G.R. No. 186166 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOSE T. CHING REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ANTONIO V. CHING.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, on September 3, 1999, respondent filed a Verified Amended Application [9] which the RTC found to be sufficient in form and substance. The case was set for initial hearing on December 22, 1999. [10] On December 16, 1999, the OSG duly deputized the Provincial Prosecutor of Agusan del Norte to appear on behalf of the State. [11] Thereafter, on January 20, 2000, the OSG filed an Opposition to the application for registration of title. Specifically, the OSG alleged: (1) That neither the applicant nor his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto [Sec. 48 (b) C.A. 141, as amended by P.D. 1073]; (2) That the muniments of title and/or any tax declarations and tax payments receipts of applicant attached to or alleged in the application, do not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the land applied for or of his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in the concept of owner since June 12, 1945 or prior and the tax declaration and tax payment receipts appear not to be genuine and are of recent vintage; (3) That the claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of Spanish title or grant can no longer be availed of by the applicant who have failed to file an appropriate application for registration within six (6) months from 16 February 1976 under P.D. No. 892 as the instant application appears to have been filed on December 17, 1998; and (4) That the parcels of land applied for are portions of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines not subject to private appropriation. [12] On June 28, 2001, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources likewise filed its opposition to the application. On December 3, 2002, the RTC resolved to dismiss the respondent's application for registration. [13] The dispositive portion reads: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the court resolves to dismiss as it hereby dismisses the instant application for registration of title for insufficiency of evidence. SO ORDERED.