Case Digest: HEIRS OF MARINA C. REGALADO,et al. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

HEIRS OF MARINA C. REGALADO,et al. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

516 SCRA 38 (2007)

An application for registration of land is required to indicate location, boundaries and technical description of the land being registered and shall be published in the Official Gazette for two consecutive times.

Marina Regalado filed an application for registration of a parcel of land in Marikina, Metro Manila. It was published in the Official Gazette and in Nueva Era, a newspaper of general circulation. She withdrew the application on the grounds of discrepancies on the question of the survey and accession number corresponding to the survey plan of the property and for the inevitable absence of the applicant from the country to arrange and assist in the intestate estate of her late widowed sister whose children, all minors, were in London.

Regalado later filed an Amended Application for Registration alleging that she had been in open and continuous possession and occupation of said land which is alienable and disposable of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership. She further alleges that she acquired the land by virtue of a Deed of Assignment executed by the registered claimant Tomas Antero as assignor in her favor. During the pendency of the application, Regalado died. Her surviving heirs pursued and litigated the land registration case in her behalf.

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Republic holding that there was discrepancy in the lot size and technical description between the original, as published, and the technical descriptions.The Court held that such is a serious defect and should be precise for purposes of identification, delineation, and distinction, and notice to the public. The CA thereafter dismissed the application for registration of the Heirs of Regalado.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Marina and her heirs have rights over the subject land
2. Whether or not Marina and her heirs had been in open, continuous, and adverse possession in the concept of owner under a bona fide claim of ownership

HELD:

Whether or not Marina and her heirs have registrable rights over the subject land

Here, the application in this case filed in the court was for registration, not of the big parcel of land (Lot No. 21), but of certain portions thereof designated by applicant as Lots Nos. 21-A and 21-B. It is the technical description of these two smaller lots that must be published in order that the persons who may be affected by their registration may be notified thereof.

Under Section 21 of the Land Registration Act, an application for registration of land is required to indicate location, boundaries and technical description of the land being registered and shall be published in the Official Gazette for two consecutive times. It is this publication of the notice of hearing that is considered one of the essential bases of the jurisdiction of the court.

Here, Marina and her heirs fail to comply with the proper technical description that should be indicated in the registration. Thus, it is the publication of the specific boundaries of Lot Nos. 21-A and 21-B that would actually put the interested parties on notice of the registration proceeding, and would confer authority on the land registration court to pass upon the issue of the registerability of said lots in favor of Marina and her heirs.

Whether or not Marina and her heirs had been in open, continuous, and adverse possession in the concept of owner under a bona fide claim of ownership

Marina and her heirs had not been in open, continuous, and adverse possession in the concept of owner under a bona fide claim of ownership fails.

There is no proof to sustain that Maria and her relatives have been residing in the property for more than 30 years and that she herself has been residing there for 15 years when Tomas Antero executed the deed of assignment in her favor.

At most, the evidence indicates that Marina possessed and occupied a small portion of the property, while some 600 other parties possessed and occupied the rest. As for the tax declaration, there is no proof that Marina religiously paid taxes on the property. In her testimony, she stated that she intended to pay taxes only if and when ordered to do so by the court.