Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 169 views

    LUNINGNING DEL ROSARIO IGTIBEN vs. REPUBLIC PDF

    Uploaded by

    WILLY C. DUMPIT
    1) Petitioners sought registration of land they purchased in 1995 and claimed possession since 1958 through predecessors. 2) The trial court approved the application but the Solicitor General appealed, arguing petitioners did not prove possession since June 12, 1945 as required by the Public Land Act. 3) The Supreme Court ruled petitioners failed to comply with the Public Land Act's requirement of possession since 1945 to confirm an imperfect title, as they only possessed the land since 1958.

    Copyright:

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

    LUNINGNING DEL ROSARIO IGTIBEN vs. REPUBLIC PDF

    Uploaded by

    WILLY C. DUMPIT
    169 views2 pages
    1) Petitioners sought registration of land they purchased in 1995 and claimed possession since 1958 through predecessors. 2) The trial court approved the application but the Solicitor General appealed, arguing petitioners did not prove possession since June 12, 1945 as required by the Public Land Act. 3) The Supreme Court ruled petitioners failed to comply with the Public Land Act's requirement of possession since 1945 to confirm an imperfect title, as they only possessed the land since 1958.

    Original Title

    LUNINGNING DEL ROSARIO IGTIBEN vs. REPUBLIC.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioners sought registration of land they purchased in 1995 and claimed possession since 1958 through predecessors. 2) The trial court approved the application but the Solicitor General appealed, arguing petitioners did not prove possession since June 12, 1945 as required by the Public Land Act. 3) The Supreme Court ruled petitioners failed to comply with the Public Land Act's requirement of possession since 1945 to confirm an imperfect title, as they only possessed the land since 1958.

    Copyright:

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

    LUNINGNING DEL ROSARIO IGTIBEN vs. REPUBLIC PDF

    Uploaded by

    WILLY C. DUMPIT
    1) Petitioners sought registration of land they purchased in 1995 and claimed possession since 1958 through predecessors. 2) The trial court approved the application but the Solicitor General appealed, arguing petitioners did not prove possession since June 12, 1945 as required by the Public Land Act. 3) The Supreme Court ruled petitioners failed to comply with the Public Land Act's requirement of possession since 1945 to confirm an imperfect title, as they only possessed the land since 1958.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Topic: Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Titles

    LUNINGNING P. DEL ROSARIO-IGTIBEN, JOSE REYES IGTIBEN, JOSE DEL


    ROSARIO IGTIBEN, JR. and THERESA TOPACIO MEDINA, petitioners, vs.
    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
    G.R. No. 158449 │ October 22, 2004 CHICO-NAZARIO, J:

    FACTS: [Original Application for Land Title]


    Petitioners Luningning Del Rosario-Igtiben and others sought for the
    registration of the subject land in 1998, initially invoking Section 14(1) of Presidential
    Decree (PD) No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree. They alleged that they
    purchased the subject land and by themselves and through their predecessors-in-
    interest, they had been in actual, continuous, uninterrupted, open, public, and adverse
    possession of it in the concept of owner for more than 30 years.

    Based on the evidences presented by the petitioners, the subject land was first
    declared for tax purposes in 1958 and was cultivated by their predecessors-in-interest
    until it was sold to them in 1995.

    The trial court approved petitioner’s application but the Office of the Solicitor
    General which represented the Republic of the Philippines appealed the said decision
    contending that petitioners failed to prove open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
    possession and occupation of the subject land since June 12, 1945, or earlier, as
    required by Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, otherwise known as the
    Public Land Act, as amended by PD No. 1073. However, petitioners averred that said
    provision has been impliedly repealed by Republic Act No. 6940, thus the required
    period of possession and occupation of the land for confirmation of an imperfect or
    incomplete title has been reduced to thirty (30) years.

    ISSUE:
    WHETHER OR NOT petitioners have complied with the required period of
    possession and occupation for the confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title
    under Public Land Act.

    RULING:
    No, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioners failed to comply with the required
    period of possession and occupation for the confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete
    title under Public Land Act.

    The Court had the occasion in this case to explain that Public Land Act
    presumes that the land applied for still pertains to the State, and that the occupants
    and possessors can only claim an interest in the land by virtue of their imperfect title
    while Property Registration Decree presumes that there already exists a title which the
    court only needs to confirm. Under Public Land Act, the confirmation of imperfect or
    incomplete titles may be done either by administrative legalization or free patents or
    by judicial legalization or judicial confirmation. An applicant for judicial confirmation of
    an imperfect or incomplete title must be able to prove that the land is alienable public
    land and that he is in an open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
    occupation of the same since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public
    Land Act.
    Since petitioners’ application was an original application for land title of an alienable
    agricultural land, the applicable provision is Section 48(b) of Public Land Act for judicial
    confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title – a provision which has already gone
    several amendments. By the amendatory provision of Presidential Decree No. 1073
    of 1997, Section 48(b) of Public Land Act in conformity with Section 14(1) of the
    Property Registration Decree now requires that applicant “..by themselves or through
    their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
    possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona
    fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately
    preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented
    by wars or force majeure.” Conversely, RA 6940 of 1990 which provides for a thirty-
    year prescriptive period of occupation and cultivation of the land amended Section 44
    of the Public Land Act pertaining to application of free patent.

    In the instant case, it was established that petitioners, by themselves and through their
    predecessors-in-interest, started to possess the subject land only in 1958. Thus,
    petitioners’ application for judicial confirmation of their imperfect or incomplete title to
    the subject land cannot be granted since they were not able to comply the required
    period of possession and occupation thereto.

    You might also like