Professional Documents
Culture Documents
If No Person Appears and Answers Within The Time Allowed. RTC
If No Person Appears and Answers Within The Time Allowed. RTC
Applicant: Martinez
LRA informed RTC that only 2 lots were referred to in the Notice
published since the other lot (LOT 370) was omitted due to the lack
of an approved survey plan.
RTC Surigao del Sur set the case for initial hearing and ordered the
publication of the notice.
Republic opposed the application on the grounds that:
a) Martinezs possession was not in accordance with Sec48(b)
of CA141;
b) His muniments of title were insufficient to prove bona-fide
acquisition and possession of the property;
c) The lots formed part of the public domain.
RTC issued an ORDER OF GENERAL DEFAULT because no party
appeared to oppose the application during the hearing, and
subsequently, decreed the registration of the lots in the name of
Martinez. RTC concluded that Martinez and his predecessors have
been in the open, continuous, public possession of the lots for over
100 years.
notices in the case, nor to appear in the suit in any way. He cannot
adduce evidence; nor can he be heard at the final hearing."
1948: In Lim Toco v. Go Fay, the Court ruled that the defendant in
default had no right to appeal the judgment rendered by the trial
court, except where a motion to set aside the order of default had
been filed.
1964: Sec 2 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court: the right to appeal was
available even if no petition for relief to set aside the order of default
had been filed. (The intent of 1964 Rules was to allow the defaulted
defendant to file an appeal from the trial courts decision.)
1997: Rules of Civil Procedure were amended. The old provision
expressly guaranteeing the right of a defendant declared in default to
appeal the adverse decision was not replicated in the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure. BUT even under the new rules, a defaulted
defendant retains the right to appeal based on SC decisions after the
promulgation of the 1997 Rules (See LINA DOCTRINE).
ISSUE: WON MARTINEZ FAILED TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCE
NEEDED TO SECURE THE REGISTRATION OF THE SUBJECT
LOTS IN HIS NAME
HELD: YES! Take note that the case against Martinez was
established not by the OSGs evidence, but by petitioners own
insufficient evidence.
The burden of proof in land registration cases is incumbent on the
applicant who must show that he is the real and absolute owner in
fee simple of the land applied for. Unless the applicant succeeds in
showing by clear and convincing evidence that the property involved
was acquired by him or his ancestors by any of the means provided
for the proper acquisition of public lands, the rule is settled that the