View full case

REPUBLIC v. MANUEL M. CARAIG

FACTS:

Manuel M. Caraig filed an application for original registration of a land, Lot No. 5525-B, which he acquired from Reynaldo Caraig. Manuel presented several witnesses who testified that Evaristo Caraig, Manuel's predecessor-in-interest, owned and possessed the entire land, including Lot No. 5525-B, and used it for planting crops. The witnesses also stated that Reynaldo inherited the land from Evaristo and subsequently sold a portion of it to Manuel. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) granted Manuel's application for registration, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the MTC's decision. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to prove Manuel's possession of the land for at least 30 years and that the certification of the land's alienability and disposability was not enough.

The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the decision of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) granting the Application for Original Registration of Title filed by the respondent, Manuel M. Caraig. The application sought to register a 40,000-square meter portion of Lot No. 5525, known as Lot No. 5525-B, located in Sto. Tomas, Batangas. Manuel claimed to have bought the land from Reynaldo S. Navarro and attached various documents as evidence of his ownership and possession. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the application, arguing that the land is part of the public domain and that Manuel failed to prove continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the land. The trial proceeded with Manuel presenting witnesses, including his attorney-in-fact Nelson N. Guevarra, who testified to the history of ownership of the land and presented certifications from the Office of the Municipal Assessor of Sto. Tomas and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Region IV-Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of Batangas City.

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking to reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granting the application for registration of land filed by Manuel. According to Manuel, he and his predecessors-in-interest were in actual, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and ownership of the land even before June 12, 1945. The OSG questioned the genuineness and truthfulness of the testimonies of the witnesses presented by Manuel. The Court held that the errors raised by the OSG were mixed questions of fact and law and were not proper subjects of an appeal by certiorari. Furthermore, the Court found that the requirements under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 were duly met. The Constitution, under the Regalian Doctrine, prescribes that all lands which do not appear to be within private ownership are public domain and presumed to belong to the State. It is the burden of the applicant for registration to prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable or disposable.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence presented by the parties?

  2. Whether the subject land is alienable and disposable?

  3. Whether the presentation of CENRO certificates along with other documentary evidence constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement that the land must be proved to be an alienable and disposable part of the public domain.

  4. Whether Manuel has sufficiently established his possession in the concept of owner of the property since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

  5. Whether the possession and occupation as bona fide owner of Evaristo and Reynaldo can be tacked to the possession of Manuel.

RULING:

  1. The Court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence if it is a question of law, but since the OSG is also raising a question of fact regarding the veracity and truthfulness of the testimonies of the witnesses, the Court is constrained to exercise its jurisdiction.

  2. The subject land is considered alienable and disposable, as evidenced by the CENRO Certificates stating that it is within the alienable and disposable zone.

  3. Yes, the presentation of CENRO certificates along with other documentary evidence constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement that the land must be proved to be an alienable and disposable part of the public domain. The Supreme Court held that the strict requirements set forth in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. regarding the need for certification and approval from the DENR Secretary can be relaxed in certain cases. The Court recognized that the certification annotated on the subdivision plan by the DENR Regional Technical Director can be considered as substantial compliance. However, this application of substantial compliance is limited to cases where the trial court rendered its decision prior to June 26, 2008, which is the date when the strict compliance rule was laid down in T.A.N. Properties. In this case, since the applicant filed his application for registration before the promulgation of T.A.N. Properties and the MTC granted his application before June 26, 2008, substantial compliance should be applied.

  4. Yes, Manuel has sufficiently established his possession in the concept of owner of the property since June 12, 1945, or earlier. The testimonies of the witnesses, including Arcadio who frequented the land since he was a child, support Manuel's claim of possession. Evaristo, in the concept of an owner, occupied and possessed the land as early as 1942. Evaristo performed acts of ownership such as planting crops and hiring workers to till the soil. Lot No. 5525 was later transferred to Reynaldo, who continued to cultivate the land. Manuel acquired a portion of Lot No. 5525 and continued to possess and occupy it.

  5. Yes, the possession and occupation as bona fide owner of Evaristo and Reynaldo can be tacked to the possession of Manuel. Manuel acquired Lot No. 5525-B by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Reynaldo. Lot No. 5525-B is a portion of Lot No. 5525, and Reynaldo and his predecessors' possession of Lot No. 5525 can be transferred to Manuel as regards Lot No. 5525-B.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The burden of proof is on the applicant for land registration to prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable or disposable.

  • The Constitution prescribes the Regalian Doctrine, which states that all lands not within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.

  • To prove that land is alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, administrative action, investigation reports, or a legislative act or statute.

  • If no substantive rights are prejudiced, the benefit of certifications declaring land as alienable and disposable should be extended in favor of the applicant.

  • The presentation of CENRO certificates along with other documentary evidence can constitute substantial compliance with the requirement that the land must be proved to be an alienable and disposable part of the public domain.

  • The strict requirements set forth in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. regarding the need for certification and approval from the DENR Secretary can be relaxed in cases where the trial court rendered its decision prior to June 26, 2008.

  • The application of substantial compliance is subject to the discretion of the courts and should only be applied to applications for registration currently pending before the trial court prior to the decision in T.A.N. Properties. This exception does not apply to future applications.

  • Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. The word occupation serves to highlight that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction. Actual possession consists of acts of dominion over the land.

  • Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious, and not clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken, and not intermittent or occasional. It is exclusive when the adverse possessor shows exclusive dominion over the land. It is notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked about by the public or people in the neighborhood.

  • Tax declarations or tax receipts are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner. Belated declaration for tax purposes does not negate the fact of possession, especially when there are no other persons claiming any interest in the land.