Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 220 views

    15 Republic vs. San Lorenzo Dev Corp

    Uploaded by

    mei atienza
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals that granted SLDC's application for registration of two parcels of land. The Supreme Court held that SLDC failed to prove that the lands were alienable and disposable by the government as required, as it did not present the original classification by the DENR Secretary declaring the lands' status. Certifications by other DENR offices are not sufficient. As the applicant, the burden was on SLDC to prove all requirements for registration, which it failed to do. Therefore, the Court denied SLDC's application.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    15 Republic vs. San Lorenzo Dev Corp

    Uploaded by

    mei atienza
    220 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals that granted SLDC's application for registration of two parcels of land. The Supreme Court held that SLDC failed to prove that the lands were alienable and disposable by the government as required, as it did not present the original classification by the DENR Secretary declaring the lands' status. Certifications by other DENR offices are not sufficient. As the applicant, the burden was on SLDC to prove all requirements for registration, which it failed to do. Therefore, the Court denied SLDC's application.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals that granted SLDC's application for registration of two parcels of land. The Supreme Court held that SLDC failed to prove that the lands were alienable and disposable by the government as required, as it did not present the original classification by the DENR Secretary declaring the lands' status. Certifications by other DENR offices are not sufficient. As the applicant, the burden was on SLDC to prove all requirements for registration, which it failed to do. Therefore, the Court denied SLDC's application.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    220 views1 page

    15 Republic vs. San Lorenzo Dev Corp

    Uploaded by

    mei atienza
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals that granted SLDC's application for registration of two parcels of land. The Supreme Court held that SLDC failed to prove that the lands were alienable and disposable by the government as required, as it did not present the original classification by the DENR Secretary declaring the lands' status. Certifications by other DENR offices are not sufficient. As the applicant, the burden was on SLDC to prove all requirements for registration, which it failed to do. Therefore, the Court denied SLDC's application.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    15. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner vs.

    SAN LORENZO DEVELOPMENT


    CORPORATION (SLDC), respondent.

    [G.R. No. 220902. February 17, 2020.]

    FACTS: SLDC is a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws and qualified to acquire
    and own lands in the Philippines. On September 25, 1998, it filed an Application for registration of two
    parcels of land situated in Barangay Buluang, Compostela, Cebu, under P.D. No. 1529 or the Property
    Registration Decree.

    In its application, SLDC alleged, among others, that it is the owner of the subject parcels of land,
    having acquired the same by purchase sometime in 1994 and 1995; that it, together with the previous
    owners thereof, has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of
    the said parcels of land in the concept of an owner for over 30 years; and that said parcels of land are
    part of the area generally declared as alienable and disposable. Aside from some witnesses, SLDC also
    presented its documentary evidence to support its claims.

    The RTC granted the application, however, the Republic of the Phils. thru the OSG argued that
    SLDC failed to prove by well-nigh incontrovertible evidence that it has been in open, continuous,
    exclusive, and notorious occupation of the subject parcels of land since June 12, 1945 or earlier to
    establish its registrable title under Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529. The CA affirmed the decision of the
    RTC.

    ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in granting SLDC's application under Section 14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529.

    HELD:
    No. The Court has consistently ruled that the applicant must present a copy of the original
    classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy of the original land
    classification approved by the legal custodian of such official records to establish that the land for
    registration is alienable and disposable. In ruling in this wise, the Court explained that the CENRO or the
    PENRO are not the official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of the DENR Secretary declaring
    public lands as alienable and disposable. As such, the certifications they issue relating to the character of
    the land cannot be considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

    In this case, the required copy of original land classification of the subject lands was not
    presented. Both the RTC and the CA merely relied on the Certifications issued by the CENRO and the
    Regional Technical Director of the Lands Management Services of the DENR in ruling that the alienable
    and disposable nature of the subject lands was established. Clearly, this is not sufficient to prove the
    alienability and disposability of the subject lands.

    Further, contrary to SLDC's contention, the fact that the alienable and disposable nature of the
    subject lands was not contested by the Republic in its appeal before the CA, does not have the effect of
    impliedly admitting, much less proving, that the subject lands are alienable and disposable. The
    alienability and disposability of land are not among the matters that can be established by mere
    admissions or even by mere agreement of the parties. The law and jurisprudence provide stringent
    requirements to prove such fact. This is so because no less than the Constitution, provides for the
    doctrine that all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right
    to ownership of land. As such, the courts are not only empowered, but in fact duty-bound, to ensure
    that such ownership of the State is duly protected by the proper observance of the rules and
    requirements on land registration. Again, the burden of proof in overcoming such presumption is upon
    the person applying for registration.

    As SLDC, in this case, evidently failed to discharge such burden and thus failed to comply with
    the primary requisite of proving the alienability and disposability of the subject lands, this Court finds no
    necessity to belabor on the other requirements for registration under Article 14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529. The
    decision of the CA is reversed and set aside. SLDC’s application is denied.

    You might also like