G.R. No. 213207, February 15, 2022
Facts:
Sometime in 1958, Manuel Dee Ham (Manuel) caused the survey of the Subject Property under Plan Psu-169919. The plan was subsequently approved by the Director of Lands, and the Subject Property was declared in Manuel’s name for tax purposes.
Manuel died in 1961. Consequently, the Subject Property was inherited by his surviving wife Esperanza Gerona (Esperanza), and their children, who, in turn, collectively transferred their beneficial ownership over the Subject Property to the Dee Ham family corporation, PRCI. Thereafter, PRCI began paying the real property taxes due in its name.
On November 6, 2009, Esperanza executed an Affidavit to formalize the transfer.
In 2010, Esperanza, as President of PRCI, filed before the RTC an application for original registration of title over the Subject Property, for and on behalf of the latter. There, Esperanza asserted that PRCI is the owner of the Subject Property and all improvements found thereon and that PRCI and its predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the Subject Property for more than fifty (50) years. Esperanza also averred that the Subject Property has neither been encumbered nor has it been adversely possessed or claimed by any other party. After trial, the RTC issued a Decision dated December 1, 2011 (RTC Decision) “confirming and affirming” PRCI’s title over the Subject Property.
The CA held that the evidence presented by PRCI sufficiently established that the Subject Property is alienable and disposable.
Issues:
Whether PRCI has established that the Subject Property forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain in accordance with the requirements set by prevailing law.
Ruling:
Pasig Rizal Co., Inc., by itself and through its predecessors in interest, has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the Subject Property since 1956. PRCI presented evidence to prove that the Subject Property forms part of the alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain. Under the new parameters set by RA 11573, these certifications are not acceptable proof of the required land classification status. Nevertheless, in the interest of substantial justice, bearing in mind the curative nature of RA 11573, and recognizing the long period of possession by PRCI, the Court deems it proper to remand the case to the CA for the reception of evidence on the Subject Property’s land classification status in accordance with Section 7 of RA 11573.
Real LexEcon 