G.R. No. 168065 - TRINIDAD DIAZ-ENRIQUEZ REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, JOSE MARCEL E. PANLILIO, SUBSTITUTED BY MONTESOL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, COURT OF APPEALS, GERONIMO SACLOLO, JOSEFINO SACLOLO AND RODRIGO SACLOLO.

Ruling

Wherefore, finding the evidence of applicants sufficient, their titles to the parcels of land applied for are hereby confirmed. The Land Registration Authority is hereby Ordered to issue the corresponding decrees of registration and certificates of title in the names of the applicants subject to the intervenor's rights upon finality of judgment. [11] In its Order, dated 30 January 1996, the RTC modified its earlier decision by ordering the issuance of the decree of registration to Enriquez. [12] The CA Ruling In its assailed decision, dated 26 May 2004, the CA declared that the subject lands are all within the Calumpang Point Naval Resevation, as testified to by Eleuterio R. Paz, Chief of the Survey Division of the Bureau of Lands-Region 4; thus, the said lands could not be privately titled. It held that even if Proclamation No. 307 qualifies the reservation as being subject to private rights, the Saclolos have not established by adequate proof their open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession over the subject lands. The appellate court observed that the informacion possessoria , upon which the Saclolos heavily rely to support their claim, did not at all indicate the area covered by the claim. It added that the tax declarations, technical descriptions, sketch plans, tax receipts, deeds of sale, and surveyor's certificates did not show the nature of the Saclolos' possession. The CA stated that the trial court disregarded the fact that judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48 of the Public Land Act with respect to lands having an area of more than 144 hectares had lapsed pursuant to R.A. No. 6236, approved on 19 June 1971. It further noted that the trial court's jurisdiction to entertain the application was not established since the plans had not been verified by the Bureau of Lands as required by P.D. No. 239 and the alleged verifications in the plans were not authentic. The appellate court concluded that the subject lands could not be registered because they lie within a naval reservation and most of them are forest and foreshore lands. It disposed the case thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the January 30, 1996 order of the trial court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new judgment is entered DISMISSING the applications for registration of title to the subject three (3) lots in LRC Case No. TM-95 for lack of jurisdiction and failure to prove acquisitive prescription. [13] Aggrieved, the Saclolos and Enriquez moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in its Resolution, dated 13 May 2005. Hence, these consolidated petitions. THE ISSUES In G.R. No. 168070, the Saclolos raised the following issues: WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED THE CASE ( CA- G.R. CV NO. 53838 (LRC CASE NO. TM - 95 OF RTC, BRANCH XV, NAIC, CAVITE) IN A WAY NOT PROBABLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS IN MAKING ITS F