SAN MIGUEL V. CA- Conclusive Evidence of Possession

Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications

SAN MIGUEL V. CA- Conclusive Evidence of Possession

To convert public into private land by means of open, continuous and exclusive possession, it is necessary to provide strong evidence beyond mere tax declarations and tax receipts. Corroboration of the facts by witnesses will help. (CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE)

FACTS:

On December 23, 1975, petitioner SMC purchased from Silverio Perez a 14,531 sqm lot of land located in Batangas, in consideration for about a hundred grand. (Mr. Perez allegedly held the land for 30 years, converting the said land from public alienable land to private land. It’s on this ground that SMC claims it can validly purchase said land from Perez).

On February 21,1977, SMC claimed ownership in fee simple. It filed before the Regional Trial Court of Batangas an application for its registration under the Land Registration Act.

The Solicitor General opposed the application for registration contending that SMC's claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of a Spanish title or grant could no longer be availed of by the applicant as the six-month period from February 16, 1976 prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 892 had elapsed; that the parcel of land in question is part of the public domain, and that SMC, being a private corporation, is disqualified under Section 11, Article XIV of the Constitution from holding alienable lands of the public domain.

During initial hearing on October 12, 197 7, the Court, upon motion of SMC and there being no opposition to the application except that of the SolGen, issued an order of general default. SMC was allowed to submit evidence to establish jurisdictional facts.

On December 12, 1977, the RTC adjudicated the property in favor of SMC.

The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals. CA reversed the decision of the lower court and declared the parcel of land involved as public domain.

SMC contested that the Court of Appeals' failed to hold that "prescription is a mode of acquiring title or ownership of land and that the title thus acquired is registrable.

ISSUE:

Whether or not SMC validly acquired the land from Perez

HELD: NO.

The land is still public domain. Perez, the Seller, failed to proved that he acquired the land by prescription.

What is key here is whether the evidence presented by the petitioner is sufficient to warrant a ruling that SMC and its predecessor-in-interest had a registrable right over the Lot.
Open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable public land for 30 years transforms public land into private land without the need of judicial or other sanction. Such open, continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of the disputed properties for more than 30 years must, however, be conclusively established. This proof is necessary to avoid the erroneous validation of crazy claims of possession over the property in dispute.

In this case, SMC's claim that its predecessor-in-interest had open, exclusive and undisputed possession of said Lot for more than thirty years is anchored on certain documentary and testimonial evidence. Its documentary evidence consist of tax declaration and tax receipts
Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or right of possession over a piece of land. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership. Tax declarations only become strong evidence of ownership of land acquired by prescription, a mode of acquisition of ownership relied upon by petitioner in this case, when accompanied by proof of actual possession.
None are present. The land is still public land.