Case Digest: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIA ISABEL LAUREL BARANDIARAN

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIA ISABEL LAUREL BARANDIARAN

538 SCRA 705, 23 November 2007

The person applying for the registration of the land has the burden of proof to overcome the presumption of the State’s ownership over lands of public domain by incontrovertible evidence.

Respondent Maria Isabel Laurel Barandiaran (Barandiaran) filed an application for registration of a parcel of land (Land) before the Municipal Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas (MTC). Only petitioner Republic of the Philippines (RP) opposed the said application on the ground that the land belongs to them, it being a portion of the public domain and that Barandiaran or her predecessors-in-interest had not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession or occupation thereof.

Barandiaran testified that she and her siblings became interested in the land and upon asking from the people within the vicinity of the land and from the Assessor‘s Office of Tanauan, they found out that the land was registered in the name of a certain Isadora Gonzales (Gonzales). Barandiaran and her siblings bought the land from the heirs of Gonzales and the land was subsequently declared under Barandiaran‘s name for taxation purposes. MTC declared that the land is registrable under Barandiaran‘s name. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court‘s decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not ownership of the property has been sufficiently established by Barandiaran

HELD:

The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of state ownership of lands of the public domain lies on the person applying for registration. The evidence to overcome the presumption must be ―well-nigh incontrovertible. The Declaration of Real Property in Gonzales‘ name, does not prove ownership of the land. It is settled that tax receipts and declarations of ownership for tax purposes are ―not incontrovertible evidence of ownership; they only become evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property.‖ No such proof of actual possession of the property was presented.

As for the notation on the subdivision plan of the lot stating that ―the survey is inside alienable and disposable area,‖ the same does not constitute proof that the lot is alienable and disposable. So Republic v. Tri-Plus Corporation instructs: ―To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, an administrative action, investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute.‖