View full case

DIRECTOR v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for land registration filed by Aquilino Cariño for Lot No. 6 in Cabuyao, Laguna. Cariño claimed that the land belonged to his mother, and after her death, he administered it on behalf of his siblings. In 1949, Cariño and his brother became co-owners of the land through an extrajudicial partition, and in 1963, sole ownership of Lot No. 6 was adjudicated to Cariño. Cariño presented evidence of his continuous possession and declaration for taxation purposes. The trial court granted Cariño's petition, and the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petitioner, as the oppositor, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Cariño failed to prove his fee simple title and the required possession for confirmation of an imperfect title. The Supreme Court agreed and held that Cariño had not produced any muniments of title to substantiate his claim of ownership. The court also found Cariño's evidence of possession insufficient to meet the requirements for confirmation of an imperfect title. Therefore, Cariño's petition was dismissed.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner has sufficiently proven that he is the absolute owner of the land he is seeking to have registered.

  2. Whether the petitioner has established the required period of possession for registration.

  3. Whether tax receipts and tax declarations are sufficient evidence of ownership and possession of a property for the purpose of registration under the Land Registration Act.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that he is the absolute owner of the land. The Court emphasized that even in the absence of opposition, the petitioner must show to the satisfaction of the court that he is the absolute owner of the land he seeks to register. The absence of opposition is not a sufficient ground for registration.

  2. The Court ruled that the petitioner has not established the required period of possession for registration. The petitioner could only trace his possession of the land to the year 1949, which is less than the required 30 years of open, continuous, exclusive, and adverse possession and occupation. The petitioner's attempt to tack his possession to his parents' alleged possession of the land prior to 1911 was unsupported by sufficient evidence.

  3. No, tax receipts and tax declarations are not sufficient evidence of ownership and possession of a property for the purpose of registration under the Land Registration Act. They are mere indicia of claim of ownership. The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove by clear, positive and convincing evidence that their possession was of the nature and duration required by law. Mere bare allegations without more do not amount to preponderant evidence that would shift the burden of proof to the oppositor. Specific facts must be presented to show the nature of such possession.

PRINCIPLES:

  • All lands that were not acquired from the government belong to the state as part of the public domain. The judiciary must scrutinize applications for private ownership of real estate and require well-nigh incontrovertible evidence to justify granting such applications.

  • In a land registration case, the petitioner must prove the facts and circumstances evidencing his alleged ownership of the land applied for. General statements and mere conclusions of law are insufficient.

  • Tax receipts and tax declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership. They are mere indicators of possession and occupation of the land but do not establish ownership.

  • Tax receipts and tax declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership and possession of a property for the purpose of registration under the Land Registration Act.

  • The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove by clear, positive and convincing evidence that their possession was of the nature and duration required by law.

  • Mere bare allegations without more do not amount to preponderant evidence that would shift the burden of proof to the oppositor. Specific facts must be presented to show the nature of such possession.

  • The presumption of ownership and possession of a property ceasing to be public land and becoming private property does not apply in the absence of muniments of title and convincing and positive proof of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of the property for the required period.