Republic v Lao, 2003

Facts: Lao filed before the RTC of Tagaytay City application for registration of a parcel of land under
Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree. She allegedly acquired
the land by purchase from the siblings Raymundo Noguera and Ma. Victoria Valenzuela who inherited it
from Generosa Medina. The latter, in turn, inherited the land from her father, Jose Medina, who acquired
the same from Edilberto Perido by transfer. In alternative, she prayed that the land be registered in her name
under Commonwealth Act 141 (Public Land Act) based on her and her predecessor-in-interests’ open,
public, actual, continuous, exclusive, notorious and adverse possession and occupancy under bona fide
claim of ownership for more than thirty (30) years. She presented witnesses and evidence constituting of
deed of sale, survey plan, the technical description of property and tax declarations in her and her
predecessors’ names. The trial court approved the application in 1996.

The petitioner represented by the OSG appealed the decision before the CA which re-affirmed the lower
court decision, hence this petition for review. Petitioner contends that there is no sufficient evidence to
warrant the issuance of the title to the respondent as she fails to comply with the required periods and acts
of possession mandated by law and her failure to prove that the land is alienable and disposable land of the
public domain.

Issues: (a) whether or not respondent was able to prove, by the quantum of evidence mandated by law, that
she met the required period of open, exclusive, continuous and notorious possession, in the concept of an
owner, of the subject parcel of land; and (b) whether or not respondent was able to show that the land
subject of her application was disposable and alienable land of the public domain.

Ruling: The court held that Commonwealth Act 141 requires that before one can register his title over a
parcel of land, (1) the applicant must show that he, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a
bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier; in adverse possession over the land for at least
30 years and (2) the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
Petitioner was right to contend that the respondent did not prove by incontrovertible evidence that she
possessed the property in the manner and time required by law. She did not provide the exact period when
her predecessors-in-interest started occupying the property. No extrajudicial settlement of the property from
its previous owners was shown and she did not show any relationship between the parties where she
obtained her deed of sale. She further did not present any certification from appropriate government agency
to show that the property is re-classified as disposable and alienable land of the public domain. It is
incumbent for an applicant of a land registration to provide these incontrovertible evidences to support her
claim for her application. In the absence of these evidences, her application shall fail.