10. Republic of the Philippines vs.

Zenaida Guinto-Aldana
Republic of the Philippines vs. Zenaida Guinto-Aldana
G.R. No. 175578, August 11, 2010

FACTS:

Respondents filed an application for registration of title over 2 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
least constructive possession. Indeed, respondents herein have been in possession of the land
in the concept of an owner, open, continuous, peaceful and without interference and opposition from
the government or from any private individual. Itself makes their right thereto unquestionably settled
and hence, deserving of protection under the law.

G.R. No. 175578 August 11, 2010REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.ZENAIDA GUINTO-ALDANA,

FACTS:
Respondents filed an application for registration of title over 2 pieces of land, professing themselves
to beco-owners of these lots having acquired them by succession from their predecessors. That until
the timeof the application, they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, open,
peaceful, adverse, e x c l u s i v e a n d c o n t i n u o u s p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e s e l o t s i n t h e
c o n c e p t o f a n o w n e r a n d t h a t t h e y h a d 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 tothe 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. The trial court denied the application for failure of the applicants to comply with
the requirements of Presidential Decree No. 1529. However, this was reversed by the Court of
Appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents have occupied and possessed the property openly, continuously,
exclusively and notoriously under a bona fide claim of ownership? –YES

RULING:
The submission in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan, duly approved by the Bureau of Lands,
incases for application of original registration of land is a mandatory requirement. The reason for this
rule is to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel
of land or a portion thereof already covered by a previous land registration, and to
forestall the possibility that it will be o v e r l a p p e d b y a s u b s e q u e n t r e g i s t r a t i o n
o f a n y a d j o i n i n g l a n d . T h e f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h t h i s requirement is fatal to petitioner’s
application for registration. However, that while the best evidence to identify a piece of land for
registration purposes is the original tracing cloth plan issued by the Bureau of Lands, blueprint copies
and other evidence could also provide sufficient identification. I n t h e c a s e a t b a r , w e f i n d t h a t
t h e s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e b l u e p r i n t o f P l a n t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e t e c h n i c a l description of
the property, operates as substantial compliance with the legal requirement of ascertaining the
identity of Lot Nos. 4 and 5 applied for registration.