Ong vs Republic of the Philippines (land titles)
Case digest for land titles....
Ong vs. Republic (Case Digest) FACTS: FACTS: July 1, 1999 – 1999 – petitioner petitioner Charles Ong, in behalf of his brothers, filed for an application of Registration of Title over Lot 15911. Ong alleged that his brothers and him are the co-owners of the land, which w hich they purchase from the spouses Tony Bautista and Alicia Villamil. And they and their predecessor-in-interest predecessor-in-interest have have been in open, continuous continuous and peaceful possession of the lot in the concept of owners for more than 30 years. ye ars.
Only respondent Republic of the Philippines, represented by the OSG, opposed the application for registration. Respondent contends that: Neither the applicants nor their predecessor-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the lot since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
The trial court favored Petitioner Ong and declared the land in the name of the applicant. Respondent appealed before the Court of Appeals and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s court’s ruling. ISSUE: ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner, together with his brothers, have registrable ownership over the real property subject matter? RULING: RULING: The Supreme Court held in this case that although there is no question that the land is alienable and disposable. Possession alone is not sufficient to acquire title to alienable lands of the public domain d omain because the law requires possession and occupation . Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529 ("Property Registration Decree"), as amended, provides — SEC. 14. Who may apply? – apply? –The 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 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.
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.
Petitioner admitted that after he and his brothers bought the subject lot from spouses Tony Bautista and Alicia Villamil in 1998, neither he nor his brothers actually occupied the subject lot. No improvements were made thereon and the most that they did was to visit the lot on several occasions. The burden of proof in land registration cases rests on the applicant who must show by clear, positive and convincing evidence that his alleged possession and occupation of the land is of the nature and duration required by law. Unfortunately, petitioner’s evidence do not constitute the "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence necessary in cases of this nature. The Court of Appeals did not err in reversing the Decision of the trial court and in denying his application for registration of title over the subject lot.