Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    G.R. No. 186639 - February 5, 2014 F: Republic v. Emmanuel Cortez

    Uploaded by

    FrancisCarloL.Flameño
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the registration of Emmanuel Cortez's title over a parcel of land. [1] Cortez failed to establish that the land was alienable and disposable, as the survey plan did not prove the land's nature, and no official declaration reclassified it. [2] Cortez also did not sufficiently prove open, continuous, exclusive possession since 1946, as required under Section 14(1) of PD 1529, presenting only oral testimony and documents from 1966. [3] His possession of 57 years was also insufficient for registration under Section 14(2), which requires possession for over 30 years after an official declaration removing the land from public use.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 186639 - February 5, 2014 F: Republic v. Emmanuel Cortez

    Uploaded by

    FrancisCarloL.Flameño
    41 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the registration of Emmanuel Cortez's title over a parcel of land. [1] Cortez failed to establish that the land was alienable and disposable, as the survey plan did not prove the land's nature, and no official declaration reclassified it. [2] Cortez also did not sufficiently prove open, continuous, exclusive possession since 1946, as required under Section 14(1) of PD 1529, presenting only oral testimony and documents from 1966. [3] His possession of 57 years was also insufficient for registration under Section 14(2), which requires possession for over 30 years after an official declaration removing the land from public use.

    Original Description:

    jjjj

    Original Title

    Republic v Cortez_FLAMENO

    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 reversed the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the registration of Emmanuel Cortez's title over a parcel of land. [1] Cortez failed to establish that the land was alienable and disposable, as the survey plan did not prove the land's nature, and no official declaration reclassified it. [2] Cortez also did not sufficiently prove open, continuous, exclusive possession since 1946, as required under Section 14(1) of PD 1529, presenting only oral testimony and documents from 1966. [3] His possession of 57 years was also insufficient for registration under Section 14(2), which requires possession for over 30 years after an official declaration removing the land from public use.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 186639 - February 5, 2014 F: Republic v. Emmanuel Cortez

    Uploaded by

    FrancisCarloL.Flameño
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the registration of Emmanuel Cortez's title over a parcel of land. [1] Cortez failed to establish that the land was alienable and disposable, as the survey plan did not prove the land's nature, and no official declaration reclassified it. [2] Cortez also did not sufficiently prove open, continuous, exclusive possession since 1946, as required under Section 14(1) of PD 1529, presenting only oral testimony and documents from 1966. [3] His possession of 57 years was also insufficient for registration under Section 14(2), which requires possession for over 30 years after an official declaration removing the land from public use.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic v.

    Emmanuel Cortez
    G.R. No. 186639 | February 5, 2014

    FACTS

    Emmanuel Cortez filed with RTC an application for judicial confirmation of title over a
    parcel of land located at Barangay Aguho, Pateros, Manila.
    Cortez submitted the following documents: tax declarations for various years from 1966 until
    2005, survey plan of the property, with the annotation that the property is classified as
    alienable and disposable, technical description of the property, with a certification issued by
    a geodetic engineer, tax clearance certificate, extrajudicial settlement of estate conveying the
    property to Cortez and Escritura de particion extrajudicial allocationg subject property to
    Felicima Cotas (Cortez Mother)
    There was no oppostion, so RTC issued an Order of General Default and Cortez was allowed
    to present his evidence ex-parte.
    Cortez claimed that the parcel of land was inherited by his mother from her parents in 1946.
    After his parents death, he and his siblings executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate
    over the properties of their deceased parents. He alleged that subject property has been In
    possession of the family since time immemorial, the subject land is not part of the reservation
    of DENR and is classified as alienable and disposable by BFD. He also adduced in evidence
    the testimony of Ernesto Santos, that he has known the family for over 60 years and that the
    family has been in possession of the property since he came to know them.
    RTC granted Cortez application for registration.
    The Republic of the Philippines represented by the Office of the Solicitor General appealed
    to the CA, stating that the RTC erred in granting the application for registration despite
    failure to comply with the requirements. They stated that no document was presented to
    establish his predecessors-in-interests possession of the property during the period required
    by law. They also claimed that Cortez assertion that he and his predecessors-in-interest had
    been in open, adverse, and continuous possession of the property for more that 30 years does
    not constitute well-neigh incontrovertible evidence in land registration cases. It is merely a
    claim which should not have been given weight. Petitioner also alleged that there was no
    certification that the subject property had been declared alienable or disposable so it cannot
    confer ownership or possessory rights.
    CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC. Under Section 14(2) of PD 1529 having
    open, continuous, and exclusive possession of the property for more than 30 years will
    suffice for its conversion to private property.
    o

    ISSUES AND HOLDING

    1. Whether CA erred in affirming the RTC decision-- Yes.

    The Court used Section 14(1) and (2) of PD 1529 to support their decision. Under
    Section 14(1) applicants for registration of title must sufficiently establish first that
    the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain,
    the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest must be in open, continuous, exclusive,

    KIDDO C2020 | 1
    and notorious possession and occupation and that it must be under a bona fide claim
    of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
    They did not satisfy the first requirement since the survey plan prepared by the
    Geodetic Engineer and certified by Land Management Bureau of DENR is not
    incontrovertible evidence to overcome the presumption that the subject property
    remains part of the inalienable domain. The applicant must establish the existence of
    a postive act of the government. (PD, EO or legislative act or statute) They must also
    secure a certification from the government that the lands applied for are alienable and
    disposable. In the present case, the certification refers only to the technical
    correctness of the survey plotted in the plan and not the nature and character of the
    property surveyed.
    The Court also finds that Cortez likewise failed to establish the second and third
    requirements since he only presented oral and documentary evidence of his and his
    mothers ownership and possession of the property since 1946. It is a mere claim and
    not a factual proof of possession. Furthermore, Cortez failed to explain why the
    earliest tax declaration presented was only in 1966.
    At the time he filed his application for registration in 2003, Cortez and his
    predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the subject property for only 57
    years that would not entitle him for registration under Section 14(2) of PD 1529.
    The Court emphasized that there must be an official declaration by the State that the
    public dominion property is no longer intended for public use, public service, or for
    the development before it can be acquired by prescription. The period of acquisitive
    prescription would only begin to run from the time that the State officially declares
    the public dominion property is no longer intended for use.
    The Court finds no evidence of any official declaration from the state attesting to
    the patrimonial character of the subject property.

    WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS GRANTED

    KIDDO C2020 | 2

    You might also like