Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 265 views

    Petitioner: Republic of The Philippines, Respondent:Hanover Worlwide Trading Corporation Ponente: PERALTA, J

    Uploaded by

    sophiabarnachea
    The Republic filed a petition to oppose Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation's application for registration of a 103,350 square meter lot. The Republic argued that Hanover did not provide sufficient evidence of ownership and that as a private corporation, Hanover was disqualified from owning land in the public domain. The trial court approved Hanover's application, but the Supreme Court ruled that Hanover did not present the "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence needed and failed to prove the lot was declared alienable, so it denied the registration application. The Court also clarified that it is the duty of the land registration court, not the applicant, to set the date of the initial hearing for an application.

    Copyright:

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

    Petitioner: Republic of The Philippines, Respondent:Hanover Worlwide Trading Corporation Ponente: PERALTA, J

    Uploaded by

    sophiabarnachea
    265 views2 pages
    The Republic filed a petition to oppose Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation's application for registration of a 103,350 square meter lot. The Republic argued that Hanover did not provide sufficient evidence of ownership and that as a private corporation, Hanover was disqualified from owning land in the public domain. The trial court approved Hanover's application, but the Supreme Court ruled that Hanover did not present the "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence needed and failed to prove the lot was declared alienable, so it denied the registration application. The Court also clarified that it is the duty of the land registration court, not the applicant, to set the date of the initial hearing for an application.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    32.-republic-v-hanover-worldwide-trading-corp

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Republic filed a petition to oppose Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation's application for registration of a 103,350 square meter lot. The Republic argued that Hanover did not provide sufficient evidence of ownership and that as a private corporation, Hanover was disqualified from owning land in the public domain. The trial court approved Hanover's application, but the Supreme Court ruled that Hanover did not present the "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence needed and failed to prove the lot was declared alienable, so it denied the registration application. The Court also clarified that it is the duty of the land registration court, not the applicant, to set the date of the initial hearing for an application.

    Copyright:

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

    Petitioner: Republic of The Philippines, Respondent:Hanover Worlwide Trading Corporation Ponente: PERALTA, J

    Uploaded by

    sophiabarnachea
    The Republic filed a petition to oppose Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation's application for registration of a 103,350 square meter lot. The Republic argued that Hanover did not provide sufficient evidence of ownership and that as a private corporation, Hanover was disqualified from owning land in the public domain. The trial court approved Hanover's application, but the Supreme Court ruled that Hanover did not present the "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence needed and failed to prove the lot was declared alienable, so it denied the registration application. The Court also clarified that it is the duty of the land registration court, not the applicant, to set the date of the initial hearing for an application.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic V Hanover Worldwide Trading Corp

    [G.R. No. 172102. July 2, 2010.]

    Petitioner: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,


    Respondent:HANOVER WORLWIDE TRADING CORPORATION
    Ponente: PERALTA, J.

    FACTS

    On October 15, 1993, Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation filed an application for Registration of


    Title over Lot No. 4488 situated in Barrio Sacsac, Consolacion, Cebu, with an area of 103,350 sqm. The
    application stated that Hanover is the owner in fee simple of Lot No. 4488, its title thereto having been obtained
    through purchase as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale.
    Attached to the petition are:
    1) a Verification Survey Plan;
    2) a copy of the approved Technical Description of Lot 4488;
    3) a copy of the Deed of Sale in favor of Hanover's President and General Manager;
    4) a copy of a Waiver executed by the President and General Manager of Hanover in favor of the
    latter;
    5) a Geodetic Engineer's Certificate attesting that the property was surveyed;
    6) a Tax Declaration;
    7) a tax clearance;
    8) a Municipal Assessor's Certification stating, among others, the assessed value and market
    value of the property; and
    9) a CENRO Certification on the alienability and disposability of the property. TDESCa
    The Republic opposed the application and contended that neither Hanover nor its predecessors-in-
    interest are in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question since
    June 12, 1945 or prior thereto.
    It furthered that the muniments of title, tax declarations and receipts of tax payments attached to or
    alleged in the application do not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona fide acquisition of the
    lands applied for. It also added that Hanover is a private corporation and is therefore disqualified under
    the Constitution to hold alienable lands of the public domain. It holds that the parcels of land applied for are
    portions of the public domain belonging to the Republic and are not subject to private appropriation.
    The trial court approved Hanover's application for registration of the subject lot stating that the
    documentary and oral evidence it has presented show that Hanover and its predecessors-in-interest had been
    in open, public, continuous, notorious and peaceful possession, in the concept of an owner, of the land applied
    for registration of title, and that it had registrable title thereto in accordance with Section 14 of P.D. 1529.
    CA affirmed the trial court’s decision hence the state filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
    45 of the Rules of Court stating
    Petitioner contends that pursuant to Section 23 of P.D. 1529, the initial hearing of the case must be not
    earlier than forty-five (45) days and not later than ninety (90) days from the date of the Order setting the date and
    hour of the initial hearing. Since the RTC Order was issued on June 13, 1995, the initial hearing should have
    been set not earlier than July 28, 1995 (45 days from June 13, 1995) and not later than September 11, 1995 (90
    days from June 13, 1995). Unfortunately, the initial hearing was scheduled and actually held on September 25,
    1998, some fourteen (14) days later than the prescribed period. 

    ISSUE
    WHETHER OR NOT THE setting of the initial hearing is the duty of the land registration court and
    not the applicant.
    RULING
    YES.
    It was decided in Republic v. San Lorenzo Development Corporation that “The duty and the power
    to set the hearing date lie with the land registration court. After an applicant has filed his application, the law
    requires the issuance of a court order setting the initial hearing date. The notice of initial hearing is a court
    document. The notice of initial hearing is signed by the judge and copy of the notice is mailed by the clerk of
    court to the LRA [Land Registration Authority]. This involves a process to which the party-applicant
    absolutely has no participation.”
    In the case above, there is no dispute that sufficient notice of the registration proceedings via
    publication was duly made. Moreover, petitioner concedes
    (a) that respondent should not be entirely faulted if the initial hearing that was conducted on
    September 25, 1995 was outside the 90-day period set forth under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No.
    1529, and
    (b) that respondent substantially complied with the requirement relating to the registration of the
    subject land.
    Hence, on the issue of jurisdiction, the Court finds that the RTC did not commit any error in giving due
    course to respondent's application for registration.
    However, as to the the question of whether Hanover may file for an application fo registration of title,
    both the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by respondent do not constitute the "well-nigh
    incontrovertible" proof necessary in cases of this nature.Lastly, the Court notes that respondent failed to prove
    that the subject lot had been declared alienable and disposable by the DENR Secretary. 
    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The May 6, 2005 Decision and March 30, 2006 Resolution of
    the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 70077 and the August 7, 1997 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
    Mandaue City, Branch 56 in Land Registration Case No. N-281 are SET ASIDE.
    RespondentHanover Worldwide Trading Corporation's application for registration of Lot No. 4488 of Consolacion
    Cad-545-D (New), under Vs-072219-000396, Barrio Sacsac, Consolacion, Cebu, is DENIED.

    You might also like