Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 93 views

    GR 173808 Arbias v. Rep

    Uploaded by

    Marisse Castaño
    1) Fernanda Arbias filed an application for registration of title over a parcel of land that she purchased based on a Deed of Absolute Sale. 2) At the hearing, Arbias presented evidence of her purchase and possession of the property, while the neighboring landowners did not object. However, the public respondent claimed the land was still part of the public domain. 3) The Court of Appeals denied the application, holding that Arbias did not sufficiently prove the land was alienable and disposable, as a surveyor's notation alone did not constitute a valid reclassification of public land to private. Absent clear evidence of the land's status, it must be considered public domain.

    Copyright:

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

    GR 173808 Arbias v. Rep

    Uploaded by

    Marisse Castaño
    93 views3 pages
    1) Fernanda Arbias filed an application for registration of title over a parcel of land that she purchased based on a Deed of Absolute Sale. 2) At the hearing, Arbias presented evidence of her purchase and possession of the property, while the neighboring landowners did not object. However, the public respondent claimed the land was still part of the public domain. 3) The Court of Appeals denied the application, holding that Arbias did not sufficiently prove the land was alienable and disposable, as a surveyor's notation alone did not constitute a valid reclassification of public land to private. Absent clear evidence of the land's status, it must be considered public domain.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Fernanda Arbias filed an application for registration of title over a parcel of land that she purchased based on a Deed of Absolute Sale. 2) At the hearing, Arbias presented evidence of her purchase and possession of the property, while the neighboring landowners did not object. However, the public respondent claimed the land was still part of the public domain. 3) The Court of Appeals denied the application, holding that Arbias did not sufficiently prove the land was alienable and disposable, as a surveyor's notation alone did not constitute a valid reclassification of public land to private. Absent clear evidence of the land's status, it must be considered public domain.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    93 views3 pages

    GR 173808 Arbias v. Rep

    Uploaded by

    Marisse Castaño
    1) Fernanda Arbias filed an application for registration of title over a parcel of land that she purchased based on a Deed of Absolute Sale. 2) At the hearing, Arbias presented evidence of her purchase and possession of the property, while the neighboring landowners did not object. However, the public respondent claimed the land was still part of the public domain. 3) The Court of Appeals denied the application, holding that Arbias did not sufficiently prove the land was alienable and disposable, as a surveyor's notation alone did not constitute a valid reclassification of public land to private. Absent clear evidence of the land's status, it must be considered public domain.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    FERNANDA ARBIAS vs THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    GR No. 173808

    Facts:

    On 12 March 1993, Lourdes T. Jardeleza (Jardeleza) executed a Deed of Absolute Sale selling to
    petitioner, married to Jimmy Arbias (Jimmy), a parcel of unregistered land situated at Poblacion,
    Estancia, Iloilo, and identified as Cadastral Lot No. 287 of the Estancia Cadastre (subject property),
    for the sum of P33,000.00. According to the Deed, the subject property was 5 residential and
    consisted of 600 square meters, more or less.

    Three years thereafter, on 17 June 1996, petitioner filed with the RTC a verified Application for
    Registration of Title over the subject property. On 3 September 1996, the RTC transmitted the
    application with all the attached documents and evidences to the Land Registration Authority
    (LRA) that petitioner had already complied with all the requirements precedent to the
    publication.

    Subsequently, the RTC ordered that its initial hearing on 17 February 1999. On 6 January 1999,
    the respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
    filed its Notice of Appearance and deputized the City Prosecutor of Iloilo City to appear on its
    behalf before the RTC.

    At the hearing on 23 July 1999 before the RTC, petitioner took the witness stand where she
    identified documentary exhibits and testified as to her purchase of the subject property, as well
    as her acts of ownership and possession over the same. The owners of the lots adjoining the
    subject property who attended the hearing were Hector Tiples, who opposed the supposed area
    of the subject property; and Pablo Garin, who declared that he had no objection thereto.

    When its turn to present evidence came, respondent, represented by the City Prosecutor,
    manifested that it had no evidence to contradict petitioner’s application for registration. It
    merely reiterated its objection that the area of the subject property, as stated in the Deed of Sale
    in favor of petitioner and the Tax Declarations covering the property, was only 600 square meters,
    while the area stated in the Cadastral Survey was 717 square meters.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the public respondent court of appeals erred in not holding that the lot in
    question ceases (sic) to be public land in view of petitioner’s and that of her predecessor’
    s-in-interest possession en concepto de dueno for more than thirty (30) years.

    Held:

    Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the State is
    the source of any asserted right to ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such
    patrimony. This same doctrine also states that all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
    within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Hence, the burden of proof in
    overcoming the presumption of State ownership of lands of the public domain is on 6 the person
    applying for registration. The applicant must show that the land subject of the application is
    alienable or disposable.

    Section 14, paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 states the requirements necessary for a
    judicial confirmation of imperfect title to be issued. In accordance with said provision, persons
    who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
    exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the
    public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier, may file in the
    proper trial court an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through
    their duly authorized representatives.

    In the present case, petitioners cite a surveyor-geodetic engineer’s notation indicating that the
    survey was inside alienable and disposable land. Such notation does not constitute a positive
    government act validly changing the classification of the land in question. Verily, a mere surveyor
    has no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain. By relying solely on the said surveyor’s
    assertion, petitioners have not sufficiently proven that the land in question has been declared
    alienable.

    In the absence of incontrovertible evidence to prove that the subject property is already
    classified as alienable and disposable, we must consider the same as still inalienable public
    domain.

    The fact that no third person appeared before the RTC to oppose the petitioner’s application for
    registration is also irrelevant. The burden of proof imposed by law on petitioner does not shift.
    Indeed, a person who seeks the registration of title to a piece of land on the basis of possession
    by himself and his predecessors-in-interest must prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence,
    i.e., he must prove his title and should not rely on the absence or weakness of the evidence of
    the oppositors. Furthermore, the court has the bounden duty, even in the absence of any
    opposition, to require the petitioner to show, by a preponderance of evidence and by positive
    and absolute proof, so far as possible, that he is the owner in fee simple of the lands which he is
    attempting to register.

    The Survey Plan and Technical Description of the subject property submitted by petitioner merely
    plot the location, area and boundaries thereof. Although they help in establishing the identity of
    the property sought to be registered, they are completely ineffectual in proving that 7 petitioner
    and her predecessors-in-interest actually possessed the subject property in the concept of an
    owner for the necessary period.

    You might also like