Petitions granted, judgment and resolution affirmed

with modification.

Note.—Mutual restitution is required in cases involving

rescission under Article 1191. (Unlad Resources
Development Corporation vs. Dragon, 560 SCRA 63 [2008])
——o0o——
*
G.R. No. 175578. August 11, 2010.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
ZENAIDA GUINTO-ALDANA, in her own behalf as
Attorney-in-fact of MA. AURORA GUINTO-COMISO, MA.
LUISA GUINTO-DIONISIO, ALFREDO GUINTO, JR.,
PACITA R. GUINTO, ERNESTO R. GUINTO,
NATIVIDAD R. GUINTO and ALBERTO R. GUINTO,
respondents.

Land Registration; It is imperative in an application for

original registration that the applicant submit to the court, aside
from the original or duplicate copies of the muniments of title, a
copy of a duly approved survey plan of the land sought to be
registered; In not so many cases, it was held that the non-
submission, for any reason, of the original tracing cloth plan is
fatal to the registration application, since the same is mandatory
in original registration of title.—The provision denotes that it is
imperative in an application for original registration that the
applicant submit to the court, aside from the original or duplicate
copies of the muniments of title, a copy of a duly approved survey
plan of the land sought to be registered. The survey plan is
indispensable as it provides a reference on the exact identity of
the property. This begs the question in the instant case: Does the
blueprint copy of the survey plan suffice for compliance with the
requirement? In not so many cases, it was held that the non-
submission, for any reason, of the original tracing cloth plan is
fatal

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
 211

VOL. 628, AUGUST 11, 2010 211

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

to the registration application, since the same is mandatory

in original registration of title.
Same; While the best evidence to identify a piece of land for
registration purposes is the original tracing cloth plan issued by
the Bureau of Lands (now the Lands Management Services of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources [DENR]),
blueprint copies and other evidence could also provide sufficient
identification.—Sound is the doctrinal precept laid down in
Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 150
(1988), and in the later cases of Spouses Recto v. Republic of the
Philippines, 440 SCRA 79 (2004) and Republic of the Philippines
v. Hubilla, 451 SCRA 181 (2005), that while the best evidence to
identify a piece of land for registration purposes is the original
tracing cloth plan issued by the Bureau of Lands (now the Lands
Management Services of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources [DENR]), blueprint copies and other evidence
could also provide sufficient identification.
Same; In an original registration of title under Section 14(1)
Presidential Decree No. 1529, the applicant for registration must
be able to establish by evidence that he and his predecessor-in-
interest have exercised acts of dominion over the lot under a bona
fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.—In an
original registration of title under Section 14(1) P.D. No. 1529, the
applicant for registration must be able to establish by evidence
that he and his predecessor-in-interest have exercised acts of
dominion over the lot under a bona fide claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945 or earlier. He must prove that for at least 30 years,
he and his predecessor have been in open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation of the land.
Same; Land registration proceedings are governed by the rule
that while tax declarations and realty tax payment are not
conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are a good
indication of possession in the concept of owner.—Land
registration proceedings are governed by the rule that while tax
declarations and realty tax payment are not conclusive evidence
of ownership, nevertheless, they are a good indication of
possession in the concept of owner. These documents constitute at
least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property,
for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property
that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. The
voluntary declaration of a piece of property

212

212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

for taxation purposes manifests not only one’s sincere and

honest desire to obtain title to the property. It also announces his
adverse claim against the state and all other parties who may be
in conflict with his interest. More importantly, it signifies an
unfeigned intention to contribute to government revenues—an act
that strengthens one’s bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner.
Roberto A. San Jose for respondents.

PERALTA, J.:
In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of
the Solicitor General, assails the March 30, 2006 Decision1
and the November 20, 2006 Resolution,2 both of the Court
of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 80500. The assailed decision
reversed and set aside the July 10, 2003 judgment3 of the
Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 199 in LRC
Case No. 02-0036, one for original registration of title,
whereas the assailed Resolution denied reconsideration.
The facts follow.

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, with Associate

Justices Arturo D. Brion (now a member of this Court) and Mariflor
Punzalan-Castillo, concurring; Rollo, pp. 40-49.
2 Rollo, pp. 50-51.
3 The decision was signed by Judge Joselito Vibandor; Records, pp.
556-561.
 213

VOL. 628, AUGUST 11, 2010 213

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

On April 3, 2002, respondents Zenaida Guinto-Aldana4

(Zenaida), Ma. Aurora Guinto-Comiso, Ma. Luisa Guinto-
Dionisio, Alfredo Guinto, Jr., Pacita R. Guinto, Ernesto R.
Guinto, Natividad R. Guinto and Alberto R. Guinto, filed
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City,
Branch 199 an Application for Registration of Title5 over
two pieces of land in Talango, Pamplona Uno, Las Piñas
City. These lands, identified as Lot No. 4 and Lot No. 5 in
Conversion Consolidation Subdivision Plan Ccs-007601-
000040-D,6 measure 1,509 square meters and 4,640 square
meters, respectively.7 Respondents professed themselves to
be co-owners of these lots, having acquired them by
succession from their predecessors Sergio Guinto (Sergio)
and Lucia Rivera-Guinto (Lucia)—Zenaida’s parents—who,
in turn, had acquired the property under a 1969 document
denominated as “Kasulatan sa Pag-hahati ng Lupa na
Labas sa Hukuman na may Pagpaparaya at Bilihan.”
Under this document, Sergio and Lucia Guinto acquired for
a consideration the respective shares on the property of
Pastor Guinto, Dionisio Guinto, Potenciana Guinto and
Marcelina Bernardo who, together with Luisa, had derived
the same from Romulado Guinto.8 Respondents also alleged
that until the time of the application, they and their
predecessors-in-interest have been in actual, open,
peaceful, adverse, exclusive and continuous possession of
these lots in the concept of owner and that they had
consistently declared the property in their name for
purposes of real estate taxation.9

_______________

4 Zenaida Guinto-Aldana was duly constituted as attorney-in-fact of

and by herein co-respondents under a Special Power of Attorney dated
January 30, 2002, with specific power to apply for registration of title; id.,
at pp. 47-48.
5 Records, pp. 1-4.
6 Id., at p. 473.
7 Id., at pp. 474-475.
8 Id., at pp. 477-478.
 9 Id., at pp. 3-4.

214

214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

In support of their application, respondents submitted to

the court the blueprint of Plan Ccs-007601-000040-D,10 as
well as copies of the technical descriptions of each lot,11 a
certification from the geodetic engineer12 and the pertinent
tax declarations,13 together with the receipts of payment
therefor.14 Expressly, they averred that the property’s
original tracing cloth plan had previously been submitted
to the RTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 255 (Las Piñas RTC)
in connection with the proceedings in LRC Case No. LP-
128—a previous registration case involving the subject
property which, however, had been dismissed without
prejudice.15
The trial court found the application to be sufficient in
form and substance; hence, it gave due course thereto and
ordered compliance with the publication and notification
requirements of the law.16
Opposing the application, petitioner, through the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City, advanced that the
lots sought to be registered were inalienable lands of the
public domain; that neither respondents nor their
predecessors-in-interest had been in prior possession
thereof; and that the muniment of title and the tax
declaration submitted to the court did not constitute
competent and sufficient evidence of bona fide acquisition
or of prior possession in the concept of owner.17
At the hearing, Zenaida identified her herein co-
respondents to be her siblings, nephews and nieces. She
likewise identified the adjoining lot owners named in the
applica-

_______________

10 Id., at p. 10.
11 Id., at pp. 11-12.
12 Id., at p. 13.
13 Id., at pp. 479-485.
14 Id., at pp. 487-497.
 15 Id., at p. 4.
16 Orders dated April 10, 2002 and June 3, 2002; id., at pp. 15-16, 58-
59.
17 Records, pp. 135-138.

215

VOL. 628, AUGUST 11, 2010 215

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

tion and the supporting documents attached to the

application as well. She testified that the subject lots had
been surveyed at the instance of her family sometime
between 1994 and 1995, and that said survey was
documented in Plan Ccs-007601-000040-D and in the
geodetic engineer’s technical description of the lots. She
implied that they did obtain the original tracing cloth plan
of the property, but it was forwarded to the Land
Registration Authority (LRA) by the Las Piñas RTC in
connection with the proceedings in LRC Case No. LP-128.
Notwithstanding this admission, and without objection
from the oppositor, the blueprint of Plan Ccs-007601-
000040-D and the technical description of the property
were provisionally marked in evidence.18
Furthermore, Zenaida—61 years old at the time of her
testimony—declared that she has known that the subject
lots were owned by her family since she was 5 years old
and from her earliest recollection, she narrated that her
grandparents had lived in the subject lots until the death of
her grandmother in 1961. She implied that aside from her
predecessors there were other persons, caretakers
supposedly, who had tilled the land and who had lived until
sometime between 1980 and 1990. She remembered her
grandmother having constructed a house on the property,
but the same had already been destroyed. Also, sometime
in 1970, her family built an adobe fence around the
perimeter of the lots and later, in the 1990s, they
reinforced it with hollow blocks and concrete after an
inundation caused by the flood.19 She claimed that she and
her father, Sergio, had been religious in the payment of
real estate taxes as shown by the tax declarations and tax
receipts which she submitted to the court and which,
following identification, were forthwith marked in
evidence.20
_______________

18 TSN, February 5, 2003, p. 4.

19 Id., at pp. 16-25, 35.
20 Id., at pp. 12-17, 27-33.

216

216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

Zenaida’s claim of prior, open, exclusive and continuous

possession of the land was corroborated by Josefina Luna
(Josefina), one of the adjoining lot owners. Josefina, then
73 years old, strongly declared that the subject lots were
owned by Zenaida’s parents, Sergio Guinto and Lucia
Rivera, since she reached the age of understanding, and
that she had not come to know of any instance where a
third party had placed a claim on the property. When
asked whether there was anyone residing in the property
and whether there were improvements made thereon, she
said there was no one residing therein and that there was
nothing standing thereon except for a nipa hut.21
At the close of Josefina’s testimony, respondents
formally offered their exhibits without the oppositor
placing any objection thereto.22 After weighing the
evidence, the trial court, on July 10, 2003, rendered its
Decision denying the application for registration. It found
that respondents were unable to establish with certainty
the identity of the lots applied for registration, because of
failure to submit to the court the original tracing cloth plan
as mandated by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529. It
likewise noted that the fact of adverse, continuous, open,
public and peaceful possession in the concept of owner has
not been proved by the evidence as Zenaida’s and Josefina’s
respective testimonies did not establish the nature of the
possession of respondents’ predecessors.23 The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, for failure of the applicants to comply with the

requirements of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Application for
Original Registration of Title is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.”24

_______________
 21 TSN, March 17, 2003, pp. 6-7, 12-13.
22 Records, p. 498.
23 Rollo, pp. 84-89.
24 Id., at p. 89.

217

VOL. 628, AUGUST 11, 2010 217

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

Aggrieved, respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals

which, on March 30, 2006, issued the assailed Decision
reversing the trial court as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is

hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the instant
appeal is hereby GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.”25

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.26

Hence, it filed the instant petition which attributes error to
the Court of Appeals in reversing the trial court’s July 10,
2003 decision.
Petitioner principally posits that under Section 17 of
P.D. No. 1529, the submission in court of the original
tracing cloth plan of the property sought to be registered is
a mandatory requirement in registration proceedings in
order to establish the exact identity of the property. While
respondents admitted that the original tracing cloth plan of
Lot Nos. 4 and 5 in this case was in the custody of the LRA
as a consequence of their first attempt to have the property
registered, petitioner, invoking Del Rosario v. Republic of
the Philippines,27 believes that respondents, on that score
alone, are not relieved of their procedural obligation to
adduce in evidence the original copy of the plan, because
they could have easily retrieved it from the LRA and
presented it in court.28
Furthermore, petitioner suggests that the blueprint of
the subdivision plan submitted by respondents cannot
approximate substantial compliance with the requirement
of Section 17 of P.D. No. 1529. Again, relying on the
aforementioned Del Rosario case, petitioner observes that
the blueprint in this case, allegedly illegible and
unreadable, does not even bear
_______________

25 Id., at pp. 50-51.

26 CA Rollo, pp. 141-142.
27 432 Phil. 824; 383 SCRA 262 (2002).
28 Rollo, pp. 19-21.

218

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

the certification of the Lands Management Bureau.29

Lastly, petitioner attacks respondents’ claim of prior
possession. It notes that there is no clear and convincing
evidence that respondents and their predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, adverse, public and
exclusive possession of Lot Nos. 4 and 5 for 30 years.30
Commenting on the petition, respondents observe that
petitioner’s arguments are mere reiterative theses on the
issues that have already been addressed by the Court of
Appeals in the assailed Decision and Resolution, and that
there are no new matters raised which have not yet been
previously passed upon. Accordingly, they prayed that the
petition be denied.31
We find the petition to be unmeritorious.
Section 17 of P.D. No. 1529, otherwise known as The
Property Registration Decree of 1978, materially provides:

“Section 17. What and where to file.—The application for

land registration shall be filed with the Court of First Instance of
the province or city where the land is situated. The applicant
shall file, together with the application, all original muniments of
titles or copies thereof and a survey plan of the land approved by
the Bureau of Lands.
The clerk of court shall not accept any application unless it is
shown that the applicant has furnished the Director of Lands
with a copy of the application and all annexes.”

The provision denotes that it is imperative in an

application for original registration that the applicant
submits to the court, aside from the original or duplicate
copies of the muniments of title, a copy of a duly approved
survey plan of the land sought to be registered. The survey
plan is indispensable as it provides a reference on the exact
identity of the property.

_______________

29 Id., at pp. 24-25.

30 Id., at pp. 28-30.
31 Id., at pp. 111-113.

219

VOL. 628, AUGUST 11, 2010 219

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

This begs the question in the instant case: Does the

blueprint copy of the survey plan suffice for compliance
with the requirement? In not so many cases,32 it was held
that the non-submission, for any reason, of the original
tracing cloth plan is fatal to the registration application,
since the same is mandatory in original registration of title.
For instance, in the Del Rosario case relied on by
petitioner, the Court ruled that the submission of the
original copy of the duly approved tracing cloth plan is a
mandatory condition for land registration as it supplies the
means by which to determine the exact metes and bounds
of the property. The applicant in that case was unable to
submit the original tracing cloth plan of the land he was
claiming because apparently, as in the present case, it was
previously transmitted by the clerk of court to the LRA. Yet
the Court, deeming it the applicant’s obligation to retrieve
the plan himself and present it in evidence, denied the
application, to wit:

“The submission in evidence of the original tracing cloth plan,

duly approved by the Bureau of Lands, in cases for application of
original registration of land is a mandatory requirement. The
reason for this rule is to establish the true identity of the land to
ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion
thereof already covered by a previous land registration, and to
forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a subsequent
registration of any adjoining land. The failure to comply with this
requirement is fatal to petitioner’s application for registration.
Petitioner contends, however, that he had submitted the
original tracing cloth plan to the branch clerk of court, but the
latter submitted the same to the LRA. This claim has no
merit. Petitioner

_______________

32 Del Rosario v. Republic of the Philippines, supra note 27; Director of Lands v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73246 March 2, 1993, 219 SCRA 339;
Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 65663, October 16,
1992, 214 SCRA 604; Director of Lands v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-27594, November 28,
1975, 68 SCRA 177.

220

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

is duty bound to retrieve the tracing cloth plan from the LRA and
to present it in evidence in the trial court.” x x x33

Yet if the reason for requiring an applicant to adduce in

evidence the original tracing cloth plan is merely to provide
a convenient and necessary means to afford certainty as to
the exact identity of the property applied for registration
and to ensure that the same does not overlap with the
boundaries of the adjoining lots, there stands to be no
reason why a registration application must be denied for
failure to present the original tracing cloth plan, especially
where it is accompanied by pieces of evidence—such as a
duly executed blueprint of the survey plan and a duly
executed technical description of the property—which may
likewise substantially and with as much certainty prove
the limits and extent of the property sought to be
registered.
Thus, sound is the doctrinal precept laid down in
Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,34 and in the
later cases of Spouses Recto v. Republic of the Philippines35
and Republic of the Philippines v. Hubilla,36 that while the
best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration
purposes is the original tracing cloth plan issued by the
Bureau of Lands (now the Lands Management Services of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
[DENR]), blueprint copies and other evidence could also
provide sufficient identification. Pertinently, the Court in
Hubilla, citing Recto, pronounced:
 “While the petitioner correctly asserts that the submission in
evidence of the original tracing cloth plan, duly approved by the
Bureau of Lands, is a mandatory requirement, this Court has
recognized instances of substantial compliance with this rule. In
previous cases, this Court ruled that blueprint copies of the
original tracing cloth plan from the

_______________

33 Del Rosario v. Republic of the Philippines, supra note 27, at p. 834; p. 269-
270.
34 G.R. No. L-62680, November 9, 1988, 167 SCRA 150, 154, citing Republic of
the Philippines v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 229 Phil. 20; 144 SCRA 705 (1986)
and Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, 158 SCRA 568 (1980).
35 483 Phil. 81, 91; 440 SCRA 79, 87 (2004).
36 491 Phil. 371; 451 SCRA 181 (2005).

221

VOL. 628, AUGUST 11, 2010 221

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

Bureau of Lands and other evidence could also provide

sufficient identification to identify a piece of land for registration
purposes.” x x x37

In the case at bar, we find that the submission of the

blueprint of Plan Ccs-007601-000040-D, together with the
technical description of the property, operates as
substantial compliance with the legal requirement of
ascertaining the identity of Lot Nos. 4 and 5 applied for
registration. The blueprint, which is shown to have been
duly executed by Geodetic Engineer Rolando Roxas
(Roxas), attached to the application and subsequently
identified, marked and offered in evidence, shows that it
proceeded officially from the Lands Management Services
and in fact, bears the approval of Surveys Division Chief,
Ernesto Erive. It also shows on its face that the survey of
the property was endorsed by the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office of the DENR.38 This,
compounded by the accompanying technical description of
Lot Nos. 4 and 5 duly executed and verified also by
Roxas,39 should substantially supply as it did the means by
which the identity of Lot Nos. 4 and 5 may be ascertained.
 Verily, no error can be attributed to the Court of Appeals
when it ruled that respondents were able to approximate
compliance with Section 17 of P.D. No. 1529. Also telling is
the observation made by the Court of Appeals that there
was no objection raised by the oppositor or by the LRA to
the admission of the blueprint of Plan Ccs-007601-
000040-D despite the fact that they were well-informed of
the present proceedings, to wit:

_______________

37 Id., at p. 373; pp. 184-185.

38 See Exhibit “J” records, p. 473.
39 See Exhibits “K” and “L”, id., at pp. 474-475.

222

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

“In the instant case, the plaintiffs-appellants do not deny that

only the blueprint copy of the plan of the subject lands (Exh. “J”)
and not the original tracing cloth plan thereof was submitted to
the court a quo since they had previously submitted the original
tracing cloth plan to the Land Registration Authority. However,
despite the failure of the plaintiffs-appellants to present the
original tracing cloth plan, neither the Land Registration
Authority nor the oppositor-appellee question[ed] this deficiency.
Likewise, when the blueprint copy of the plan (Exh. “J”) was
offered in evidence, the oppositor-apellee did not raise any
objection thereto. Such silence on the part of the Land
Registration [Authority] and the oppositor-appellee can be
deemed as an implied admission that the original tracing cloth
plan and the blueprint copy thereof (Exh. “J”) are one and the
same, free from all defects and clearly identify the lands sought to
be registered. In this regard x x x, the blueprint copy of the plan
(Exh. “J”), together with its technical descriptions (Exhs. “K” and
“L”), is deemed tantamount to substantial compliance with the
requirements of law.”40

We now proceed to the issue of possession. Petitioner

theorizes that not only were respondents unable to identify
the lots applied for registration; it also claims that they
have no credible evidence tending to establish that for at
least 30 years they and their predecessors-in-interest have
occupied and possessed the property openly, continuously,
exclusively and notoriously under a bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.41 We do not
agree.
In an original registration of title under Section 14(1)42
P.D. No. 1529, the applicant for registration must be able
to estab-

_______________

40 Rollo, p. 47.
41 Id., at pp. 28-29.
42 Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529 states:
Who may apply.—The following persons may file in the proper Court of
First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether
personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessor-in-interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious

223

VOL. 628, AUGUST 11, 2010 223

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

lish by evidence that he and his predecessor-in-interest

have exercised acts of dominion over the lot under a bona
fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.43 He
must prove that for at least 30 years, he and his
predecessor have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the land. Republic v.
Alconaba44 well explains possession and occupation of this
character, thus:

“The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these

words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear intention of
the law is not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession
is broader than occupation because it includes constructive
possession.When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it
seeks to delimit the all-encompassing effect of constructive
possession. Taken together with the words open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation
serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify,
his possession must not be a mere fiction. Actual
possession of a land consists in the manifestation of acts of
dominion over it of such a nature as a party would
naturally exercise over his own property.”45

Proceeding from this fundamental principle, we find

that indeed respondents have been in possession and
occupation of Lot Nos. 4 and 5 under a bona fide claim of
ownership for the duration required by law. This
conclusion is primarily factual.
From the records, it is clear that respondents’ possession
through their predecessor-in-interest dates back to as early
as 1937. In that year, the subject property had already
been declared for taxation by Zenaida’s father, Sergio,
jointly with a certain Toribia Miranda (Toribia).46 Yet, it
also can be safely
possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands
of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership
since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

_______________

43 See Republic of the Philippines v. Cayetano L. Serrano, et al., G.R.

No. 183063, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 537.
44 471 Phil. 607; 427 SCRA 611 (2004).
45 Id., at p. 620; pp. 619-620 (Emphasis supplied).
46 Exhibit “O”, records, p. 479.

224

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

inferred that Sergio and Toribia had declared the land for
taxation even earlier because the 1937 tax declaration
shows that it offsets a previous tax number.47 The property
was again declared in 1979,48 198549 and 199450 by Sergio,
Toribia and by Romualdo.
Certainly, respondents could have produced more proof
of this kind had it not been for the fact that, as certified by
the Office of the Rizal Provincial Assessor, the relevant
portions of the tax records on file with it had been burned
when the assessor’s office was razed by fire in 1997.51 Of
equal relevance is the fact that with these tax assessments,
there came next tax payments. Respondents’ receipts for
tax expenditures on Lot Nos. 4 and 5 between 1977 and
2001 are likewise fleshed out in the records and in these
documents, Sergio, Toribia and Romualdo are the named
owners of the property with Zenaida being identified as the
one who delivered the payment in the 1994 receipts.52
The foregoing evidentiary matters and muniments
clearly show that Zenaida’s testimony in this respect is no
less believable. And the unbroken chain of positive acts
exercised by respondents’ predecessors, as demonstrated by
these pieces of evidence, yields no other conclusion than
that as early as 1937, they had already demonstrated an
unmistakable claim to the property. Not only do they show
that they had excluded all others in their claim but also,
that such claim is in all good faith.
Land registration proceedings are governed by the rule
that while tax declarations and realty tax payment are not

_______________

47 Exhibit “O-1”, id., at p. 479 (the back page of the 1937 Tax
Declaration).
48 Exhibits “O-2” and “O-3”, id., at pp. 480-481.
49 Exhibits “O-4” and “O-5”, id., at pp. 482-483.
50 Exhibits “O-6” and “O-7”, id., at pp. 484-485.
51 Exhibit “P”, id., at p. 486.
52 Exhibits “Q” to “Q-11”, id., at pp. 487-497.

225

VOL. 628, AUGUST 11, 2010 225

Republic vs. Guinto-Aldana

conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are a

good indication of possession in the concept of owner. These
documents constitute at least proof that the holder has a
claim of title over the property, for no one in his right mind
would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his
actual or at least constructive possession. The voluntary
declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes
manifests not only one’s sincere and honest desire to obtain
title to the property. It also announces his adverse claim
against the state and all other parties who may be in
conflict with his interest. More importantly, it signifies an
unfeigned intention to contribute to government
revenues—an act that strengthens one’s bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership.53
 Indeed, that respondents herein have been in possession
of the land in the concept of owner—open, continuous,
peaceful and without interference and opposition from the
government or from any private individual—itself makes
their right thereto unquestionably settled and, hence,
deserving of protection under the law.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The March 30,
2006 Decision and the November 20, 2006 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 80500, are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,** Abad and

Mendoza, JJ., concur.

_______________

53 See Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., 426 Phil. 61; 375 SCRA 390
(2002); Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, 367 Phil. 597; 308 SCRA 317
(1999); Republic v. Court of Appeals, 325 Phil. 674; 258 SCRA 712 (1996);
Heirs of Placido Miranda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109312, March 29,
1996, 255 SCRA 368; Rivera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107903, May 22,
1995, 244 SCRA 218; Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court,
G.R. No. 70825, March 11, 1991, 195 SCRA 38.
** Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per raffle dated August 9, 2010.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.