Diaz-Enriquez vs. Republic of the Philippines

A petitioner who has sold the property subject of a land registration application and has been substituted by the buyer is not the real party-in-interest to appeal an adverse ruling.

On April 19, 1975, Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez bought two parcels of land from the Pereña heirs via an extrajudicial partition with absolute sale. On December 11, 1992, she filed an application for registration of a 6,917-square-meter portion (Lot 277, Portion C) before the RTC of Naic, Cavite. While the case was pending, she sold the property to Dr. Rebecco E. Panlilio on September 1, 1994, who then conveyed it to Puerto Azul Land, Inc. (PALI) on October 27, 1994. PALI was subsequently substituted as the party-applicant by order of the trial court on March 24, 1995.

• Acquisition and Application: On April 19, 1975, petitioner purchased two parcels of land from the Pereña heirs. On December 11, 1992, she filed an application for registration of Lot 277 (Portion C) containing 6,917 square meters, along with five other applications for contiguous lots.
• Opposition: The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, opposed the application on grounds that the applicant and predecessors-in-interest lacked open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945; the muniments of title were insufficient; the claim based on a Spanish grant was time-barred; and the land belonged to the public domain.
• Substitution: During the pendency of the case, petitioner sold the subject property to Dr. Rebecco E. Panlilio on September 1, 1994, who then sold it to PALI on October 27, 1994. PALI filed a Motion for Substitution, which the trial court granted on March 24, 1995.
• Evidence Presented: PALI presented Engr. Angel R. Salvacion as its sole witness. He testified that he had been the general overseer of the property since 1993, that PALI employees resided therein, and that previous owners had planted mango and bamboo trees. He admitted that the earliest period taxes were paid, based on available records, was 1961, but the corresponding tax declarations were missing from the records.
• RTC Ruling: The trial court granted the application, ruling that the predecessors-in-interest proved open and continuous possession and title over the land.
• CA Reversal: The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, finding that the parcel of land sought to be registration had a different area and different boundaries from the parcels of land sold by the Pereñas to the petitioner, and that the applicant failed to prove title over the property.

• Identity of the Land: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the parcel of land sought to be registered is different from the land purchased from the Pereñas, insisting that clear and convincing evidence proved the identity of the land.
• Proof of Possession: Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals grievously erred in holding that she failed to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the subject parcel, asserting that numerous documentary and testimonial evidence had been adduced.

• Real Party-in-Interest: Respondent countered that the petitioner is not the real party-in-interest to file the petition, having been substituted by PALI in the trial court as the party-applicant.
• Merits of the Appeal: Respondent argued that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in dismissing the application due to the discrepancy in the identity of the land and the lack of proof of possession.

• Real Party-in-Interest: Whether the petitioner is the real party-in-interest to file the petition for review on certiorari.
• Identity of Land: Whether the parcel of land sought to be registered is the same or part of the land purchased by the petitioner from the Pereña heirs.
• Proof of Possession: Whether the petitioner proved that she and her predecessors-in-interest were in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the subject parcel of land since June 12, 1945.

• Real Party-in-Interest: The petitioner was found not to be the real party-in-interest. Having sold the property to PALI and having been substituted as party-applicant by order of the trial court, she ceased to be a party in the trial court and the CA. PALI, as the party aggrieved by the CA's adverse ruling, is the proper party to file the petition. One who has no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
• Identity of Land: The identity of the land was not established. The technical descriptions of the lot applied for (6,917 square meters with specific boundaries) and the lot covered by the extrajudicial partition with absolute sale (1,096,433 square meters with different boundaries) simply do not correspond. An applicant in a land registration case must sufficiently identify that the lot sought to be registered is the same lot purchased; otherwise, no other person, including the government, can be assured they will not be prejudiced by the adjudication.
• Proof of Possession: Possession since June 12, 1945 was not proven. The lone witness, Engr. Salvacion, only gained personal knowledge of the property in 1993 and had no personal knowledge of the predecessors' possession. The tax declarations dating back to 1961 were missing from the records, and, in any event, tax declarations and receipts are not sufficient proof of possession and do not vest ownership. The burden of proof requires clear, positive, and convincing evidence, which the applicant failed to discharge.

• Real Party-in-Interest — Defined as one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Applied to rule out the original applicant who had sold the property and been substituted by the buyer, as she no longer stood to be benefited or injured by the judgment.
• Burden of Proof in Land Registration — The applicant must prove their claim by clear and convincing evidence, showing that the land sought to be registered is the same land described in the application and that they are the absolute owner in fee simple. The presumption is that lands belong to the State, and evidence of a land grant must be well-nigh incontrovertible.
• Insufficiency of Tax Declarations as Proof of Title — Tax declarations and tax payment receipts are not sufficient proof of possession, much less do they vest ownership on the declarant.

• "One who has no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court for it is jurisprudentially established that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest."
• "It is settled that a person who seeks registration of title to a piece of land must prove the claim by clear and convincing evidence."
• "The presumption is that lands of whatever classification belong to the State and evidence of a land grant must be 'well-nigh incontrovertible.'"

• Director of Forestry v. Villareal, 170 SCRA 598 (1989) — Followed for the rule that tax declarations are not sufficient proof of possession and do not vest ownership.
• Director, Land Management Bureau v. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 757 (2000) — Followed for the rule that the burden of proof in land registration is on the applicant to prove by clear, positive, and convincing evidence the nature and duration of possession.
• Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 427 (1992) — Followed for the presumption that lands belong to the State and evidence of a land grant must be well-nigh incontrovertible.

• Section 14(1), Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Provides who may apply for registration of title, specifically those who by themselves or through predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Applied to determine that the applicant failed to meet the requisite period and character of possession.
• Section 2, Rule 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Defines a real party-in-interest as one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. Applied to dismiss the petition filed by the substituted original applicant.

Austria-Martinez (Acting Chairman), Tinga, and Chico-Nazario.