G.R. NO. 163766 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CANDY MAKER, INC., AS REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ONG YEE SEE,[*] E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered[,] the court hereby rendered judgment confirming title of the applicants over the real property denominated as Lot 3138-A Csd-04-018302 of Cad-688-D Cainta-Taytay Cadastre; Lot 3138-B Csd-04-018302 of Cad 688-D Cainta-Taytay Cadastre. [48] On appeal to the CA, the petitioner contended that the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the application for registration since the actual copies of the Official Gazette (O.G.) where the notice of hearing was published were not adduced in evidence; the applicant likewise failed to establish exclusive ownership over the subject property in the manner prescribed by law. The petitioner argued further that the requirements of Section 23, par. 1 of P.D. No. 1529, [49] as amended, are mandatory and jurisdictional, and that failure to observe such requirements has a fatal effect on the whole proceedings. Citing Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals [50] and Register of Deeds of Malabon v. RTC, Malabon, MM, Br. 170, [51] the Republic averred that a mere certificate of publication is inadequate proof of the jurisdictional fact of publication because the actual copies of the O.G. must be presented at the initial hearing of the case. Moreover, witnesses were not presented to prove specific acts to show that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in exclusive, open, continuous, and adverse possession of the subject lots in the concept of the owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier, in accordance with Sec. 14, par. 1 of P.D. No. 1529. [52] It noted that the testimonies of the applicant's witnesses are more of conclusions of law rather than factual evidence of ownership. Other than the general statement that they planted rice and vegetables on the subject lots, their possession could properly be characterized as mere casual cultivation since they failed to account for its exclusive utilization since 1945 or earlier. After stressing that tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership, it concluded that the subject lots rightfully belong to the State under the Regalian doctrine. [53] The applicant averred in its Appellee's Brief [54] that it had marked in evidence the actual copy of the O.G. where the notice of initial hearing was published; in fact, the MTC Decision stated that the copy of the O.G. containing the notice was referred to as Exhibit "E-1." Moreover, Sec. 14, par. 1 of P.D. 1529 is inapplicable since it speaks of possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Instead, par. 4 of the same section [55] should govern because the subject parcels of land are lands of private ownership, having being acquired through purchase from its predecessors-in-interest, who, in turn, inherited the same from their parents. It pointed out that there were no adverse claims of interest or right by other private persons and even government agencies like the Province of Rizal. Lastly, while tax declarations and tax receipts do not cons