Republic VS Dayaoen

Republic of the Philippines v.
Angeline Dayaoen, Agustina Tauel, and

Lawana Batcagan G.R. No. 200773, July 8, 2015
Facts: Angeline Dayaoen, Agustina Taule and Lawana Batcagan filed an Application for
Registration of three parcels of land located in La Trinidad, Benguet. These parcels of
land were originally owned and possessed by the grandfather of Angeline’s husband,
Antonio Pablo, who placed therein an old hut and also planted some fruit and trees and
some other plants such as guavas and avocados. Antonio have been in continuous and
uninterrupted possession of the land since before Second World War and have been
exercising acts of ownership on the land. In 1963, Antonio gave the parcels of land to
Angeline and Dado as a wedding gift, who also continously occupied and possessed
the property ever since. In 1976 and 1977, Angeline sold the other two parcels to
Agustina Tauel and Lawana Batcagan.In 1979, Angeline, Agustina and Lawana filed an
application for registration of the subject properties in RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet,
Branch 63. They presented the following documents to support their application:
(i) The tracing cloth of the approved survey plan of the land which include the
subject lands which were certified by Geronimo Fernandez, in his capacity as
Supervising Geodetic Engineer I and approved by Regional Director Sulpicio A.
Taeza.
(ii) The Tax declaration of Angeline and religious payment of real property taxes
over the parcels involve in the application.
(iii) The Proclamation No. 209 of President Ramon Magsaysay on October 20, 1995
which provides that three lots situated in the Municipality of La Trinidad, Benguet
are open to disposition under the provisions of the Public Land Act. One of them is
Lot A which includes the subject land in the application.
RTC: In its decision dated November 6, 2007, granted the application for registration.
RTC: In its amended decision dated September 11, 2008, still granted the application
for registration of the subject properties. Trial Court held that applicants are entitled to
have their titles confirmed under sec 14(1) of PD 1529, by Sec 48(b) of CA 141 as
amended by RA 1942 or by Sec 48(c) of CA 141 as amended by RA 1942 and PD
1073.
CA: in its decision dated February 23, 2012, affirmed the decision of La Trinidad RTC,
that appellees were able to prove an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the lands applied for since June 12, 1945 or earlier as
required under Section 14(1) of PD No. 1529. This is shown by the cultivation and
possession of the Spouses Dayaon since 1962 is supported by testimonies of co-
appellee Lawana and witness Victor Alejandro, their neighbor in Camp Dangwa. And
also, that the subject properties were no longer a public domain but already private in
character as declared in the survey plan.
Issue:
(i) Whether or not it is required that the subject property is alienable or disposable since
June 12, 1945?
(ii) Whether or not the applicants were able to comply with the requirements of Sec
14(1) of PD 1529?
Decision: The application was dismissed.
(i) Sec 14(1) of PD 1529 only requires that the property be alienable and disposable at
the time the application for registration is filed. It is not necessary that the land already
be alienable and disposable from June 12, 1945 or earlier.
(ii) The court held that the applicants in this case failed to prove the first requirement,
thus the registration was not granted. There are two requirements to be complied for the
registration of property under Section 14(1) of PD 1529. First, that the property is
alienable and disposable. And second is that the applicant or their predecessor-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious (CONE) possession
and occupation of the subject property under a bona fide claim of ownership since June
12, 1945, or earlier.
For the second requirement, CONE, the Court held that the Republic failed to refute the
facts presented by the appellees. The presence of the old hut, trees and fruit bearing
plants, the residential houses on the land and the testimonies of the respondents and
their witnesses were valid showing of their constructive possession. The spouses
received the property as a gift from Antonio, who already is in possession and
occupation of the property since the pre-war time or before the 2 nd World War. Thus, it
was noted that Angeline has been in possession and occupation of the property under a
bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership for more than 30 years or clearly before
June 12, 1945.
For the first requirement, that the land be alienable and disposable. The Court held that
the Applicants failed to show compliance and they failed to overcome the presumption
that the property was a public domain belonging to the State which is not alienable and
disposable. The Court noted that the evidence presented by the applicants were not
sufficient or rather not the proof required because mere notations appearing in a survey
plans are inadequate proof of the characteristic of the land as they only suggest the
inclusion of the subject property to the surveyed area. It was also held that the
certification of Engr. Fernandez and the approval by Regional Director Taeza of the
Survey Plan only certifies the technical correctness of the survey and has nothing to do
with the identification of the nature of the land surveyed. The Proclamation No. 209 was
also not accepted because it is not supported by a certification issued by a CENRO or
PENRO.
The following are the documents that can be presented as a proof :
(positive acts of the Government)
a. Presidential proclamation
b. Executive order
c. An administrative action
d. Investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators
e. Legislative act or statute
In addition to this, the applicant also needs to secure a certification from the
Government that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable. That is, certificate
of land classification status from DENR, which should be issued by the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Officer(CENRO) or the Provincial Environment and
Natural Resources Officer (PENRO).

Republic VS Dayaoen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic VS Dayaoen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic VS Dayaoen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines v.

Angeline Dayaoen, Agustina Tauel, and

Decision: The application was dismissed.

The following are the documents that can be presented as a proof :

(positive acts of the Government)

d. Investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators

e. Legislative act or statute

You might also like