010 Republic V Munoz PDF

1/24/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 536
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Muñoz
*
G.R. No. 151910. October 15, 2007.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

LUDOLFO V. MUÑOZ, respondent.
Land Registration; Constructive Notice; Jurisdictions;

Constructive seizure of land accomplished by posting of notices
and processes upon all persons mentioned in notices by means of
publication and sending copies to said persons by registered mail
in effect gives the court jurisdiction over the land sought to be
registered.—It bears stressing that the “constructive seizure of
land accomplished by posting of notices and processes upon all
persons mentioned in notices by means of publication and sending
copies to said persons by registered mail in effect gives the court
jurisdiction over the lands sought to be registered.”
Same; Evidence; While the submission in evidence of the

original tracing cloth plan is a mandatory and even a
jurisdictional requirement, the Supreme Court has recognized
instances of substantial compliance with said rule; The best
evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes is the
original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands but blueprint
copies and other evidence could also provide sufficient
identification; Blueprint copy of the cloth plan together with the
lot’s technical description duly certified as to their correctness by
the Bureau of Lands are adequate to identify the land applied for
registration.—While petitioner correctly contends that the
submission in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan is a
mandatory and even a jurisdictional requirement, this Court has
recognized instances of substantial compliance with this rule. It is
true that the best evidence to identify a piece of land for
registration purposes is the original tracing cloth plan from the
Bureau of Lands, but blueprint copies and other evidence could
also provide sufficient identification. In the present application for
registration, respondent submitted, among other things, the
following supporting documents: (1) a blueprint copy of the survey
plan approved by the Bureau of Lands; and (2) the technical
descriptions duly verified and approved by the Director of Lands.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016127e27e4bc154a6db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
The Court held in Recto v. Republic, 440 SCRA 79 (2004), that the
blueprint copy of the cloth plan together
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
109
VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 109
Republic vs. Muñoz
with the lot’s technical description duly certified as to their

correctness by the Bureau of Lands are adequate to identify the
land applied for registration.
Same; Same; If the survey plan is approved by the Director of

Lands and its correctness has not been overcome by clear, strong
and convincing evidence, the presentation of the tracing cloth may
be dispensed with.—If the survey plan is approved by the Director
of Lands and its correctness has not been overcome by clear,
strong and convincing evidence, the presentation of the tracing
cloth plan may be dispensed with. All the evidence on record
sufficiently identified the property as the one applied for by
respondent, and containing the corresponding metes and bounds
as well as area. Consequently, the original tracing cloth plan need
not be presented in evidence.
Same; Same; Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141); Confirmation of

Imperfect Title; Requisites; Commonwealth Act No. 141 remains to
be the existing general law governing the classification and
disposition of lands of the public domain, other than timber and
mineral lands.—For clarity, applications for confirmation of
imperfect title must be able to prove the following: (1) that the
land forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural lands
of the public domain; and (2) that they have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
the same under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time
immemorial or since June 12, 1945. Commonwealth Act No. 141,
also known as the Public Land Act, remains to this day the
existing general law governing the classification and disposition of
lands of the public domain, other than timber and mineral lands.
Section 6 of CA No. 141 empowers the President to classify lands
of the public domain into “alienable and disposable” lands of the
public domain, which prior to such classification are inalienable

and outside the commerce of man. Section 7 of CA No. 141
authorizes the President to “declare what lands are open to
disposition or concession.” Section 8 of CA No. 141 states that the
government can declare open for disposition or concession only
lands that are “officially delimited and classified.”
Same; Regalian Doctrine; Words and Phrases; All lands not

appearing to be within private ownership are presumed to belong
to the State; Public lands not shown to have been reclassified or
released as alienable or agricultural land or alienated to a private
person by the State remain part of the alienable public domain.—
Under the
110
Republic vs. Muñoz
Regalian doctrine embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the

public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any
asserted right to ownership of land. Therefore, all lands not
appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have
been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or
alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the
alienable public domain.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Ingersoll T. Ramirez for respondent.
AZCUNA, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari,

under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
1
seeking
to set aside the August 29, 2001 Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 58170, as well as its
January 29, 2002
2
Resolution, which affirmed the October 3,
1997 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ligao,
Albay, Branch 13, granting the application for land
registration of respondent Ludolfo V. Muñoz.
The following facts prompted the present controversy.
On June 14, 1996, respondent filed an Application for

Registration of Title of a parcel of residential land before
the RTC of Ligao, Albay containing an area of 1,986 square
meters situated, bounded, and described as follows:
“A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot No. 2276 of the Cadastral Survey of

Ligao) with the building and improvements thereon, situated in
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Cancio C. Garcia (now an Associate

Justice of the Supreme Court), with Associate Justices Hilarion L. Aquino
and Jose L. Sabio, Jr. concurring, Rollo, pp. 34-50.
2 Penned by Judge Jose S. Sañez, Id., at pp. 62-69.
111
VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 111

Republic vs. Muñoz
the Barrio of Bagonbayan, Municipality of Ligao, Province of

Albay. Bounded on the S., along line 1-2, by Lot No. 2277, Ligao
Cadastre; on the W., along Line 2-3, by Mabini Street; on the N.,
and E., along lines 3-4-5-6-4-7, by Lot 2284; and on the S., along
line 7-8, by Lot 2281; and along line 8-1, by Lot 2278—all of Ligao
Cadastre, containing an area of ONE THOUSAND 3
NINE
HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX (1,986) square meters.”
In his application for registration, respondent averred that

no mortgage or encumbrance of any kind affects his
property and that no other person has an interest, legal or
equitable, on the subject lot. Respondent further declared
that the property was acquired by donation inter vivos,
executed by the spouses Apolonio R. Muñoz and Anastacia
Vitero on November 18, 1956, and that the spouses and
their predecessors-ininterest have been in possession
thereof since time immemorial for more than 70 years.
On November 7, 1996, petitioner Republic of the
Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), opposed the application on the following grounds:
“(1) That neither the applicant nor his predecessors-ininterest

have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the land in question since
June 12, 1945 or prior thereto (Sec. 48[b], C.A. 141 as
amended by P.D. 1073).
(2) That the muniment/s of title and/or the tax payment/s
receipt/s of application/s, if any, attached to or alleged in
the application, do not constitute competent and sufficient

evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the lands acquired
for or his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation thereof in the concept of owner
since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto. Said muniment/s of
title as well as the title do not appear to be genuine and
that the tax declaration/s and/or tax payment receipt/s
indicate the pretended possession of application to be of
recent vintage.
(3) That the claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of
Spanish title or grant can no longer be availed of by the
applicant who has failed to file an appropriate application
for registration
_______________
3 Records, p. 1.
112

Republic vs. Muñoz
within the period of six (6) months from February 16, 1976
as required by P.D. No. 892. From the records, it appears
that the instant application was recently filed.
(4) That the parcel applied for is part of the public domain
belonging to the Republic of the Philippines not subject to
private appropriation.
(5) That this application was filed beyond December 31, 1987,
the period set forth under 4Sec. 2, P.D. No. 1073 and
therefore, is filed out of time.”
In respondent’s Answer to Opposition, he professed that

the land in question is a residential lot originally owned
and possessed by Paulino Pulvinar and Geronimo Lozada.
Sometime in April 1917, Pulvinar sold his share of the
unregistered land to the spouses Muñoz and Vitero,
respondent’s parents. In June 1920, Lozada likewise sold
his remaining part to the parents of respondent.
Thereafter, the ownership and possession of the property
were consolidated by the spouses and declared for taxation
purposes in the name of Muñoz in 1920. Furthermore, it
was stated that during the cadastral survey conducted in
Ligao, Albay in 1928, the land was designated as Lot No.
2276, as per Survey Notification Card issued to Muñoz
dated October 2, 1928. Finally, respondent contended that
from 1920 up to 1996, the time of application, the land

taxes for the property had been fully paid. 5
On February 6, 1997, an Order of General Default was
entered by the trial court against the whole world except
for the government and a certain Alex Vasquez, who
appeared during the scheduled initial hearing stating that
he would file an opposition
6
to the application.
In the Opposition filed by Vasquez dated February 19,
1997, he declared that he owns parcels of land, Lot Nos.
2284A-2 and 2275, adjoining that of the subject matter of
the ap-
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 34-35.

5 Id., at p. 53.
6 Id., at pp. 61-62.
113
VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 113

Republic vs. Muñoz
plication. He added that certain portions of his lands are

included in the application as respondent’s concrete fence is
found within the area of his lots. 7
Respondent, in his answer to the opposition, alleged
that his property, Lot No. 2276, is covered by a technical
description, duly certified correct by the Bureau of Lands
and approved for registration by the Land Registration
Authority (LRA), which specified the exact areas and
boundaries of Lot No. 2276. Granting that there is an
encroachment to the oppositor’s adjoining land, respondent
reasoned that it is not for the court a quo, sitting as a Land
Registration Court, to entertain the opposition because the
case should be ventilated in a separate proceeding as an
ordinary civil case.
During the trial, respondent was presented as the sole
witness. Respondent, who was 81 years old at that time,
testified that he acquired the property
8
in 1956 when his
parents
9
donated the same to him. He presented as Exhibit
“H” Tax Declaration No. 048-0267, evidencing the payment
of realty taxes for Lot No. 2276 in 1997. A 10
Certification
from the Office of the Municipal Treasurer was likewise
introduced by the respondent showing the payment of real
estate taxes from 1956 up to the year 1997. He further
declared that the property is a residential land with
improvements such as a house made of solid materials and
fruit-bearing trees. In 1957, respondent told the court that

he constructed a concrete wall surrounding the entire
property. Respondent also narrated that he grew up11 on the
subject lot and spent his childhood days in the area.
_______________
7 Id., at p. 64.
8 TSN, May 23, 1997, p. 4.
9 Records, p. 76.
10 Exhibit “I,” Id., at pp. 77-79.
11 TSN, May 23, 1997, p. 6.
114

Republic vs. Muñoz
On cross-examination, respondent claimed that he has six

brothers and sisters, none 12
of whom are claiming any
interest over the property. 13 14
On June 16, 1997, the trial court noted a Report
submitted by the Director of Lands, which informed the
court that as per records of the Land Management Bureau
in Manila, Lot No. 2276, CAD-239 is covered by Free
Patent Application No. 10-2-664 of Anastacia Vitero.
The RTC rendered a Decision dated October 3, 1997
granting the application for registration. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered finding the petitioner

entitled to registration. Accordingly, after the finality of this
decision, let a decree and, thereafter the corresponding certificate
of title over Lot No. 2276 of the Lig'ao Cadastre as delimited by
the Technical Description, Annex “A-2” of the application,
together with the improvements thereon, issue in the name of
LUDOLFO Y. MUÑOZ, of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to
JOSEFINA PALENCIA, of Mabini Street, Barangay Tinago,
Municipality of Ligao, Province of Albay.
Conformably with the above findings, as prayed for by the
Director, Department of Registration, Land Registration
Authority in his Report dated March 6, 1997, the application, if
any, in Cad. Case No. 53, Cadastral Record No. 1404 is hereby
ordered dismissed.
The opposition of Alex Vasquez for lack of merit is hereby
ordered dismissed.
Let copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Solicitor
General, Provincial Prosecutor of Albay, Oppositor Alez Vasquez
and Petitioner. 15
SO ORDERED.”
_______________
12 Id., at p. 7.
13 Records, p. 88.
14 Id., at p. 86.
15 Id., at pp. 95-96.
115
VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 115

Republic vs. Muñoz
On appeal, petitioner argued that the trial court did not

acquire jurisdiction over the subject lot because: (1) the
notice of initial hearing was not timely filed; (2) the
applicant failed to present the original tracing cloth plan of
the property sought to be registered during the trial; and
(3) the applicant failed to present evidence that the land is
alienable and disposable.
Subsequently, the CA affirmed the decision of the court
a quo. The appellate court explained that there was
conclusive proof that the jurisdictional requirement of due
notice had been complied with as mandated under Section
24 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. Furthermore, the
failure to present in evidence the tracing cloth plan of the
subject property did not deprive the lower court of its
jurisdiction to act on the application in question. Lastly,
the CA ruled that respondent need not adduce
documentary proof that the disputed property had been
declared alienable and disposable for the simple reason
that the lot had once been covered by free patent
application; hence, this alone is conclusive evidence that
the property was already declared by the government as
open for public disposition.
The petitioner, through the OSG, raises the following
grounds for the petition:
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT

THE TRIAL COURT HAS NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION
OVER THE CASE.
II.
PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS NOT PROVEN BY

COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPERTY IS
ALIENABLE
16
AND DISPOSABLE PROPERTY OF THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN.
_______________
16 Rollo, p. 14.
116

Republic vs. Muñoz
Anent the first issue, petitioner maintains that the failure

to present the original tracing cloth plan is a fatal omission
which necessarily affected the trial court’s jurisdiction to
proceed with the case.
It bears stressing that the “constructive seizure of land
accomplished by posting of notices and processes upon all
persons mentioned in notices by means of publication and
sending copies to said persons by registered mail in effect
gives the court
17
jurisdiction over the lands sought to be
registered.”
While petitioner correctly contends that the submission
in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan is a mandatory
and even a jurisdictional requirement, this Court has
recognized
18
instances of substantial compliance with this
rule. It is true that the best evidence to identify a piece of
land for registration purposes is the original tracing cloth
plan from the Bureau of Lands, but blueprint copies and 19
other evidence could also provide sufficient identification.
In the present application for registration, respondent
submitted, among other things, the following supporting 20
documents: (1) a blueprint copy of the survey plan
approved by21 the Bureau of Lands; and (2) the technical
descriptions duly verified and approved by the Director of
Lands. 22
The Court held in Recto v. Republic that the blueprint
copy of the cloth plan together with the lot’s technical
description duly certified as to their correctness by the
Bureau of
_______________
17 Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, Antonio H. Noblejas and

Edilberto H. Noblejas, 1992 edition, p. 104 (italics supplied).
18 Republic v. Hubilla, G.R. No. 157683, February 11, 2005, 451 SCRA
181, 184.
19 Recto v. Republic, G.R. No. 160421, October 4, 2004, 440 SCRA 79,
87, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62680, November 9,
1988, 167 SCRA 150, 154, Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 229
Phil. 20; 144 SCRA 705 (1986).
20 Annex “A-1,” Records, p. 4.
21 Annex “A-2,” Id., at p. 5.
22 Supra, note 19.
117
VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 117

Republic vs. Muñoz
Lands are adequate to identify the land applied for

registration, thus—
“On the first challenge, the petitioner invokes the case of Director
of Lands v. Reyes, where it was held that “the original tracing
cloth plan of the land applied for which must be approved by the
Director of Lands was “a statutory requirement of mandatory
character” for the identification of the land sought to be
registered. As what was submitted was not the tracing cloth plan
but only the blueprint copy of the survey plan, the respondent
court should have rejected the same as insufficient.
We disagree with this contention. The Court of Appeals was
correct when it observed that in that case the applicant in effect
“had not submitted anything at all to identify the subject
property” because the blueprint presented lacked the approval of
the Director of Lands. By contrast—
In the present case, there was considerable compliance with the

requirement of the law as the subject property was sufficiently identified
with the presentation of blueprint copy of Plan AS-06-000002 (San Pedro
v. Director of Lands, CA-G.R. No. 65332-R, May 28, 1981). It should be
noted in this connection that the Bureau of Lands has certified to the
correctness of the blueprint copy of the plan including the technical
description that go with it. Hence, we cannot ignore the fact, absent in the
Reyes case, that applicant has provided ample evidence to establish the
identity of the subject property. (Emphasis supplied)
23
x x x.”
Moreover, if the survey plan is approved by the Director of

Lands and its correctness has not been overcome by clear,
strong and convincing evidence, the presentation
24
of the
tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with. All the evidence
on
_______________
23 Id., at pp. 87-88, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra note 19,
at pp. 153-154.
24 Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70825,
March 11, 1991, 195 SCRA 38, 44, citing Director of Lands v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 56613, March 14, 1988, 158 SCRA 568,
118

Republic vs. Muñoz
record sufficiently identified the property as the one

applied for by respondent, and containing the
corresponding metes and bounds as well as area.
Consequently, the original
25
tracing cloth plan need not be
presented in evidence.
Anent the second issue, petitioner stresses that in
proving the alienable and disposable nature of the
property, there has to be a certification from the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO).
The CA is of the opinion that respondent need not
adduce documentary proofs that the disputed property has
been declared alienable and disposable because of the fact
that it had once been covered by Free Patent Application
No. 10-2-664 in the name of respondent’s mother, which
was unfortunately not acted upon by the proper
authorities. The CA declares that this is proof enough that
the property was declared by the government as open for
public disposition. This contention was adopted by the
respondent both in his Comment and Memorandum filed
before the Court.
Notwithstanding all the foregoing, the Court cannot
sustain the argument of respondent that the subject
property was already declared alienable and disposable
land.
Petitioner is correct when it remarked that it was
erroneous for the appellate court to assume that the
property in question is alienable and disposable based only
on the Report dated May 21, 1997 of the Director of Lands
indicating that the “land involved in said case described as
Lot 2276, CAD239 is covered by Free Patent Application
No. 10-2-664 of Anastacia Vitero.”
_______________
671, Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70594, October

10, 1986, 144 SCRA 705.
25 Republic v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 160990, September 11, 2006, 501
SCRA 436, 447.
119
VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 119

Republic vs. Muñoz
26
It must be pointed out that in its Report dated March 6,
1997, the LRA stated that:
“3. This Authority is not in a position to verify whether or

not the parcel of land subject of registration is already
covered by land patent, previously approved isolated survey
and is within forest zone.
WHEREFORE, to avoid duplication in the issuance of titles
covering the same parcel of land and the issuance of titles for
lands within the forest zone which have not been released and
classified as alienable, the foregoing is respectfully submitted to
the Honorable Court with the recommendation that the Lands
Management Bureau, Manila, Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office, Lands Management Sector
and Forest Management Bureau, all in Legazpi City, be
ordered to submit a report to the Court on the status of the
land applied for, to determine whether or not said land or
any portion thereof, is already covered by land patent,
previously approved isolated survey and is within the
forest zone and that should the instant application be given due
course, the application in Cad. Case No. 53, 27Cadastral Record No.
1404 with respect to Lot 2276 be dismissed.”
Noteworthy is the fact that neither the Director of Lands

nor the LRA attested that the land subject of this
proceeding is alienable or disposable.
For clarity, applications for confirmation of imperfect
title must be able to prove the following: (1) that the land
forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural
lands of the public domain; and (2) that they have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of
ownership
28
either since time immemorial or since June 12,
1945.
_______________
26 Records, pp. 67-68.
27 Id., at p. 67 (italics supplied).

28 Carlos v. Republic, G.R. No. 164823, August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 709,
714-715.
120

Republic vs. Muñoz
Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known as the Public Land

Act, remains to this day the existing general law governing
the classification and disposition of lands of 29
the public
domain, other than timber and mineral lands. Section 6 of
CA No. 141 empowers the President to classify lands of the
public domain into “alienable and disposable” lands of the
public domain, which prior to such classification are
inalienable and outside the commerce of man. Section 7 of
CA No. 141 authorizes the President to “declare what lands
are open to disposition or concession.” Section 8 of CA No.
141 states that the government can declare open for
disposition or concession only lands that are “officially
delimited and classified.”
Under the Regalian doctrine embodied in our
Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the
State, which is the source of any asserted right to
ownership of land. Therefore, all lands not appearing to be
clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to
the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been
reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or
alienated to a private person
30
by the State remain part of the
alienable public domain.
As already well-settled in jurisprudence, no public land
can be acquired by private persons without any grant,
express or implied, from the government; and it is
indispensable that the person claiming title to public land
should show that his title was acquired from the 31
State or
any other mode of acquisition recognized by law. To prove
that the land subject of an appli-
_______________
29 Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, 433 Phil. 506, 545; 384 SCRA
152, 191 (2002).
30 Republic v. Tri-Plus Corporation, G.R. No. 150000, September 26,
2006, 503 SCRA 91, 101-102, citing Republic v. Naguiat, G.R. No. 134209,
January 24, 2006, 479 SCRA 585, 590.
31 Republic v. Herbieto, G.R. No. 156117, May 26, 2005, 459 SCRA 183,
199-200, citing Padilla v. Reyes, 60 Phil. 967, 969 (1934), Lee Hong Hok v.
David, G.R. No. L-30389, December 27, 1972, 48 SCRA 372, 379.
121
VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 121

Republic vs. Muñoz
cation for registration is alienable, the applicant must

establish the existence of a positive act of the government
such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order;
an administrative action; investigation reports of Bureau
32
of
Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute. The
applicant may also secure a certification from the
Government 33
that the land applied for is alienable and
disposable.
In the present case, respondent failed to submit a
certification from the proper government agency to prove
that the land subject for registration is indeed alienable
and disposable. A CENRO certificate, which respondent
failed to secure, could have evidenced the alienability of the
land involved.
Considering that respondent has failed to convince this
Court of the alienable and disposable character of the land
applied for, the Court cannot approve the application for
registration.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the decision dated August 29, 2001 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 58170, as reiterated in
its resolution of January 29, 2002, is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE, and the application for registration filed by
respondent Ludolfo V. Muñoz is DENIED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez,

Corona and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

set aside.
_______________
32 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144057, January 17, 2005, 448
SCRA 442, 449.
33 Zarate v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. 131501, July 14, 2004, 434
SCRA 322, 332.
122

Anselmo vs. Hernandez
Notes.—Possession of a public land while still

inalienable forest land, or before it was declared alienable
and disposable land of the public domain, could not ripen
into private ownership, and should be excluded from the
computation of the 30year open and continuous possession
in the concept of owner. Land classified as forest land may
form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public
domain only by a release in an official proclamation to that
effect. (Republic vs. de Guzman, 326 SCRA 574 [2000])
Possession of forest land, however long, cannot ripen
into private ownership. (Ituralde vs. Falcasantos, 301
SCRA 293 [1999])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

010 Republic V Munoz PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

010 Republic V Munoz PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1/24/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 536

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

Land Registration; Constructive Notice; Jurisdictions;

Same; Evidence; While the submission in evidence of the

VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 109

Republic vs. Muñoz

with the lot’s technical description duly certified as to their

Same; Same; If the survey plan is approved by the Director of

Same; Same; Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141); Confirmation of

public domain, which prior to such classification are inalienable

Same; Regalian Doctrine; Words and Phrases; All lands not

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Muñoz

Regalian doctrine embodied in our Constitution, all lands of the

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari,

On June 14, 1996, respondent filed an Application for

“A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot No. 2276 of the Cadastral Survey of

1 Penned by Associate Justice Cancio C. Garcia (now an Associate

VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 111

the Barrio of Bagonbayan, Municipality of Ligao, Province of

In his application for registration, respondent averred that

“(1) That neither the applicant nor his predecessors-ininterest

the application, do not constitute competent and sufficient

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In respondent’s Answer to Opposition, he professed that

from 1920 up to 1996, the time of application, the land

4 Id., at pp. 34-35.

VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 113

plication. He added that certain portions of his lands are

fruit-bearing trees. In 1957, respondent told the court that

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On cross-examination, respondent claimed that he has six

“WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered finding the petitioner

VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 115

On appeal, petitioner argued that the trial court did not

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT

PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS NOT PROVEN BY

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Anent the first issue, petitioner maintains that the failure

17 Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, Antonio H. Noblejas and

VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 117

Lands are adequate to identify the land applied for

In the present case, there was considerable compliance with the

Moreover, if the survey plan is approved by the Director of

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

record sufficiently identified the property as the one

671, Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70594, October

VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 119

“3. This Authority is not in a position to verify whether or

Noteworthy is the fact that neither the Director of Lands

26 Records, pp. 67-68.

27 Id., at p. 67 (italics supplied).

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Commonwealth Act No. 141, also known as the Public Land

VOL. 536, OCTOBER 15, 2007 121

cation for registration is alienable, the applicant must

Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez,

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Notes.—Possession of a public land while still