the ground that the evidence presented by Martinez is insufficient
to support his application.
Hence, this petition by Martinez arguing that Republic has no right
to oppose the petition or appeal following the issuance of the order
of general default.
ISSUE: WON REPUBLIC, THRU OSG, CAN STILL APPEAL THE
RTC’S DECISION AFTER IT HAD BEEN DELARED IN DEFAULT
HELD: YES! A defendant party declared in default retains
the right to appeal from the judgment by default on the
ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the material
allegations of the complaint, or that the decision is contrary
to law, even without need of the prior filing of a motion to
set aside the order of default.
SEC 26 of PD1529 provides that the order of default may be
issued if no person appears and answers within the time allowed.
RTC issued the order of general default simply because no
oppositor appeared on the date of the hearing, despite the fact
that the Republic had already duly filed its opposition.RTC erred in
declaring oppositor in default simply because he failed to appear
on the day of the initial hearing. RTC should have accorded the
oppositor ample opportunity to establish its claim. (Dir of Lands vs
Santiago). HOWEVER, the SC cannot decide on the validity of the
default order since Republic did not challenge such.
THROWBACK:
1920: In Velez vs Ramas, the rule is that the defaulting defendant
"loses his standing in court, he not being entitled to the service of
notices in the case, nor to appear in the suit in any way. He cannot
adduce evidence; nor can he be heard at the final hearing."
1948: In Lim Toco v. Go Fay, the Court ruled that the defendant
in default had no right to appeal the judgment rendered by the
trial court, except where a motion to set aside the order of default
had been filed.
1964: Sec 2 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court: the right to appeal was
available even if no petition for relief to set aside the order of
default had been filed. (The intent of 1964 Rules was to allow the
defaulted defendant to file an appeal from the trial court’s
decision.)
1997: Rules of Civil Procedure were amended. The old provision
expressly guaranteeing the right of a defendant declared in default
to appeal the adverse decision was not replicated in the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure. BUT even under the new rules, a
defaulted defendant retains the right to appeal based on SC
decisions after the promulgation of the 1997 Rules (See LINA
DOCTRINE).
ISSUE: WON MARTINEZ FAILED TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCE
NEEDED TO SECURE THE REGISTRATION OF THE SUBJECT
LOTS IN HIS NAME
HELD: YES! Take note that the case against Martinez was
established not by the OSG’s evidence, but by petitioner’s own
insufficient evidence.
The burden of proof in land registration cases is incumbent on the
applicant who must show that he is the real and absolute owner in
fee simple of the land applied for. Unless the applicant succeeds in
showing by clear and convincing evidence that the property
involved was acquired by him or his ancestors by any of the means
provided for the proper acquisition of public lands, the rule is
settled that the property must be held to be a part of the public
domain. The applicant must, therefore, present competent and
persuasive proof to substantiate his claim. He may not rely on
general statements, or mere conclusions of law other than factual
evidence of possession and title.
Martinez argued that he & his predecessors have been in
possession of the land since time immemorial.
Actual possession of 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. It is not enough for an applicant to
declare himself or his predecessors-in-interest the possessors and
owners of the land for which registration is sought. He must
present specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim and
cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions of
law requiring evidentiary support and substantiation.
Evidence presented by Martinez:
a) Deed of Sale - not translated from the vernacular in which
it was executed. SC: inadmissible in evidence.
b) White print copy of the survey plan, tracing cloth plan-
NOT approved by the Director of Lands. SC: Though the
submission of the original tracing cloth plan is a mandatory
statutory requirement which cannot be waived, the rule is
settled that a survey plan must be approved by the
Director of Lands to be admissible in evidence.
PETITION DISMISSED. Lots cannot be registered in the name of
Martinez.
CACHERO v. MARZAN About 7 months after the filing of the motion for reconsideration,
persons not parties to the registration proceedings filed a " petition
FACTS: for review of judgment and/or decree." They alleged that they
were the owners of the land designated as Lot No. 6859 which
The Spouses Cachero filed a case in the CFI of La Union against
they purchased sometime in 1929 and that they have been in
the respondents for recovery of possession and ownership of 2
continuous possession thereof since then. They also alleged that
parcels of land in Barrio Basca, Aringay, La Union. The lower court
the petitioners fraudulently omitted to give them notice of their
rendered judgment declaring the petitioners owners of the subject
application for registration and that in the earlier cadastral survey,
land. The judgment became final and executory.
Lots Numbered 6859 and 6860 had been declared public land for
lack of any original claimant and at the cadastral hearing only the
About 7 years later the Spouses Cachero filed for the registration
Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry, and they had filed
under the Torrens Act of the subject land (109,480 sq. m.)
"cadastral answers". The petition prayed for the re-opening,
identified as Lot No. 6860 of the Cadastral Survey and another
review and setting aside of the judgment and for the accord to
parcel of land (50,412 square meters) identified as Lot No. 6859 of
them of an opportunity to prove their asserted contentions.
the same Cadastral Survey, both lots being situated in Sitio Iriw,
Basca Aringay, La Union. Subsequently, Atty. Yaranon filed
The petition for review was denied. The Registration Court ruled
oppositions in said case in behalf of the respondents
that the according to the report of the chief surveyor of the Land
Registration Commission, there was no decree of registration
Tomas Cachero died before judgment and was substituted by his
issued as regards the subject lots. It also ruled that the movants
children. The judgment was rendered in favor of the spouses
had failed to show fraud on the Cacheros' part.
finding that the spouses and their predecessors-in-interest had
been in continuous and notorious possession of subject lots for
Paulina Nodo and Felix Genova subsequently died and were
more than 60 years in concept of owners except for a one-hectare
substituted by their heirs.
portion of Lot No. 6860 which the Cacheros had sold to Bernardino
Marzan; that Tomas Cachero had inherited said lots from his late These Genova heirs filed an amended petition which was also
father, Simeon Cachero; and that the applicant spouses had been denied by the Registration Court. Then, they appealed the case to
religiously paying the realty taxes on the parcels of land as owners the Court of Appeals which forwarded it to the Supreme Court,
thereof. holding that the former had no appellate jurisdiction over the
matter. The CA also declared that the Genovas are third persons
The respondents thru their counsel, Atty. Yaranon, filed a motion
who came into the case.
for reconsideration on the ground that the Court had no
jurisdiction over the case and that the subject lands, which have ISSUE: WON the cadastral proceedings should be deemed as a bar
been the subject of cadastral proceedings, showed that neither the to the Registration Proceedings.
Cacheros nor their predecessors-in-interest had ever entered a
claim for either lot. The Cacheros opposed the motion and argued HELD:
that by the time the motion for reconsideration was filed, the
judgment sought to be reconsidered had already become final. The NO The cadastral case mentioned commenced before the outbreak
motion was denied. of the Pacific war. It had been abandoned and had not been
continued or resumed after the war, thus, it had ceased to exist.
Hence, said compulsory cadastral proceedings under the Cadastral
Act cannot be invoked and set up as a bar to the registration
proceedings under the Torrens Act initiated more than twenty
years later by the Cacheros.

A cadastral proceeding which had long discontinued and

abandoned, and which had resulted in no judgment or final order
affecting the lands involved in a subsequent registration act under
Act496, cannot be invoked and set up as a bar to the latter
proceedings. There being no final adjudication in the cadastral
proceeding, there is no reason to apply the doctrine of res
judicata.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Zenaida Guinto-Aldana least constructive possession. Indeed, respondents herein have
G.R. No. 175578, August 11, 2010 been in possession of the land in the concept of an owner, open,
continuous, peaceful and without interference and opposition from
FACTS: the government or from any private individual. Itself makes their
right thereto unquestionably settled and hence, deserving of
Respondents filed an application for registration of title over 2 protection under the law.
pieces of land, professing themselves to be co-owners of these lots
having acquired them by succession from their predecessors. That
until the time of the application, they and their predecessors-in-
interest have been in actual, open, peaceful, adverse, exclusive
and continuous possession of these lots in the concept of an owner
and that they had consistently declared the property in their name
for purposes of real estate taxation. In support of their
application, respondents submitted to the court the pertinent tax
declarations, together with the receipts of payment thereof.
Petitioner opposed the application for the reason that the tax
declaration submitted to the court did not constitute competent
and sufficient evidence of bona fide acquisition in good faith or of
prior possession in the concept of an owner.

ISSUE:

WON respondents have occupied and possessed the property

openly, continuously, exclusively and notoriously under a bona fide
claim of ownership.

HELD:

Respondents’ possession through their predecessors-in-interest

dates back to as early as 1937 when the property had already
been declared for taxation by respondent’s father. Respondents
could have produced more proof of this kind had it not been for
the fact that, the relevant portions of the tax records on file with
the Provincial Assessor had been burned when its office was razed
by fire in 1997. With the tax assessments therecame next tax
payments. Respondents’ receipts for tax expenditures were
likewise in therecords and in these documents the predecessors of
respondents were the named owners of the property. Tax
declarations and realty tax payment are not conclusive evidence
ofownership, nevertheless, they are a good indication of
possession in the concept of an owner. No one in his right mind
would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at
LASAM V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS- Possession 24,000,000 hectares of land considering that the area possessed is
only 2 hectares?

Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to
have his feet on every square meter of ground before it can be
said that he is in possession, however, possession is not gained by HELD:
mere nominal CLAIM.
First, the Court ruled that Exhibit L cannot be a valid application
because the identity o the land was not clearly established.

FACTS:
Lasam files a case in Court for the registration of a parcel of land,
containing an area of around 24,000,000 hectares. He presents
Exhibit L as proof of his possession over the land. Exhibit L is a
certified copy of an application. This application states that
Lasam’s predecessor in interest, Domingo Narag, has owned the
land since time immemorial. However, the property described in
Exhibit L is 15,000,000 hectares only and the property sought to
be registered is 24,000,000 hectares.
Furthermore, the document, mentions a fifth parcel of land which
is the same parcel described in another Exhibit K. Apparently, the
surveyor of the land delineated the property based on what the
possessor at that time pointed out to him; he based his study
mostly on hearsay. According to the applicant, before his
occupation of the land, only about 2 hectares were cultivated. But
then, they justified this by invoking the doctrine of constructive
possession (That a person in possession of the land does not have
to have his feet on every square meter of ground before it can be
said that he is in possession).
Second, although there is proof that Lasam might have possessed
a portion of the parcel land, the proof is lacking in certainty as to
the portion occupied and the extent thereof. Although the counsel
invokes the doctrine of constructive possession, the said
application is subject to certain qualifications, and this court was
careful to observe that among these qualifications is one
particularly relating to the size of the tract in controversy with
reference to the portion of land actually in possession of the
claimant. While, therefore, possession in the eyes of the law does
not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter
of ground before it can be said that he is in possession, possession
is not gained by mere nominal CLAIM. The mere planting of a sign
or a symbol of possession cannot justify a Magellan-like claim of
dominion over an immense tract of territory

Thus, the Director of Lands opposed the registration on the ground

that
a) it is not supported by any title fit for registration and
b) that the land sought to be registered is public land.

ISSUE:

Is the applicant entitled to registration because of the required

possession during the time prescribed by law? Is he entitled to the