G.R. No. 165141. September 11, 2009.

* PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
PEREGRINA MISTICA, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Punzalan & Punongbayan Law Office for petitioner.
Land Registration; Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title; Requisites.—Being the applicant The Solicitor General for respondent.
for confirmation of imperfect title, petitioner bears the burden of proving that: 1) the land forms part
of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and 2) she has been in open, NACHURA, J.:
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals (CA) April 2, 2004 Decision1 in
fide claim of ownership from June 12, 1945 or earlier. These the petitioner must prove by no less CA-G.R. CV No. 75058 and August 18, 2004 Resolution2 denying petitioner Peregrina Mistica’s
than clear, positive and convincing evidence. motion for reconsideration.
Same; Same; Tax Declarations; While a tax declaration by itself is not adequate to prove On July 23, 1998, petitioner filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Meycauayan,
ownership, it may serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession—the voluntary declaration of Bulacan, an Application for Registration of Title3 over a parcel of land known as Lot 7766-D located
a piece of real property for taxation purposes not only manifests one’s sincere and honest desire in Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan.4
to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the state and all other In her application, docketed as Land Registration Case No. N-98-09, petitioner alleged that
interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government.—It is true she is the owner in fee simple of the land sought to be registered. She claimed that she and her
that petitioner presented tax declarations of the subject lot, as well as tax receipts evidencing predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the subject lot since time immemorial. She
payment thereof. The Court notes, however, that the tax declaration was effective only in 1998, further averred that she did not know of any lien, mortgage or encumbrance affecting said lot or
and that the tax receipts were dated 1997 and 1998. She failed to adduce in evidence any tax that any person has any claim or interest therein, legal or equitable, remainder, reversion, or
declaration over the property under the name of her parents and that the realty taxes for the expectancy.5
property had been paid prior to 1998. At best, she offered a copy of a tax declaration which began Attached to the application were the following documents: 1) the technical description of the
in 1985 in the name of her co-heirs. While a tax declaration by itself is not adequate to prove subject lot;62) Certification in Lieu of Lost Surveyor’s Certificate; 7 3) tax declaration of Real
ownership, it may serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession. The voluntary declaration of a Property No. 06075, covering the subject lot effective 1998; 8 4) official receipts of realty tax
piece of real property for taxation purposes not only manifests one’s sincere and honest desire to payments;9 and 5) blueprint/machine copies of Subdivision Plan Csd-03-010587-D.10
obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the state and all other Petitioner, thus, prayed for the registration and confirmation of her title over the subject lot. 11
interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act Respondent Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, through the
strengthens one’s bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership. Office of the Solicitor General, filed an opposition12 to the application on the grounds that:
Same; Same; Official Language; Pleadings and Practice; Where a document was written a) neither the applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive,
in Spanish and the party offering it did not bother to have the contents thereof translated to English and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question since June 12, 1945 or prior
or to any other language that the court could understand, the Court could not determine if, indeed, thereto; b) the muniments of title did not appear to be genuine and did not constitute competent
the document was a Deed of Sale, and if the subject matter thereof was the property sought to be and sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the land applied for, or of petitioner’s open,
registered.—The presentation of a document dated May 16, 1921 which, according to petitioner, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation thereof in the concept of an
was a Deed of Sale of the subject property where her father was the vendee, did not work to her owner since June 12, 1945; c) the claim of ownership in fee simple of the subject lot on the basis
advantage. In the first place, the document was written in Spanish and petitioner did not bother to of a Spanish title or grant could no longer be availed of by petitioner who failed to file an appropriate
have the contents thereof translated to English or to any other language that the court could application for registration within a period of six (6) months from January 16, 1976 as required by
understand. We cannot, therefore, determine if, indeed, the document was a Deed of Sale, and if Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 892; and d) the subject lot applied for was a portion of the public
the subject matter thereof was the property sought to be registered. domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines not subject to private appropriation.13
Same; Same; Evidence; To be sure, general statements that are mere conclusions of law During trial, petitioner testified that the previous owner and possessor of the subject lot was
and not factual proof of possession are unavailing and cannot suffice.—Petitioner only stated that her father. She added that her father acquired the property by virtue of a contract of sale but she
her parents were the owners and possessors of the subject lot since she was still very young. She could not remember the vendor’s name.14 In support thereof, she presented a photocopy of a
added that, considering that she was 73 years old when she testified (in 1999), her parents could document15 dated May 16, 1921, written in Spanish, which allegedly was the Deed of Sale of the
have owned and possessed the property for more than 50 years. Still, her testimony failed to meet subject lot, with his father as the vendee. No translation of the contents of the document, however,
the standard required by law. Petitioner failed to state the facts and circumstances evidencing the was offered.16 She further said that after the death of her father, the heirs executed an
alleged ownership of the land applied for. To be sure, general statements that are mere extrajudicial settlement of his estate. Eventually, she acquired sole ownership over the subject
conclusions of law and not factual proof of possession are unavailing and cannot suffice. property.17
Same; Same; Statutory Construction; Possession; Possession alone is not sufficient to Meanwhile, on July 20, 1999, there being no private oppositor to petitioner’s application, the
acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain because the law requires possession and trial court issued an order of general default against the whole world except the government. 18
occupation—since these words are separated by the conjunction “and,” the clear intention of the On March 2, 2001, the MTC, upon a finding that the subject property was alienable and
law is not to make one synonymous with the other; Possession is broader than occupation disposable, and that petitioner sufficiently established her right over the lot in question, granted
because it includes constructive possession—when the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to petitioner’s application for registration, thus:
delimit the all-encompassing effect of constructive possession.—We would like to stress that “WHEREFORE, confirming the order of General Default issued by this Court on July 20, 1999,
possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain because anent the instant application, this Court hereby renders judgment APPROVING the registration of
the law requires possession and occupation. Since these words are separated by the Lot No. 7766-D under Plan CSD-03-010587-D, being a portion of Lot 7766 Cad. 337 Meycauayan
conjunction “and,” the clear intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Cadastre, located [in] Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan, covered by Tax Declaration No. 06075,
Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When, in favor of applicant herein Peregrina Mistica.
therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-encompassing effect of After this decision shall become final, let the corresponding decree issue.
constructive possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous, exclusive, and Furnish copy of this decision, the Land Registration Authority, Quezon City; the Office of the
notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his Solicitor General, Makati City; the Land Management Bureau, Manila; and the applicant herein.
possession must not be a mere fiction. Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of SO ORDERED.”19
acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property.
 With the denial of its motion for reconsideration,20respondent filed a Notice of Appeal21 stating To prove that she has been in possession of the subject lot, petitioner presented documentary
that it was appealing to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The appeal was given due course by the evidence such as the technical description of the subject lot, Certification in Lieu of Lost Surveyor’s
MTC on July 20, 2001.22 Certificate, tax declaration of real property, official receipts of realty tax payments,
Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the case should have been blueprint/machine copies of Subdivision Plan Csd-03-010587-D, joint affidavits of her co-heirs,
elevated to the CA. She argued that since the MTC heard and decided the case in the exercise of and Deed of Partition dated July 30, 1980. Moreover, to prove that her predecessors-in-interest
its delegated jurisdiction, the appeal should not have been taken to the RTC. had also been in possession thereof, petitioner presented a document written in Spanish which
Acting on petitioner’s motion, the RTC held that it indeed had no jurisdiction over the appeal. she claimed to be a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 16, 1921. Lastly, she testified that she
However, it refused to dismiss the case. It instead forwarded the case to the CA considering that acquired the subject lot from her parents who had been the owners and possessors thereof since
the appeal had already been perfected when the MTC gave due course to petitioner’s notice of she was still very young.
appeal.23 As aptly held by the appellate court, these pieces of evidence, taken together, do not suffice
In the assailed decision,24 the CA set aside the MTC decision and, consequently, dismissed to prove that petitioner and her predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
petitioner’s application for registration. Contrary to the conclusions of the trial court, the appellate and notorious possession and occupation of the subject lot since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The
court found that the most important requirement for granting petitioner’s application for technical description, Certification in Lieu of Lost Surveyor’s Certificate, and blueprint copies of
registration—that the applicant has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession the subdivision plan only prove the identity of the lot sought to be registered. The joint affidavits of
and occupation of the subject lot since June 12, 1945—had not been adequately her co-heirs, as well as the Deed of Partition, merely show that petitioner acquired the property
established.25Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on August 18, 2004. 26 through succession.
Aggrieved, petitioner comes before the Court raising the sole issue of: It is true that petitioner presented tax declarations of the subject lot, as well as tax receipts
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THAT SHE HAS BEEN [IN] evidencing payment thereof. The Court notes, however, that the tax declaration was effective only
OPEN, CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE AND NOTORIOUS POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION OF in 1998, and that the tax receipts were dated 1997 and 1998. She failed to adduce in evidence
AN ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN UNDER BONA FIDE any tax declaration over the property under the name of her parents and that the realty taxes for
CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP SINCE JUNE 12, 1945 OR EARLIER.27 the property had been paid prior to 1998. At best, she offered a copy of a tax declaration which
began in 1985 in the name of her co-heirs. While a tax declaration by itself is not adequate to
We deny the petition. prove ownership, it may serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession. 31 The voluntary
Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 states: declaration of a piece of real property for taxation purposes not only manifests one’s sincere and
“SEC. 14. Who may apply.—The following persons may file in the proper Court of First honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the state
Instance [now Regional Trial Court] an application for registration of title to the land, whether and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government.
personally or through their duly authorized representatives: Such an act strengthens one’s bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.32
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been The presentation of a document dated May 16, 1921 which, according to petitioner, was a
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of Deed of Sale of the subject property where her father was the vendee, did not work to her
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fideclaim of advantage. In the first place, the document was written in Spanish and petitioner did not bother to
ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.” have the contents thereof translated to English or to any other language that the court could
understand. We cannot, therefore, determine if, indeed, the document was a Deed of Sale, and if
Likewise, Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended by Section 4 of P.D. No. the subject matter thereof was the property sought to be registered.
1073, provides: Moreover, in her direct testimony, petitioner only stated that her parents were the owners and
“Section 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the possessors of the subject lot since she was still very young. She added that, considering that she
public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not was 73 years old when she testified (in 1999), her parents could have owned and possessed the
been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] property for more than 50 years. Still, her testimony failed to meet the standard required by law.
of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a Petitioner failed to state the facts and circumstances evidencing the alleged ownership of the land
certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit: applied for. To be sure, general statements that are mere conclusions of law and not factual proof
xxxx of possession are unavailing and cannot suffice.33
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, More importantly, we would like to stress that possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public to alienable lands of the public domain because the law requires possession and occupation.
domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, Since these words are separated by the conjunction “and,” the clear intention of the law is not to
immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it includes
by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the constructive possession. When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit
conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the the all-encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the words open,
provisions of this chapter.” continuous, exclusive, and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an
applicant to qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction. Actual possession of land consists
In accordance with the aforesaid laws, any person, by himself or through his predecessor-in- in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise
interest, who has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation over his own property.34
of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since With the general statements made by petitioner that she and her predecessors-in-interest
June 12, 1945 or earlier, may file in the proper trial court an application for registration of title to have been in possession of the property, and even with the Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly
land, whether personally or through his duly authorized representative. 28 executed in 1921, actual possession of the subject lot was not convincingly established.
Being the applicant for confirmation of imperfect title, petitioner bears the burden of proving In sum, petitioner could not have acquired an imperfect title to the land in question because
that: 1) the land forms part of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain; and 2) she she has not proven possession openly, continuously and adversely in the concept of an owner
has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject since June 12, 1945, the period of possession required by law.35 Accordingly, the CA did not err
land under a bona fide claim of ownership from June 12, 1945 or earlier. 29 These the petitioner in reversing the decision of the trial court and in denying the application for registration of title over
must prove by no less than clear, positive and convincing evidence. 30 the subject lot.
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The April
2, 2004 Decision and August 18, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
75058 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr. and Peralta, JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Note.—A certification of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer in the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources stating that the land subject of an application
is found to be within the alienable and disposable site per a land classification project map is
sufficient evidence to show the real character of the land subject of the application. (Republic vs.
Candy Maker, Inc., 492 SCRA 272 [2006])
——o0o——