G.R. No. 163767 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, VS. ROSARIO DE GUZMAN VDA. DE JOSON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, confirming the order of general default issued in this case, the Court hereby orders the registration of this parcel of land Lot 2633, Cad 297. Case 5, Paombong Cadastre[)] described in plan Ap-03-001603 (Exhibit D, page 7 of records) and in the technical description (Exhibit F, page 5 of records) in favor of Rosario de Guzman Vda de Joson, of legal age, Filipino, widow and resident of Malolos, Bulacan. After the decision shall have become final, let the corresponding decree be issued, SO ORDERED [19] . The Republic, through the OSG, appealed to the CA, contending that the trial court had erred in granting the application for registration despite the land not being the subject of land registration due to its being part of the unclassified region denominated as forest land of Paombong, Bulacan. [20] Judgment of the CA On January 30, 2004, the CA promulgated its assailed judgment, [21] affirming the decision of the trial court upon the following ratiocination: The foregoing documentary and testimonial evidence stood unrebutted and uncontroverted by the oppositor-appellant and they should serve as proof of the paucity of the claim of the applicant-appellee over the subject property. Upon the other hand, oppositor-appellant, in a lackluster fashion, advanced pro forma theories and arguments in its Opposition which naturally failed to merit any consideration from the court a quo and also from this Court. The indorsement from the Bureau of Forest Development, San Fernando, Pampanga to the effect that the subject area is within the unclassified region of Paombong, Bulacan does not warrant any evidentiary weight since the same had never been formally offered as evidence by the oppositor-appellant. All the other allegations in the Opposition field (sic) by the oppositor-appellant failed to persuade this Court as to the veracity thereof considering that no evidence was ever presented to prove the said allegations. Such being the case, this Court is not inclined to have the positive proofs of her registrable rights over the subject property adduced by the applicant-appellee be defeated by the bare and unsubstantiated allegations of the oppositor-appellant. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO. SO ORDERED.