REPUBLIC Vs CA and Plaza

150.
REPUBLIC vs CA and Plaza

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF DEMOCRITO O. PLAZA, respondents
G.R. No. 146874, July 20, 2006
FACTS:
Subject property was first owned by Santos de la Cruz who declared this under Tax Declaration for the
year 1913; 1917; and 1921
Property was successively bought by Pedro Cristobal, Regino Gervacio, Diego Calugdan and Gil Alhambra.
To evidence their respective acquisition of the property in question, Tax Declaration 1923; 1927, and for
1934
After Gil Alhambra died, his heirs extrajudicially partitioned the property and declared it in their names
under Tax Declaration for the year 1960
5 July 1966, the heirs executed a "Deed of Sale With Mortgage" deeding the subject property to petitioner
appellee
After the sale, Plaza took possession and paid the taxes due for the years 1966 up to 1986, and in 1985
declared it in his name under Tax Declaration. He appointed Mauricio Plaza and Jesus Magcanlas as the
administrator and caretaker, respectively. Due to losses, the property in question was cultivated only for a
while—Five (5) years according to Mauricio Plaza, and from 1966 up to 1978 according to Jesus Magcanlas
14 November 1986, Plaza filed a petition for the registration and confirmation of his title over the property
24 February 1988, the Republic opposed. (1) Plaza and his predecessors-in-interest have not been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question since 12 June 1945
or prior thereto; (2) the muniment of title and tax declarations as well as tax payments relied upon do not
constitute sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the land by petitioner-appellee and of his open,
continuous possession and occupation thereof in the concept of owner since 12 June 1945, or prior thereto,
and (3) the subject property pertains to the public domain and is not subject to private appropriation
Others who opposed the decision:

 Heirs of Santos de la Cruz argue that: (1) their PII, Santos de la Cruz, is the 'primitive owner'; and,
(2) he, his heirs, and upon their tolerance, some other persons have been in OCEN possession of
the land in question since time immemorial until the present
 Kadakilaan Estate contends that: (1) by reason of its Titulo de Propiedad de Terrenos of 1891 Royal
Decree with approved plans registered under the Torrens System and petitioner-appellee or his
predecessors-in-interest have not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the land in question since 12 June 1945 or earlier
Contention of Republic: Land in question had been withdrawn from the alienable portion of the public
domain pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 679 issued on January 7, 1991, almost 6 months prior to
the issuance of the TC’s decision.
3 January 1991 Proclamation No. 679 was issued by the President withdrawing the subject property from
sale or settlement and reserve for slum improvement and sites and services program
31 May 1991 Plaza filed his memorandum. Only the Republic and the Heirs of Santos de la Cruz offered
their evidence.
CA: affirmed the decision confirming Plaza's title over Rel. Plan 1059, which is the relocation plan of Psu-
97886

ISSUE:
Whether or not Plaza has a registrable title over the property sought to be titled
HELD:
Plaza and his PII have acquired and have been in OCEN possession of the subject property for a period of
30 years under a bona fide claim of ownership
Proof:
1. tax declarations of his predecessors-in-interest
2. the deed of sale,
3. tax payment receipts and
4. own tax declarations.
Plaza had introduced some improvements on the subject property from the time he purchased it. His
witnesses testified that he developed the subject property into a ricefield and planted it with rice, but only
for about five years because the return on investment was not enough to sustain the continued operation
of the riceland. Though not in the category of permanent structures, the preparation of the land into a
ricefield and planting it with rice are considered 'improvements'.
Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership,
nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind
would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. They
constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of
a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title
to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, but
also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government. Such an act strengthens one's bona
fide claim of acquisition of ownership
The issuance of the proclamation did not have any effect on the subject property as the proclamation only
withdrew it from sale or settlement and reserved the same for slum improvement and sites and services
program, but subject to actual survey and existing private rights. The proclamation did not prohibit the
registration of title of one who claims, and proves, to be the owner
Registration does not vest title. It is merely evidence of such title
When the conditions set by law are complied with, the possessor of the land, by operation of law, acquires
a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. The
Torrens system was not established as a means for the acquisition of title to private land, as it merely
confirms, but does not confer ownership
Plaza has proven his claim of ownership over the subject property. As provided in the proclamation itself,
his ownership of the subject property must be respected and he cannot be barred from having the land
titled in his name. This does not contravene or negate the intention of the proclamation. Besides, its
implementing Letters of Instruction recognize that there may be lands declared included in the Slum
Improvement Resettlement (SIR) program that are privately owned

REPUBLIC Vs CA and Plaza

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC Vs CA and Plaza

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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 CA and Plaza

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

150.

REPUBLIC vs CA and Plaza

Others who opposed the decision:

Registration does not vest title. It is merely evidence of such title

You might also like