Republic of the Philippines vs. Martin T. Ng

Tax declarations and realty tax payments, though not conclusive evidence of ownership, are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner and constitute prima facie evidence of possession; when supported by muniments of title and corroborated by testimonial evidence of actual possession, they sufficiently establish the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession in the concept of owner for at least thirty years required for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48 of the Public Land Act and Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree.

Respondent Martin T. Ng traced his claim over the five parcels of land to purchases from vendors who, together with their own predecessors-in-interest, had allegedly possessed the realties for more than thirty years. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the application as the State's guardian of the public domain. The governing statutory backdrop consists of Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, which fixes the period and nature of possession required for confirmation of imperfect title, and Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, which identifies who may apply for original registration of title.

On 7 January 1997, Martin T. Ng filed an application for the original registration of title over Lot Nos. 9663, 9666, 9668, 9690 and 9691, CAD 545-D (New), situated at Cansaga, Consolacion, Cebu, with a total area of 1,841 square meters. He claimed ownership of the five parcels on the strength of his purchase thereof from vendors who, together with their predecessors-in-interest, had possessed the realties for more than thirty years.

During the reception of evidence conducted by the Clerk of Court, Ng furnished documentary proof of his purchase consisting of (a) a Deed of Absolute Sale between him and Eustaquio Tibon, (b) an Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate & Sale between him and Olivia Sicad vda. de Ouano, (c) a Deed of Definite Sale executed by Eduardo and Virginia Capao, (d) a Deed of Absolute Sale between him and Victoria Capadiso, and (e) an Agreement of Partition between him and Victoria Capadiso. He likewise attached numerous vintage tax declarations dating as far back as 1948, issued either in the names of the vendors, the previous transferors, or the original owners of the lots. The regularity and due execution of these contracts, tax declarations, and realty payments were never assailed by petitioner. To further prove ownership, Ng submitted a Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Certification showing that the subject lots were within the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, another DENR Certification stating that the lots were not covered by any other subsisting public land application, and the original tracing cloth plan covering the properties. These pieces of evidence, too, were never assailed by petitioner.

On testimonial evidence, Ng narrated that the lots had been purchased from the vendees and predecessors-in-interest who had been in possession of the lots for more than thirty years. He presented Josefa N. Fat, then seventy-seven years old, who lived near the subject lots. Fat recounted that she met Ng in 1993, when he brought workers assigned to plant trees and to fence the property, and that since then she had seen him on the subject lots several times. She testified that she knew the original owners and vendees of the lots because they were her neighbors and close friends; that the properties were either inherited or transferred by the past owners to the vendors, who in turn sold them to Ng; and that no other person laid claim over the lots. She concluded her testimony by asserting with certainty that the ownership and possession of respondent and his predecessors-in-interest were public, peaceful, open, continuous, and in the concept of an owner. On cross-examination by the Office of the Solicitor General, the witness was not asked specific questions directed at the fact of possession itself.

After the presentation of evidence, the Municipal Trial Court confirmed respondent's title to the subject lots and ordered the registration of the title in his name. The Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings of the MTC, appreciating Fat's testimony that she knew the previous owners as her neighbors and close acquaintances and finding that testimony corroborated by the tax declarations and realty tax payments, which altogether sufficiently established the possession of the realties by respondent's predecessors-in-interest. Both courts found that respondent had amply established that he and his predecessors-in-interest owned and possessed the subject lots openly, continuously, exclusively, and notoriously as required by the registration laws, and that the documentary evidence he presented had not been disputed by petitioner.

• Non-Compliance with Registration Requirements: Petitioner averred, in its lone assignment of error, that the trial court erred in granting respondent's application because he had failed to comply with the requirements for the original registration of title.
• Failure to Substantiate Possession and Occupation: Petitioner contended that respondent had failed to substantiate his alleged possession and occupation of the subject lots.
• Weight of the Witness's Testimony: Petitioner attacked the testimony of Josefa N. Fat as full of motherhood statements, which could not be given weight by the courts.
• Probative Value of Tax Declarations: Petitioner asserted that the tax declarations attached to the application merely provided an indicia of possession and not conclusive proof of ownership, and that the evidence of possession was therefore insufficient.

• Sufficiency of Evidence of Possession: Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the trial court's appreciation of respondent's claim of ownership as one established by virtue of an open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the subject lots.
• Probative Value of Tax Declarations and Realty Payments: Whether tax declarations and realty tax payments constitute sufficient proof of possession in the concept of owner for purposes of judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
• Weight of the Testimonial Evidence: Whether the testimony of respondent's witness, allegedly consisting of motherhood statements, was competent to establish the fact of actual possession by respondent's predecessors-in-interest.

• Sufficiency of Evidence of Possession: No. The evidence on record, consisting of muniments of title, tax declarations and realty payments since 1948, the original tracing cloth plan, DENR certifications, and corroborated testimonial evidence, sufficiently established the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession required by Section 48 of the Public Land Act and Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree.
• Probative Value of Tax Declarations and Realty Payments: Yes. Tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership, but they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner and constitute prima facie evidence of possession, especially where accompanied by deeds of conveyance and actual possession.
• Weight of the Testimonial Evidence: Yes. Although counsel failed to propound specific questions on the fact of possession, the witness's testimony that the predecessors-in-interest were her longtime neighbors and close friends who lived near the subject lots warranted the inference that they materially occupied and continuously possessed the adjoining property.

• Sufficiency of Evidence of Possession: In a judicial confirmation of title under original registration proceedings, applicants may obtain registration upon a showing that they or their predecessors-in-interest have been in (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of (2) agricultural lands of the public domain, (3) under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, (4) for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application, except when prevented by war or force majeure. The burden of proof rests on the applicant, who must show by clear, positive, and convincing evidence that the alleged possession and occupation were of the nature and duration required by law. What was questioned in this case was the sufficiency of the evidence that the possession of respondent's predecessors-in-interest possessed the required character. Reviewing the records, the Court found that respondent presented notarized Deeds of Sale, Agreements of Partition, and an Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate and Sale to show the acquisition of the lands from his predecessors-in-interest, together with tax declarations and realty payments showing that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been paying real estate taxes from 1948 until the inception of the case in 1997 — a span of more than thirty years. He also submitted the original tracing cloth plan, in which the advance survey plan showed that the subject lots had previously been under the names of the vendors, the previous transferors, and the original owners. None of this documentary evidence was disputed by petitioner. The Court therefore concluded that the Office of the Solicitor General inaccurately portrayed respondent as merely making general submissions in proving his claims, and that the courts a quo correctly found the required possession to have been established.

• Probative Value of Tax Declarations and Realty Payments: While tax declarations and realty tax payments on property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in the right frame of mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in one's actual or at least constructive possession. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes is an announcement of one's claim against the State and all other interested parties, and such documents already constitute prima facie evidence of possession. Where the holders of the land present a deed of conveyance in their favor from its former owner to support their claim of ownership, the declaration of ownership and tax receipts relative to the property may be used to prove their good faith in occupying and possessing it. When considered with actual possession of the property, tax receipts constitute evidence of great value in support of the claim of title of ownership by prescription. Applied to the record, the tax declarations and realty payments spanning 1948 to 1997, coupled with the notarized conveyances and the tracing cloth plan, supplied the evidentiary basis for the finding of possession in the concept of owner.

• Weight of the Testimonial Evidence: Although it was unfortunate that respondent's counsel failed to ask Fat specific questions as to the fact of possession, it was evident that respondent's predecessors-in-interest were the witness's longtime neighbors and close friends who lived near the subject lots. From this relationship and proximity, it could logically be inferred that respondent's predecessors-in-interest materially occupied and continuously possessed the adjoining property. Far from giving a motherhood statement, Fat asserted with certainty that no other person laid claim to the lots, a fact corroborated by the DENR Certification that the lots were not covered by any other subsisting public land application. Respondent thus supplied proof of his exclusive possession of the realties. Possession itself is acquired by the material occupation of the thing, by the exercise of a right, by the fact that the property is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring the right; the acts of transferring the property from the original owners to the vendors and thence to respondent evinced the exercise of ownership rights over the lots. Given the congruence of the factual findings of the Municipal Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, and the absence of any showing that would warrant their reversal, the assailed Decision was affirmed.

• Requisites for Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title — Under Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 and Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, applicants may obtain the registration of title to land upon a showing that they or their predecessors-in-interest have been in (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of (2) agricultural lands of the public domain, (3) under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, (4) for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. The Court applied this four-part test and found each requisite satisfied by respondent's documentary and testimonial evidence.
• Burden of Proof in Land Registration Cases — The burden of proof rests on applicants, who must show by clear, positive, and convincing evidence that their alleged possession and occupation were of the nature and duration required by law. The Court acknowledged this standard but held that respondent discharged it, the evidence he presented having been left undisputed by petitioner.
• Attributes of Possession — Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine; continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood. The Court used these definitions as the measure against which respondent's evidence was assessed.
• Modes of Acquiring Possession — Possession is acquired by the material occupation of the thing, by the exercise of a right, by the fact that the property is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring the right. The Court invoked this enumeration to characterize the successive transfers of the lots as acts evincing the exercise of ownership rights.
• Tax Declarations as Indicia of Possession — Tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership, but they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in the right frame of mind would pay taxes on property not in one's actual or at least constructive possession. The voluntary declaration of property for taxation purposes is an announcement of one's claim against the State and all other interested parties, and such documents constitute prima facie evidence of possession. When coupled with a deed of conveyance in the holder's favor, they may prove good faith in occupying and possessing the property; when considered with actual possession, tax receipts constitute evidence of great value in support of a claim of ownership by prescription. The Court relied on this doctrine to reject petitioner's contention that the tax declarations were insufficient.
• Tacking of Possession — The possession of the applicant may be tacked to that of his predecessors-in-interest for purposes of computing the thirty-year period required by law. The Court of Appeals applied this principle in finding that respondent's possession, tacked to that of his predecessors-in-interest, covered forty-nine years as of the filing of the application in 1997, and the Supreme Court affirmed.
• Congruence of Factual Findings — Where the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are congruent, they are accorded respect and will not be disturbed absent a showing of cogent reason to reverse them. The Court found no reason to reverse the congruent findings of the MTC and the CA.

• "In a judicial confirmation of title under original registration proceedings, applicants may obtain the registration of title to land upon a showing that they or their predecessors-in-interest have been in (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of (2) agricultural lands of the public domain, (3) under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, (4) for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure." — This passage states the controlling four-part test for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48 of the Public Land Act and Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree, and frames the entire analysis of the case.
• "Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood." — Quoted from Director of Lands vs. IAC, this is the canonical formulation of the attributes of possession required by the registration laws and is the definition against which respondent's evidence was measured.
• "As we have ruled in Republic v. Sta. Ana-Burgos, while tax declarations and realty tax payments on property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are nevertheless good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in the right frame of mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in one's actual or at least constructive possession." — This is the ratio decidendi on the evidentiary weight of tax declarations, the precise point on which the Office of the Solicitor General's appeal turned.
• "The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes is an announcement of one's claim against the State and all other interested parties." — This passage defines the juridical significance of a tax declaration and supports the holding that such declarations constitute prima facie evidence of possession in the concept of owner.

• Director of Lands vs. IAC, G.R. No. 68946, 209 Phil. 214, 224 (1992) — Controlling precedent supplying the Court's definition of the attributes of possession: open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious. The Court quoted the formulation at length and applied it to the evidence on record.
• Republic vs. Sta. Ana-Burgos, G.R. No. 163254, 1 June 2007, 523 SCRA 309 — Followed for the rule that tax declarations and realty tax payments, while not conclusive evidence of ownership, are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner.
• The Republic of the Philippines vs. Santua, G.R. No. 155703, 8 September 2008, 564 SCRA 331 — Cited for the proposition that tax declarations and realty payments constitute prima facie evidence of possession.
• Elumbaring vs. Elumbaring, 12 Phil. 384 (1909) — Cited for the rule that where the holders of land present a deed of conveyance in their favor from the former owner to support their claim of ownership, the declaration of ownership and tax receipts relative to the property may be used to prove their good faith in occupying and possessing it.
• Viernes vs. Agpaoa, 41 Phil. 286 (1920) — Cited for the rule that when considered with actual possession of the property, tax receipts constitute evidence of great value in support of a claim of title of ownership by prescription.
• Diaz-Enriquez vs. Republic of the Philippines, 480 Phil. 787 (2004) — Cited for the rule that the burden of proof in land registration cases rests on applicants, who must show by clear, positive, and convincing evidence that their alleged possession and occupation were of the nature and duration required by law.
• Director of Lands vs. CA, G.R. No. 50260, 29 July 1992, 211 SCRA 868 — Cited in support of the evidentiary value of the notarized deeds of sale, agreements of partition, and extra-judicial settlement and sale presented to establish acquisition of the lands from respondent's predecessors-in-interest.

• Section 48, Commonwealth Act No. 141 (1936) — Fixes the period and character of possession required for confirmation of imperfect title: open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application, except when prevented by war or force majeure. The Court applied this provision as the primary substantive standard against which respondent's evidence was measured.
• Section 14, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (1978) — The Property Registration Decree provision identifying who may apply for original registration of title, including those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier. Cited alongside Section 48 of the Public Land Act as the governing registration law.
• Article 531, Civil Code — Enumerates the modes of acquiring possession: by the material occupation of the thing; by the exercise of a right; by the fact that the property is subject to the action of our will; and by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring the right. The Court invoked this article to characterize the successive transfers of the lots as acts evincing the exercise of ownership rights by respondent and his predecessors-in-interest.
• Section 13, Article VIII, Constitution — Requires the certification by the Chief Justice that the conclusions in the Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. The certification appears at the foot of the Decision, signed by the Chief Justice.

• Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice
• Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice
• Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Associate Justice
• Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice