EVIDENCE REQUIREMENT

Submitted by: Careyssa Mae I. Ipil

 I. INTRODUCTION

Under the concept of jura regalia, the source of any asserted right to
ownership of the land is the State. The Regalian doctrine provides that all lands
not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the State. Therefore, all applicants who want to register their lands must
overcome the presumption that the land that they are going to register forms part
of the public domain, to do so, he must present competent, clear and convincing
evidence of private ownership or of acquisition from the government. Moreover,
the applicant must substantiate his claim by presenting persuasive proof. Even in
the absence of any adverse claim, it is not an assurance that a favorable decree
by the land registration court if he fails to establish proper title for the official
recognition. The applicant for registration of title must prove that the land applied
for has been declassified from the forest or timber zone and is a public agricultural
land, is alienable and disposable, or otherwise capable of registration, the identity
of the land and the possession and occupation of the land for the length of time
and in the manner required by law.

II. JURISPRUDENCE

A. PROOF TO ESTABLISH DECLASSIFICATION OF LAND

Mere possession for a period required by law is not enough. The applicant
has to establish first the disposable and alienable character of the public land,
otherwise, public lands, regardless of their classification, can be subject of
registration of private titles, as long as the applicant shows that he meets the
required years of possession. The applicant must establish the existence of a
positive act of the government, such as a presidential proclamation or an executive
order; administrative action; reports of the Bureau of Lands investigators and a
legislative act or a statute. 1

B. PROOF TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE LAND SOUGHT TO BE

REGISTERED
(1) SURVEY PLAN IN GENERAL
The survey plan of the property which shows its boundaries and total area
clearly identifies and delineates the extent of the land. Even this plan alone is
sufficient to identify the land. As explained by the Supreme Court, “no survey would
at all be possible where the identity of the land is not established. More importantly,
without such identification, no opposition, even its own, to the application for
registration could be interpose. Encroachment on or adverse possession of
property could not be justly claimed. 2
(2) TRACING CLOTH PLAN AND BLUE PRINT COPIES OF THE PLAN
Where the applicant submitted only blue print copy of the survey plan of the
land applied for, it was held that “the submission of the original tracing cloth plan
is a statutory requirement of mandatory character” and the failure to do so is fatal
to the application. In this case, there was no finding that the original trading cloth

1 Republic v. Ceniza, G.R. No. 127060, November 19, 2002

2 Director of Lands vs Funtilar, supra, page 64; also Republic Cement Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA
734, 742 (1991)
plan was attached to the records of the case. The respondent-applicant only
contended that said tracing cloth plan and supporting documents were submitted
to the Clerk of Court when he submitted the application and that the same were
then elevated to the Land Registration Commission for approval of the survey plan
by the Director of Lands. There was therefore no means by which both the lower
court and the appellate court could have verified the correctness of the blue print
copies of the survey plan. 3

The original tracing cloth plan, together with the duplicate copy of their
application for registration of land title were under the custody of the Land
Registration Commission (LRC) at that time. But such does not relieve the private
respondents of their duty to retrieve the said tracing cloth plan and submit before
the court. 4

(3) TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND APPLIED FOR, DULY

SIGNED BY THE GEODETIC ENGINEER

Thus, it has been held that “what defines a piece of titled property is not the
numerical data indicated as the area of the land, but the boundaries or ‘metes and
bounds’ of the property specified in its technical description as enclosing it and
showing its limits.5

(4) TAX DECLARATION

Such differences are not uncommon as early tax declarations are, more
often than not, based on approximation or estimation rather than on computation.
More so, if the land as in this case was merely inherited from a predecessor and
was still held in common. Differences in boundaries described in required
municipal forms may also occur with changes in boundary owners, changes of
names of certain places, a certain natural boundary being known by more than
one name or by plain error. Neither was it uncommon then to designate the
nearest, most visible natural landmarks such as mountains, creeks, rivers, etc. to
describe the location or situation of the boundaries of properties in the absence of
knowledge of technical methods of measuring or determining boundaries with
accuracy, especially where as in this case, the same were made merely by humble
farm people. Certain discrepancies, if logically explained later, do not make
doubtful, the Identification of the property as made, understood and accepted by
the parties to the case.6
(5) BOUNDARIES AND AREA
Considering the well-entrenched rules that in the identification of land well
defined boundaries will prevail over area, and, in case of conflict, the former control
the latter. 7
In order that natural boundaries of land may be accepted for the purpose of
varying the extent of the land included in a deed of conveyance the evidence as to

3
Director of Lands vs. IAC, 214 SCRA 604, 608 (1992)
4
Director of Lands vs. Heirs of Isabel Tesalona, 236 SCRA 336, 342 (1994)
5 Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 366, 383 (1999)
6 Director of Lands vs Funtilar, G.R. No. L-68533, May 23, 1986
7 Romero, Sr. vs Court of Appeals, 40SCRA 172, 179 (1971), citing Centenera vs. Director of Lands, 82 Phil.

85; Buiser vs Cabrera, 81 Phil. 669; also Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 156 (1985); Balantakbo
vs. Ca, 249 SCRA 323 (1995)
such natural boundaries must be clear and convincing. In fact, the Court clarified
that while the proposition of law laid down by the court below may be true that
natural boundaries will prevail over area, yet when the land sought to be registered
is almost seven times as much as that described in the deed, the evidence as to
natural boundaries must be very clear and convincing before that rule can be
applied. The great difference as to area, and the boundaries should be properly
explained and the identity of the property should be proven in a satisfactory
manner.8
C. PROOF OF POSSESSION
To prove possession, it is not enough to simply declare one’s possession and
that of the applicant’s predecessors-in-interest to have been adverse, continuous,
open, public, peaceful, and in the concept of owner” for the required number of
years. The applicant should present specific facts to show such nature of
possession because bare allegations, without more, do not amount to
preponderant evidence that would shift the burden to the oppositor.9
Section 14(1) merely requires the property sought to be registered as already
alienable and disposable at the time the application for registration of title is filed.
If the State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed it proper to
release the property for alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the
government is still reserving the right to utilize the property; hence, the need
to preserve its ownership in the State irrespective of the length of adverse
possession even if in good faith. However, if the property has already been
classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in this case, then there is already an
intention on the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the
property.
Proof of specific acts of ownership must be presented to substantiate their
claim. They cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions of
law than factual evidence of possession. The law speaks of possession and
occupation. 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 10

III. ILLUSTRATION
Wendel Catulpos filed an ejectment case against Vi-Ann Batusbtusan.
Allegedly, Catulpos was the owner of the 2 adjoining lots located in 30 de
Deciembre St., Brgy. Gaas, Baybay City, Leyte as evidenced by tax declarations.
Batusbatusan asserted that petitioner Catulpos allowed her to occupy a portion of
the said properties on the condition that they would vacate the same should the
need to use it arises. Despite the requests however, Batusbatusan and her family
refuse to vacate the property. Respondents aver that they had been in peaceful

8 Carabot vs Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 368, 381 (1986); Paterno vs Salud, 9 SCRA 81, 86 (1963)
9 Diaz vs Republic, G.R. No. 141031, August 31, 2004
10
Republic v. Alconaba, G.R. No. 155012, Apr. 14, 2004
and continuous possession of the property in the concept of an owner since time
immemorial and that Catulpos was never the owner of the property. Who between
the petitioners and the respondents have the better right to the disputed property?
ANSWER:
The petitioners have the better right to the property in question. The bare
allegation of respondents that they had been in peaceful and continuous
possession of the lot in question because their predecessor-in-interest had been
in possession thereof in the concept of an owner from time immemorial, cannot
prevail over the tax declarations and other documentary evidence presented by
petitioners. In the absence of any supporting evidence, that of the petitioners
deserves more probative value. A perusal of the records shows that respondents’
occupation of the lot in question was by mere tolerance. From the minutes of the
meeting in the Barangay Lupon, Batusbatusan admitted that Catulpos permitted
them to use the lots on the condition that they would vacate the same should Albina
need it.