8/10/2019 Digest of Puyat Gonzalo

1/2

The petitioners filed with the RTC of Kabankalan, Negros Occidental anapplication for registration of a parcel of land. Private oppositors Zafra

Ysa! as well as the Repblic filed "otion to #is$iss the application.%o$e of the gronds $entioned were& 'a(that the the land applied forhas not been declared alienable and disposable&'b( that neither the

applicants nor their predecessors)in)interest had been in open,continos, e*clsive and notorios possession and occpation of theland in +estion since ne -, -/01 or prior thereto . The RTC deniedprivate oppositors2 "otion to #is$iss and thereafter grantedpetitioners2 application for registration of the sb3ect propert!.Respondentsppealed with the C4, which reversed the trial cort2sfindings. Petitioners filed a $otion for reconsideration, which wasdenied b! the C4. hence the present petition.

5sse6

w7n the petitioners sfficientl! established that6

'-(the sb3ect propert! was classified as part of the disposable andalienable land of the pblic do$ain

'('( the! and their predecessors)in)interest had been in open,continos, e*clsive, and notorios possession and occpation

Rling6a. There $st be a positive act declaring land of the pblic do$ain asalienable and disposable. To prove that the land sb3ect of anapplication for registration is alienable, the applicant $st establish thee*istence of a positive act of the govern$ent, sch as a presidentialprocla$ation or an e*ective order& an ad$inistrative action&investigation reports of 8rea of 9ands investigators& and a legislativeact or a statte. The applicant $a! also secre a certification fro$ thegovern$ent that the land clai$ed to have been possessed for the

re+ired n$ber of !ears is alienable and disposable.-:

No sch evidence was offered b! the petitioners to show that the land in+estion has been classified as alienable and disposable land of thepblic do$ain. 5n the absence of incontrovertible evidence to prove thatthe sb3ect propert! is alread! classified as alienable and disposable,we $st consider the sa$e as still inalienable pblic do$ain.

b.4s regards petitioners2 possession of the land in +estion fro$ -/0;to -/::, petitioners cold onl! spport the sa$e with a ta* declaration

dated %epte$ber /, -/;:. 4t best, petitioners can onl! provepossession since said date.

8/10/2019 Digest of Puyat Gonzalo

2/2

predecessors)in)interest, nder a bona fide clai$ of ownership, sinceJune 12, 1945or earlier.1Petitioners failed to e*plain wh!, despite theirclai$ that their predecessors)in)interest have possessed the sb3ectproperties in the concept of an owner even before ne -, -/01, it wasonl! in -/;: that the! started to declare the sa$e for prposes of

ta*ation. "oreover, ta* declarations and receipts are not conclsiveevidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when notspported b! an! other evidence.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_170757_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_170757_2011.html#fnt25