G.R. No. 168819 - ALFREDO, PRECIOSA, ANGELITA AND CRISOSTOMO, ALL SURNAMED BUENAVENTURA, VS. AMPARO PASCUAL AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the application for registration of Lot No. 5001-A of Cad-299 in the name of the [petitioner] Pascual, is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. The [petitioners'] claim is likewise, (sic) dismissed for being devoid of merit. [31] Private respondent filed on 23 December 1996 a Notice of Appeal [32] of the foregoing RTC Decision, while petitioners filed on 3 January 1997 a Motion for Reconsideration [33] thereof. In an Order dated 5 February 1997, the RTC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for being a mere reiteration of the arguments it already considered and passed upon. Thereafter, on 27 February 1997, petitioners likewise filed their Notice of Appeal of the RTC Decision. [34] The appeals of private respondent and petitioners were docketed before the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. CV No. 55454. On 31 August 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed Decision, disposing thus: WHEREFORE , under the premises, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED . [35] The Court of Appeals declared that private respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving that the subject lot had been in the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession by her and her predecessors-in-interest, in the concept of an owner, for the prescribed period prior to the filing of her application. Private respondent's brother, Ruben, acknowledged that neither private respondent nor her predecessors-in-interest ever resided on the subject lot. Even private respondent herself admitted during trial that she was not the actual occupant of the subject lot. The tax declaration and realty tax receipts presented by private respondent were inconclusive evidence of her ownership. And the Affidavit of Renunciation executed in 1993 by private respondent's brothers Ruben and Jose over their rights, interest, and participation over the subject lot in favor of private respondent did not state how long their predecessors-in-interest possessed the subject lot. Similarly, the Court of Appeals pronounced that petitioners failed to prove that their possession of the subject property was adverse, open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, peaceful, and in the concept of owner. Petitioners were unable to present a notarized deed to evidence the alleged sale of the subject lot by the brothers Arcadio and Agripino to petitioners' parents. It further affirmed the ruling of the RTC that the Affidavit executed by Agripino, confirming the alleged sale of the subject lot by him and his brother Arcadio to petitioner's parents was hearsay evidence, because the adverse party was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the affiant Agripino. Moreover, petitioners -- who not only opposed private respondent's application, but who also, in effect, presented their own application by praying that the RTC confirm their title over the subject property instead and order the registration of the same in their name -- failed to comply with the requirement that an appli