Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Issued If No Person Appears and Answers Within The Time Allowed
Issued If No Person Appears and Answers Within The Time Allowed
Issued If No Person Appears and Answers Within The Time Allowed
published since the other lot (LOT 370) was omitted due to the
Applicant: Martinez lack of an approved survey plan.
FACTS: Martinez filed a PETITION FOR REGISTRATION in his name CA reversed RTC and ordered the dismissal of the application on
of three parcels of land located in Cortes, Surigao del Sur with an the ground that the evidence presented by Martinez is insufficient
area of 3700sqm. He alleged that: to support his application.
a) He had acquired the property in 1952 through purchase Hence, this petition by Martinez arguing that Republic has no right
from his uncle whose predecessors-in-interest were to oppose the petition or appeal following the issuance of the order
traceable upto 1870s; of general default.
b) He had remained in continuous possession of the lots;
c) The lots remained unencumbered; ISSUE: WON REPUBLIC, THRU OSG, CAN STILL APPEAL THE
d) They became private property through prescription; RTC’S DECISION AFTER IT HAD BEEN DELARED IN DEFAULT
e) He had to initiate the proceedings since the Director of
Land Management Services failed to do so despite the HELD: YES! A defendant party declared in default retains
completion of the cadastral survey. the right to appeal from the judgment by default on the
ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the material
RTC Surigao del Sur set the case for initial hearing and ordered the allegations of the complaint, or that the decision is contrary
publication of the notice. to law, even without need of the prior filing of a motion to
set aside the order of default.
Republic opposed the application on the grounds that:
SEC 26 of PD1529 provides that the order of default may be
a) Martinez’s possession was not in accordance with Sec48(b) issued if no person appears and answers within the time allowed.
of CA141; RTC issued the order of general default simply because no
b) His muniments of title were insufficient to prove bona-fide oppositor appeared on the date of the hearing, despite the fact
acquisition and possession of the property; that the Republic had already duly filed its opposition.RTC erred in
c) The lots formed part of the public domain. declaring oppositor in default simply because he failed to appear
on the day of the initial hearing. RTC should have accorded the
RTC issued an ORDER OF GENERAL DEFAULT because no party
oppositor ample opportunity to establish its claim. (Dir of Lands vs
appeared to oppose the application during the hearing, and
Santiago). HOWEVER, the SC cannot decide on the validity of the
subsequently, decreed the registration of the lots in the name of
default order since Republic did not challenge such.
Martinez. RTC concluded that Martinez and his predecessors have
been in the open, continuous, public possession of the lots for over THROWBACK:
100 years.
1920: In Velez vs Ramas, the rule is that the defaulting defendant
"loses his standing in court, he not being entitled to the service of
notices in the case, nor to appear in the suit in any way. He cannot persuasive proof to substantiate his claim. He may not rely on
adduce evidence; nor can he be heard at the final hearing." general statements, or mere conclusions of law other than factual
evidence of possession and title.
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 Martinez argued that he & his predecessors have been in
trial court, except where a motion to set aside the order of default possession of the land since time immemorial.
had been filed.
Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts
1964: Sec 2 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court: the right to appeal was of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally
available even if no petition for relief to set aside the order of exercise over his own property. It is not enough for an applicant to
default had been filed. (The intent of 1964 Rules was to allow the declare himself or his predecessors-in-interest the possessors and
defaulted defendant to file an appeal from the trial court’s owners of the land for which registration is sought. He must
decision.) present specific acts of ownership to substantiate the claim and
cannot just offer general statements which are mere conclusions of
1997: Rules of Civil Procedure were amended. The old provision law requiring evidentiary support and substantiation.
expressly guaranteeing the right of a defendant declared in default
to appeal the adverse decision was not replicated in the 1997 Evidence presented by Martinez:
Rules of Civil Procedure. BUT even under the new rules, a
defaulted defendant retains the right to appeal based on SC a) Deed of Sale - not translated from the vernacular in which
decisions after the promulgation of the 1997 Rules (See LINA it was executed. SC: inadmissible in evidence.
DOCTRINE). b) White print copy of the survey plan, tracing cloth plan-
NOT approved by the Director of Lands. SC: Though the
ISSUE: WON MARTINEZ FAILED TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCE submission of the original tracing cloth plan is a mandatory
NEEDED TO SECURE THE REGISTRATION OF THE SUBJECT statutory requirement which cannot be waived, the rule is
LOTS IN HIS NAME settled that a survey plan must be approved by the
Director of Lands to be admissible in evidence.
HELD: YES! Take note that the case against Martinez was
established not by the OSG’s evidence, but by petitioner’s own PETITION DISMISSED. Lots cannot be registered in the name of
insufficient evidence. Martinez.
ISSUE:
HELD:
Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to
have his feet on every square meter of ground before it can be
said that he is in possession, however, possession is not gained by HELD:
mere nominal CLAIM.
First, the Court ruled that Exhibit L cannot be a valid application
because the identity o the land was not clearly established.
FACTS:
Second, although there is proof that Lasam might have possessed
Lasam files a case in Court for the registration of a parcel of land, a portion of the parcel land, the proof is lacking in certainty as to
containing an area of around 24,000,000 hectares. He presents the portion occupied and the extent thereof. Although the counsel
Exhibit L as proof of his possession over the land. Exhibit L is a invokes the doctrine of constructive possession, the said
certified copy of an application. This application states that application is subject to certain qualifications, and this court was
Lasam’s predecessor in interest, Domingo Narag, has owned the careful to observe that among these qualifications is one
land since time immemorial. However, the property described in particularly relating to the size of the tract in controversy with
Exhibit L is 15,000,000 hectares only and the property sought to reference to the portion of land actually in possession of the
be registered is 24,000,000 hectares. claimant. While, therefore, possession in the eyes of the law does
Furthermore, the document, mentions a fifth parcel of land which not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter
is the same parcel described in another Exhibit K. Apparently, the of ground before it can be said that he is in possession, possession
surveyor of the land delineated the property based on what the is not gained by mere nominal CLAIM. The mere planting of a sign
possessor at that time pointed out to him; he based his study or a symbol of possession cannot justify a Magellan-like claim of
mostly on hearsay. According to the applicant, before his dominion over an immense tract of territory
occupation of the land, only about 2 hectares were cultivated. But
then, they justified this by invoking the doctrine of constructive
possession (That a person in possession of the land does not have
to have his feet on every square meter of ground before it can be
said that he is in possession).
ISSUE: