March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 187792 : March 07, 2012]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONRADA AREVALO
G.R. No. 187792 (Republic of the Philippines v. Conrada Arevalo). - The petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the denial of its petition in the Resolution dated November 14, 2011[1] for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals (CA).
The subject of the controversy is an unregistered piece of land, identified as Lot No. 662, constituting about 7,925 square meters more or less located in Atimonan, Quezon, claimed by herein respondent, Conrada Arevalo.
In 2002, the Director of Lands filed a petition for cadastral registration of lands in the Municipality of Atimonan, Quezon. The respondent filed her claim over Lot No. 662 before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Atimonan-Plaridel, Quezon, alleging that she was 85 years old and a housekeeper; that Lot No. 662 was one of several real estate properties left by her deceased mother, Felicidad-Laquesty; that upon a Deed of Partition executed in 1950 among the heirs, Lot No. 662 was allotted to her and she possessed the same since then; that her predecessor-in-interest, Luis Arevalo, had been in possession of the said property for at least 30 years and that the same had no encumbrances; that the lot is partly coconut land and partly rice land intended for agricultural purposes. The respondent presented the following, as evidence of her open, public, peaceful, continuous, adverse possession of the said property in the concept of an owner for more than 50 years, to wit:
(a) Deed of Partition executed on December 27, 1950 under Document No. 143, Page No. 82, Book No. 20, series of 1950 of Ex-Officio Notary Public Alipio Camara Villamiel (Exhibit E);(b) Tax Declaration No. 03-024-0204 (Exhibit F);(c) Realty Taxes with O.R. Nos. 8737947 U and 8737897 U (Exhibits G and G-l); and(d) A certification issued by the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, (RTC), Branch 61, Gumaca, Quezon, certifying that no decision has as yet been rendered over this lot and that the questioned lot was originally claimed by Luis Arevalo (Exhibit H).
Aside from the documentary evidence, the respondent also presented her lone witness, Wilfredo Almeyda, who testified that the land in question was near his house; that the owner of the said lot since 1950 was Conrada Arevalo; that the lot was devoted for coconut and rice land; and that nobody claimed the lot beside herein respondent.[2]
After the reception of evidence, the MCTC rendered a decision dated August 15, 2002 adjudicating the subject property in favor of the respondent, as her exclusive property, free from liens and encumbrances.[3] On appeal, the CA affirmed the MCTC decision.
The petitioner went up to this Court assailing the CA decision which was denied. Thus, the OSG filed the instant motion for reconsideration, maintaining its stance that the CA erred in adjudicating the subject lot to the respondent.
After a careful review, the Court finds no substantial argument to warrant a reversal of our resolution.
In cadastral proceedings, it is the expressed intention of the State that titles to unregistered lands be settled and adjudicated to hasten and accelerate registration of titles. As long as it can be established that the claimant has been in open, continuous, exclusive possession and occupation of the land by himself and his predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier, then the claimant shall not be precluded from seeking judicial confirmation of title.[4]
The respondent court has exhaustively addressed the issue and we are, likewise, convinced that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the respondent's claim over the subject property so as to warrant registration of title in her favor.
The CA found that the respondent's Answer in the cadastral proceeding contained all the ultimate facts that are essential to form the basis of the respondent's claim. The respondent court found no reason to doubt the authenticity and genuineness of the Deed of Partition, which was executed in 1950 and written in the local dialect. It was stated therein that the subject property, declared in the name of the respondent's father, Luis Arevalo under Tax Declaration No. 1625 for the year 1948, was adjudicated in favor of the respondent. While it is true that the tax declarations or tax receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership, the CA found that they were good indicia of possession, in the concept of an owner in the instant case. The respondent court stressed that the Deed of Partition explicitly stated that the decedent "ay nakaiwan ng mga kabuhayang... ". The CA correctly observed that this was another way of saying that the respondent's predecessors have been in possession and enjoying the fruits thereof. The subject property was also described to be partly riceland and have fruit bearing coconut trees, enough proof of their source of livelihood.[5]
Moreover, the cadastral records in the RTC, Gumaca, Quezon showed a Numerical List of Claimants which included Luis Arevalo as claimant of Lot No. 662. This bolsters the claim that the subject land was possessed by the respondent's predecessors-in-interest. The respondent, an 85 year-old woman categorically testified that she was in open, continuous and adverse possession of the subject property and her claim was not contested by any individual or government witness.[6] Thus, the respondent court did not err in giving credence and weight to the respondent's testimony.
Undeniably, the issues raised are factual which are not within the province of this Court to look into. It is axiomatic that factual findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by the Supreme Court and such findings even carry more weight when the CA affirms that of the trial court.[7]
With the evidence presented by the respondent in support of her claim, it can be clearly inferred that her predecessor-in-interest has been in possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier so as to confer title over the subject land.
Finally, while it is true that no Comment on the petition has been filed in this case,[8] the lack of the same does not militate against the respondent's cause.cralaw
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 103.[2] Id. at 66-72.
[3] Id. at 88.
[4] REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS, Pe�a, 1994 Rev. Edition, p. 495.
[5] Rollo, p. 77.
[6] Id. at 82.
[7] See Resolution dated November 20, 2000, G.R. No. 142940, entitled "Sps. Camilo Jauro & Erlinda Pabolar v. Antonio Gallego".
[8] In the Resolution dated 14 November 2011, the Court dispensed with the Comment.