G.R. NO. 166865 - ANGELITA F. BUENAVENTURA AND PRECIOSA F. BUENAVENTURA, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the application of registration of title to the subject parcel of land, known as Lot 5001-B Cad 299, Parañaque Cadastre, and more particularly described in approved Survey Plan Csd 007604-000176 is hereby confirmed and ordered registered in the names of [petitioners] Preciosa, Angelita, [and in the names of their other siblings] Crisostomo, and Alfredo, all surnamed Buenaventura, free from all liens and encumbrances. ONCE THIS DECISION has become final, let another one issue directing the Land Registration Authority to issue the corresponding decree. Let copies of this [D]ecision be furnished to the adjoining owners, Land Registration Authority, Land Management Bureau, Office of the Solicitor General, Sec. of Public Works and Highways, Department of Agrarian Reform, the Director, Forest Management Bureau, Chairman Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, DENR [Department of Environment and Natural Resources], South CENRO, Land Management Sector, City Mayor of Parañaque and Registry of Deeds, Parañaque City. [11] Feeling aggrieved with the aforementioned Order of the trial court, the Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals. According to the Republic, petitioners failed to prove continuous, open, exclusive and notorious possession by their predecessors-in-interest and by themselves; hence, the trial court erred in granting petitioners' application for registration of the subject property. The Republic prayed for the reversal of the Order of the trial court and for the dismissal of the application for registration filed by petitioners. On 23 August 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision in favor of the Republic, thus, overturning the Order of the court a quo. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as: WHEREFORE , the appeal is GRANTED and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 274, Parañaque City dated October 29, 2001 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the parcel of land subject matter of the application is declared public land. [12] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision on 20 September 2004. In a Resolution dated 25 January 2005 rendered by the appellate court, said Motion for Reconsideration was forthwith denied for lack of merit. Hence, this Petition. Petitioners raise the following issues for the resolution of this Court: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the Decision of the trial court confirming petitioners' title over the subject property for not being allegedly supported by substantial evidence as required by law. Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in declaring the subject property as pubic land and ignoring petitioners' evidence of over 50 year possession in the concept of an owner and completely unmolested by any adverse claim. In the Memorandum [13] of the petitioners, they allege that the appellate court committed grave error when it nullified the trial court's Order dated 29 October 2001, which confirmed their title to the