PERTINENT FACTS:

In 1940s, there was a parcel of land owned by private persons as evidenced by

tax declarations, there being no certificate of title in their favor.
In 1960s, a law was passed which became the charter of a certain city.
Pursuant to that law, all foreshore lands and submerged lands shall belong, if not
turned over, to the city.
Despite the declaration, the heirs continued to pay for the certificate of tax
declaration of the said parcel of land.
Both the city and the heirs claimed ownership over the said parcel of land.
ISSUE:
Who has a better right? The heirs of the land by virtue of their tax declaration, or
the city pursuant to its charter?
FIRST VIEW (Our View):
The city has a better right.
i. The charter provides that all foreshore lands and submerged lands shall
belong, if not turned over, to the city. Since the charter says so, it must be the law
pursuant to the principle that a charter is the citys constitution.
Legal Basis:
A. Governing Law (Republic Act No. 7160)

Charters, ordinances, and codes are essential to identifying the powers,

privileges, rules, and regulations of a municipality or county. More specifically,
cities and counties have some type of charter, which defines their terms of
existence. In addition, the charter is the city or countys constitution, and the
starting point for all other regulations.1 . As the citys constitution, the charter
and

creates the city, defines its boundaries, provides its system of government,
defines the powers and duties of its officials. 2

Peter j. Egler, What Gives Cities And Counties The Authority To Create Charters,
Ordinances, And Codes?, Teachable Moments For Students, 1 (2001).
2
http://www.ph.net/htdocs/government/phil/loc-gov/
1

In the case at hand, R.A. 5519 provides that all foreshore lands and submerged
lands shall belong, if not turned over, to the city. Therefore, it shall be accorded
with respect and finality. Where the law is clear, there is only room for application.
B. Jurisprudence
ii. Moreover, the heirs did not apply for an original registration proceeding in to
obtain a title over the said property. The specific evidence of ownership of a
parcel of land is a certificate of title obtained through original registration, not a
tax declaration.
Legal Basis:
A. Governing Law (Presidential Decree No. 1529 otherwise known as
Property Registration Decree)

Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Hence, all
applicants in land registration proceedings have the burden of overcoming the
presumption that the land thus sought to be registered forms part of the public
domain. Unless the applicant succeeds in showing by clear and convincing
evidence that the property involved was acquired by him or his ancestors by any
means for the proper acquisition of public lands, the property must be held to be
part of the public domain.3
An applicant for registration is not necessarily entitled to have the land registered
in his name simply because no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the
registration of the land. He must show, even in the absence of opposition, to the
satisfaction of the court, that he is the absolute owner, in fee simple. 4
Interestingly, Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree laid down the
persons who may file in the proper court an application for registration of title to
land to wit:
(1) Those 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 June 12, 1945, or earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription
under the
provision of existing laws.
3

1Note that Spanish titles are no longer admissible as evidence of ownership pursuant to PD
No. 892 dated Feb. 16, 1976.
4

Laragan v. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-47644, Aug. 21, 1987, 152 SCRA 172.

(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned

river beds by
right of
accession or accretion under the existing
laws.
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner
provided for by
law.

Therefore, any person qualified can then own the land through judicial
confirmation of imperfect title or through prescription.
An applicant for confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title must show open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the property
in question, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since
June 12,
1945.5 Possession, to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive
right, must be
possession under a claim of title or it must be adverse. 6
Upon the finality of the judgment of the court adjudicating the land as private
property, the court shall, within fifteen (15) days from the entry thereof,
issue
an order directing the LRA Administrator to issue the corresponding
decree
of registration and certificate of title. The Administrator shall then
prepare the
decree of registration as well as the original and duplicate of the
corresponding
certificate of title. The original certificate of title, signed by
him, shall be a true
copy of the decree of registration, and shall be sent, together
with the owners
duplicate certificate, to the Register of Deeds of the City or
province where the
land lies. The certificate of the title is the transcript of the
decree of registration
made by the Register of Deeds in the registry.7
iii. Tax declaration is just a proof of possession, not ownership.
Legal Basis:
a. Governing Law
b. Jurisprudence
1.

Republic vs. de la Paz (G.R. No. 171631, November 15, 2010)

Well settled is the rule that tax declarations and receipts are
not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to
possess land when not supported by any other evidence.

Sec. 48(b), CA No. 141; Sec. 14(1), PD No. 1529.

Cuaycong v. Benedicto, GR No. 9989, March 13, 1918, 37 Phil. 781.
7
Philippine National Bank v. Tan Ong Zse, GR No. 27991, Dec. 24, 1927, 51 Phil. 317.
5
6

The fact that the disputed property may have been declared
for taxation purposes in the names of the applicants for
registration or of their predecessors-in-interest does not
necessarily prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a
claim of ownership.
2.

Spouses Nicanor Magno and Caridad Magno vs. Heirs of Pablo

Parulan (G. R. No. 183916, April 25, 2012)
A mere tax declaration cannot defeat a certificate of title.

3.

of

Republic of the Philippines vs. Metro Index Realty and

Development Corporation
It is well-settled that tax declarations are mere bases for
inferring possession. They must be coupled with proof
actual possession for them to constitute "well-nigh
incontrovertible" evidence of a claim of
ownership.

SECOND VIEW (Opponents View):

The heirs have a better right.
i. Laws should not impair vested rights.
Rebuttal:
ii. Law on Prescription
Rebuttal: