G.R. No.

170724 January 29, 2007

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
SAN LORENZO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

"Certificate of Alienability Is Not Proof of Possession"

FACTS:
On November 13, 1997, respondent San Lorenzo Development
Corporation filed with the MTCC of Danao City an application for
registration of title to a parcel of land,
On October 12, 2001, the trial court rendered its decision3 granting
the respondents application for registration
On November 7, 2001, petitioner Republic filed a Notice of Appeal,
therein making known that it was elevating the case to the CA
In the herein assailed decision4 of May 23, 2005, the CA-Cebu City
dismissed the Republics appeal.
petitioner Republic of the Philippines seeks the reversal and setting
aside of the Decision1 dated May 23, 2005 of the Court of Appeals
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Questioning the deeds of sale and
tax declarations/clearances whether it constitutes "well-nigh
incontrovertible" evidence necessary to acquire title through adverse
occupation under C.A. No. 141.

ISSUE:
whether or not the respondent corporation has presented sufficient
proof or the required possession.

RULING:
As the law now stands, a mere showing of possession for thirty years
or more is not sufficient. It must be shown, too, that possession and
occupation had started on June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Second, the acceptance by the courts a quo of the CENRO certificate of
alienability and disposability as evidence of possession since the date
of said certificate is patently erroneous. According to the CENRO
certification, the subject land was alienable and disposable public land
since June 7, 1938. This certification does not in any way indicate that
the respondent and its predecessors-in-interest had been in possession
of the property as far back as 1938.
Thus the court Ruled in favor of the state.

_____________________________________________________________
LIMCOMA MULTI-PURPOSE
COOPERATIVE,
Petitioner,


- versus -



REPUBLIC OF
THEPHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 167652

Present:

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, and
NACHURA, JJ.

Promulgated:

July 10, 2007

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

" Applicant may acquire title by prescription under Sec. 14(2) of P.D. 1529
even if he cannot prove possession since June 12, 1945
FACTS:
On September 24, 2001, petitioner Limcoma Multi-Purpose
Cooperative
[3]
filed with the RTC an application for registration and
confirmation of title over a parcel of land
Petitioner alleged that it is the owner in fee simple of the subject lot and the
improvements thereon, and that it has been in the open, exclusive, peaceful,
and continuous possession thereof for more than 30 years, reckoned from the
time of possession of its predecessors-in-interest.
At the ex-parte reception of evidence, petitioner presented the testimonies of
Olivia P. Gomez, Arsenia P. Alcantara, and Lorenzo P. Limbo.
The RTC granted the application in its Order
[24]
dated April 10, 2003
On appeal, the appellate court reversed and set aside the Decision of the trial
court
In reversing the trial court, the CA ruled that petitioner failed to demonstrate
the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12,
1945 or earlier, required by the Property Registration Decree and the Public
Land Act;

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner acquired the property under Sec. 14 of
P.D. 1529

RULING:
Yes, Prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership.
[41]
The Court had
occasion to rule in numerous instances that open, exclusive, and continuous
possession for at least 30 years of alienable public land ipso
jure converts the same to private property.
[42]
The conversion works to
summon into operation Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree
which, in turn, authorizes the acquisition of private lands through
prescription.
It stands to reason, therefore, that the petitioner has acquired registrable title
over the subject lot anchored on its predecessors-in- interests possession
traced back to 1938, and its own possession of 10 years, reckoned from 1991
to the filing of the application for registration in 2001.
The Court reversed the decision of CA and reinstated the Order of the
RTC.
_____________________________________________________________
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,




- versus -




RESTITUTO SARMIENTO,
represented by his attorney-in-fact,
MAGDALENO SARMIENTO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 169397

Present:

QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.




Promulgated:

March 13, 2007

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Applicant Under Act 141 must prove how his title was acquired from State
FACTS: