CASE TITLE:

MARIA CARLOS, represented by TERESITA CARLOS VICTORIA,

Petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 164823

August 31, 2005

GROUP MEMBERS:

1. Alonzo, Donna Silvano

2. Merquita, Maria Fiona Duran
3. Pomarejos, Joy L.

CASE DIGEST

On December 19, 2001, petitioner Maria Carlos, represented by her daughter,

Teresita Carlos Victoria, filed an application for registration and confirmation
of title over a parcel of land which they alleged that they own and aa such they
openly, exclusively and notoriously possess and occupy since July 12, 1945
or earlier under a bona fide claim of ownership; there is no mortgage or
encumbrance affecting said property, nor is it part of any military or naval
reservation; that the property is being used for industrial purposes; and that
there are no tenants or lessees on the property that they possess in the
concept of an owner for more than 50 years.

The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, filed an

opposition to petitioner’s application and during the initial hearing information
surfaced that the heirs of Maria Carlos have not yet instituted a settlement of
her estate but agreed to undertake the titling of the property and promised to
deliver the certificate of title to Ususan Development Corporation which
bought the property from Maria Carlos in 1996 but failed to deliver the title.
Hence, the heirs of Maria Carlos made a commitment to the corporation to
deliver the certificate of title so that they could collect the unpaid balance of
the purchase price.

In October 24, 2002 the trial court granted the application to register under
Maria Carlos which was reversed and set aside by the appellate court which
brings us to the instant case, where the applicant at the time she filed her
application for registration of title was no longer in possession and occupation
of the land in question since on October 16, 1996, the applicant’s mother and
predecessor-in-interest sold the subject land to Ususan Development
Corporation. This was admitted by witness Teresita Carlos Victoria x x x

The Supreme Court held the decision of the Appellate Court, finding evidence
that petitioner conform to the first requirement to prove imperfect title stated
thus: (a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural
lands of the public domain; but failed under the second requirement stated
thus: (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership
either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.

Furthermore Maria Carlos, no longer had possession of the property at the

time of the application for the issuance of a certificate of title. The application
was filed in court on December 19, 2001. Teresita Carlos Victoria, the
daughter of Maria Carlos, admitted during the hearing that her mother had
sold the property to Ususan Development Corporation in 1996. They also
presented as evidence the deed of absolute sale executed by and between
Maria Carlos and Ususan Development Corporation on October 16, 1996.
Hence, it cannot be said that Carlos’ possession since 1996 was under a
bona fide claim of ownership. Under the law, only he who possesses the
property under a bona fide claim of ownership is entitled to confirmation
of title. The Court of Appeals did not err in denying the issuance of a
certificate of title to petitioner.