G.R. No. 173819 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MA. ISABEL LAUREL BARANDIARAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, and upon confirmation of the Order of General Default, the Court hereby adjudicates and decrees Lot No. 127 [5] 3-C, Cad-168 of the subdivision plan Csd-04-020537-D with a total area of Twenty three thousand nine hundred sixty two (23,962) square meters, situated at Barangay Maria Paz (formerly Boot), Tanauan, Batangas, on the name of Ma. Isabel Laurel Barandiaran with postal address at 2nd Floor, Rufina Tower, Ayala Avenue, Makati City. Once this decision shall have become final, let the corresponding decree of registration be issued. [10] The Republic appealed, [11] contending that respondent had not proven that the questioned lot is within the alienable and disposable land of the public domain. [12] By Decision [13] dated July 21, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision, observing as follows: x x x [O]ther than the bare assertion of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that applicant-appellee Barandiaran possesses no registrable right over the subject property, it failed to adduce concrete and convincing evidence to support its stand. Neither were there private oppositors who came to register their opposition in the instant application for registration, which inclined us more to grant the instant application. [14] Hence, the present Petition [15] faulting the appellate court: . . . IN RULING THAT [THE QUESTIONED LOT] IS WITHIN THE ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND, HENCE, AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC APPROPRIATION. [16] The petition is meritorious. 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. [17] To discharge the burden, respondent presented a Certification issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Such certificate does not state, however, that the lot of which the questioned lot forms part is alienable and disposable. The certification merely states that the lot is not covered by any kind of public land application or patent. [18] As for the notation on the subdivision plan of the lot stating that the survey is inside alienable and disposable area, [19] the same does not constitute proof that the lot is alienable and disposable. So Republic v. Tri-Plus Corporation [20] instructs: In the present case, the only evidence to prove the character of the subject lands as required by law is the notation appearing in the Advance Plan stating in effect that the said properties are alienable and disposable . However, this is hardly the kind of proof required by law. 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 i