G.R. No. 182449 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MARTIN T. NG.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the assailed Amended Decision dated October 23, 2002 of the MTC Consolacion, Cebu, is AFFIRMED . Aggrieved, petitioner reiterates its lone assignment of error before this Court: [16] that the CA gravely erred in affirming the trial courts appreciation of respondents claim of ownership as one that had been established by virtue of an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject lots. RULING OF THE COURT In a judicial confirmation of title under original registration proceedings, applicants may obtain the registration of title to land upon a showing that they or their predecessors-in-interest have been in (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of (2) agricultural lands of the public domain, (3) under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, (4) for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. [17] The burden of proof in land registration cases rests on applicants who must show clear, positive and convincing evidence that their alleged possession and occupation were of the nature and duration required by law. [18] In this case, what is questioned is the sufficiency of the evidence submitted to prove that the possession by respondents predecessors-in-interest was of the nature required by the Public Land Act and the Property Registration Decree. Specifically, respondent must prove that his predecessors-in-interest openly, continuously, exclusively, and notoriously possessed the realties. Possession is acquired in any of the following ways: (1) by the material occupation of the thing; (2) by the exercise of a right; (3) by the fact that the property is subject to the action of our will; and (4) by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring the right. [19] In Director of Lands v. IAC , [20] we explained the nature of the possession required to confirm ones title as follows: Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood. (Emphasis supplied) In perusing the evidence submitted by respondent, petitioner claims [21] that the former merely presented (1) a witness testimony full of motherhood statements, and (2) Tax Declarations and realty payments that do not conclusively prove ownership. Thus, the Republic claims that the evidence of possession is insufficient. However, as found by the courts a quo , it is clear from the records that respondent presented several pieces of documentary evidence to prove that he openly possessed the properties. He submitted notarized Deeds of Sale, Ag