Huelgas, Maria Zaida Ariza L.

| January to December 2010

FLOR MARTINEZ V. ERNESTO GARCIA AND EDILBERTO BRUA

G.R. No. 166536 (625 PHIL 377-394) | February 4, 2010 | Adverse Claim | Peralta, J.

FACTS:
Sometime in 1974, Edilberto Brua mortgaged his property located in Mandaluyong City
to Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Said mortgage was annotated on the
title on June 5, 1974. On February 5, 1980, Brua mortgaged the same property to
Edilberto Garcia in consideration of Php150,000 loan as evidenced by a Deed of Real
Estate Mortgage. However, Garcia cannot annotate said deed since the title of the
property was still with GSIS. Consequently, Garcia executed an Affidavit of Adverse
Claim and registered it on June 23, 1980. Thereafter, through the request of Brua and so
the title can be released to him, Garcia paid Brua’s obligation to GSIS. Accordingly, he
caused the transfer of ownership of title under his name. However, several annotations
from the previous title were carried over to the new title, to wit: a notice of levy
inscribed on January 8, 1981; a notice of levy on execution in favor of Flor Martinez
inscribed on July 11, 1988; a certificate of sale in favor of Flor Martinez inscribed on
September 2, 1988; a notice of levy on execution in favor of Pilipinas Bank inscribed on
December 8, 1981 and cancellation of Brua’s mortgage with GSIS inscribed on October
24, 1991.

Accordingly, an action for quieting of title was filed by Garcia and Brua. RTC ruled in
favor of the validity of the execution and sale. CA ruled that a subsequent sale cannot
prevail over an adverse claim duly sworn to and registered prior to the sale.

ISSUE:
Whether or not an adverse claim is but a notice thus cannot be considered superior to
that of a final sale conducted by the sheriff by virtue of a court judgment that has
attained finality

HELD:
NO. An adverse claim serves a warning to third parties dealing with said property that
someone is claiming an interest on the same or a better right than that of the registered
owner thereof. Sec. 12 of Rule 39 provides that a levy does not make the judgment
creditor the owner of the property levied upon. He merely obtains a lien. Such levy on
execution is subject and subordinate to all valid claims and liens existing against the
property at the time the execution lien attached, such as real estate mortgages. In this
case, the adverse claim was already existing when the levy on execution and the
certificate of sale were inscribed to the title. Thus, the adverse claim must effectively
serve as a constructive notice to petitioner that someone is claiming an interest on the
property that could have better right than that of the registered owner. Clearly, the levy
on execution and the certificate of sale must yield to the earlier encumbered adverse
claim.

Huelgas, Maria Zaida Ariza L. | January to December 2010

METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO. V. EDGARDO D. VIRAY

G.R. No. 162218 (627 PHIL 398-408) | February 25, 2010 | Patent | Carpio, J.

FACTS:
From 7 July 1979 to 3 September 1981, Rico Shipping, Inc. represented by its President,
Erlinda Viray-Jarque and Edgardo Viray, in their personal capacity and as a solidary
obligors obtained several loans from Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC) in
the total amount of Php350,000. However, the respondents were only able to pay
Php134,054. The remaining obligations were never paid despite several demands.
Consequently, MBTC filed a Complaint for Sum of Money. The RTC of Manila
rendered a judgement in favor of MBTC.

On 29 December 1982, Viray was granted a Free Patent over three lots situated in
Cagayan De Oro City. However, by virtue of a Writ of Execution issued by RTC
Manila on the sum of money case filed by MBTC, said lots were sold in a public
auction. MBTC emerged as the highest bidder and a Certificate of Sale was issued and
the title over the lots were consolidated under the name of MBTC.

Viray filed an action for annulment of sale against the Sheriff and MBTC on the ground
that the sale is void since it was made during the five-year prohibition period in violation
of Sec. 118 of CA 141 or the Public Land Act.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the auction sale falls within the five-year prohibition period laid down in
Section 118 of CA 141 hence the sale is void

HELD:
YES. The law clearly provides that lands which have been acquired under free patent or
homestead shall not be encumbered or alienated within five years from the date of
issuance of the patent or be liable for the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the
expiration of the period. It is immaterial whether the obligation was contracted before
or after the grant of the free patent or whether the sale is voluntary or involuntary. The
law does not distinguish. The provision that "nor shall they become liable to the
satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of the five-year period" is
mandatory and any sale made in violation of such provision is void and produces no
effect whatsoever. Sec. 118 of CA is predicated on public policy. Clearly, it is not
within the competence of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law seeks to
preserve. 
Huelgas, Maria Zaida Ariza L. | January to December 2010

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. APOLINARIO CATARROJA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 171774, (626 PHIL 389-397) | February 12, 2010 | Reconstitution | Abad, J.

FACTS:
Apolinario Catarroja and his siblings initiated a petition for reconstitution of lost original
certificate of titles covering the properties of their parents at Ternate, Cavite. To support
their petition, the Catarrojas presented the following documents: (1) certification and
report issued by LRA confirming the issuance of a decree covering the subject lots; (2)
microfilm printout of the official gazette respecting their parents’ application for
registration of title; (3) plans and technical description approved by LRA and (4)
affidavit of loss. However, the copy of the decree cannot be secured since the original
copy of the title on file with the Register of Deeds was razed by fire. The RTC granted
the petition. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision and ruled that the evidence of the
Catarrojas failed to establish any of the sources for reconstitution enumerated in Section
2 of RA 26.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the evidence presented are sufficient to grant the petition for
reconstitution of title

HELD:
NO. The sources of reconstitution as provided under Sec 2 of RA 26 are exclusive, to
wit: (a) The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title; (b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's,
or lessee's duplicate of the certificate of title; (c) A certified copy of the certificate of
title, previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof; (d) An
authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be, pursuant to
which the original certificate of title was issued; (e) A document, on file in the Registry
of Deeds, by which the property, the description of which is given in said document, is
mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing
that its original had been registered; and (f) Any other document which, in the judgment
of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed
certificate of title. The Catarrojas have been unable to present any of the documents
mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) above. Hence, they anchored their petition in
paragraph (f). However, the Catarrojas failed to show that they exerted efforts to look
for and avail of the sources in paragraphs (a) to (e) before availing themselves of the
sources in paragraph (f). The documents referred to in Sec. 2 (f) may be resorted to only
in the absence of the preceding documents in the list. Only if the petitioner for
reconstitution fails to show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such documents and
failed to find them, can the presentation of the "other document" as evidence in
substitution be allowed. The procedures laid down in RA 26 for reconstituting a title
have to be strictly followed considering that reconstitution, if made easy, could be the
source of anomalous titles.
Huelgas, Maria Zaida Ariza L. | January to December 2010

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HEIRS OF RAMOS

G.R. No. 169481 (627 PHIL 123-140) | February 22, 2010 | Reconstitution |
Del Castillo, J.

FACTS:
On February 23, 2001, the Heirs of Julio Ramos filed a petition to reconstitute the
original certificate of title covering a property in Bataan on the basis of approved plan
and technical description. To further support their petition, they presented the following
documents, to wit: (1) Certification from LRA that a decree was issued on said lot; (2)
Certification from RoD that the lot is not among the salvaged records; (3) Land Data
Computation from Bureau of Lands. They also presented Reynaldo Ramos, an old
watch technician, who testified among others that his mother used to keep the owner's
copy of OCT No. 3613. During the Japanese occupation, however, it was buried in a
foxhole and since then it could no longer be found. Reynaldo further testified that he and
his co-heirs are the present occupants of Lot 54. The RTC granted the petition. On
appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court’s decision and ruled that the pieces of
documentary evidence are sufficient to grant reconstitution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition for reconstitution should be granted

HELD:
NO. The requirements laid down in RA 26 should be strictly complied with. The
petition would reveal that it did not contain an allegation that no co-owner's, mortgagee's
or lessees duplicate had been issued or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost or
destroyed. The petition also failed to state the names and addresses of the present
occupants of Lot 54. Correspondingly, the Notice of Hearing issued by the court a
quo did not also indicate the names of the occupants or persons in possession of Lot 54,
in gross violation of Section 13 of RA 26. Because of these fatal omissions, the trial
court never acquired jurisdiction over respondents' petition. Consequently, the
proceedings it conducted, as well as those of the CA, are null and void. The Heirs of
Ramos anchored their petition on Sec. 2(f) of RA 26. They presented survey
plan, technical description, Certification issued by the Land Registration Authority, Lot
Data Computation, and tax declarations. Unfortunately, these pieces of documentary
evidence are not similar to those mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (e) of Section 2
of RA 26, which all pertain to documents issued or are on file with the Registry of
Deeds. Hence, respondents' documentary evidence cannot be considered to fall under
subparagraph (f). Jurisprudence provides that “any other document” as provided under
Section 2 (f) of RA 26 refer to similar documents previously enumerated therein, that is,
those mentioned in Sections 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).

Huelgas, Maria Zaida Ariza L. | January to December 2010

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CAYETANO SERRANO

AND HEIRS OF ALAAN
G.R. No. 183063| February 24, 2010 | Original Registration | Carpio Morales, J.

FACTS:
On September 21, 1988, Cayetano Serrano filed an application for registration of title of a
commercial land in Butuan City which he acquired by virtue of inheritance, deed of exchange
and private deed of partition and extra judicial settlement forged by him and his heirs. He
claimed to have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the lot under a
claim of ownership before 1917 by himself and through his deceased parents, predecessors-in-
interest or for more than 70 years. The Heirs of Catalino Alaan intervened and filed an
application for registration, their predecessor-in-interest having purchased a 217.45-square
meter undivided portion of the lot from Cayetano during the pendency of Cayetano's
application for registration. Their application for confirmation of title was considered jointly
with that of Cayetano's. The following pieces of documentary evidence were presented to
support Cayetano's claim of ownership over the lot: original survey plan certified by the DENR
and Bureau of Lands Director, technical description of the lot, Tax Declarations for the years
1924 (in the name of Simeon) and 1948-1997 (in the name of either Simeon [deceased] or
Cayetano), official receipts showing real estate tax payments (from 1948-1997), and Surveyor's
Certificate. The RTC granted the petition. On appeal, OSG contended that Cayetano failed to
present evidence that the property was alienable or that they possessed the same in the manner
and duration required by the provisions of the Property Registration Decree.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the application should be granted

HELD:
YES. The Certification by DENR Regional Technical Director as annotated on the
subdivision plan submitted in evidence, constitutes substantial compliance with the legal
requirement. It clearly indicates that Lot 249 had been verified as belonging to the alienable
and disposable area as early as July 18, 1925. The DENR certification enjoys the presumption
of regularity absent any evidence to the contrary. The character of the possession of Cayetano
and his predecessors-in-interest over the lot was clearly established. Thus, Leonardo testified
that the lot was first owned by Lazaro Rañada who sold the same to Julian Ydulzura in 1917
who in turn sold it to his and Cayetano's father Simeon in 1923; that Simeon built a house
thereon after its acquisition, which fact is buttressed by entries in Tax Declaration No. 18,587
in the name of Simeon for the year 1924 indicating the existence of a 40-sq. meter residential
structure made of nipa and mixed materials, and of coconut trees planted thereon; and that
after Simeon's demise in 1931, Cayetano built his own house beside the old nipa house
before the war, and a bodega after the war, which claims find support in Tax Declarations
made in 1948-1958.The totality of the evidence thus points to the unbroken chain of acts
exercised by Cayetano to demonstrate his occupation and possession of the land in the
concept of owner, to the exclusion of all others.

Huelgas, Maria Zaida Ariza L. | July to December 2011

BIENVENIDO CASTILLO V. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 182980 | June 22, 2011 | Reconstitution | Carpio, J.

FACTS:
This is a case for Petition for Reconstitution and Issuance of Second Owner's Copy of
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-16755 filed by Bienvenido. The trial court found
valid justifications to grant Bienvenido's petition as the same is in order and
meritorious. However, the OSG interposed an appeal and stated that it was grave error
for the trial court to order reconstitution despite absence of any prayer seeking such
relief in the petition and on the basis of a mere photocopy of TCT No. T-16755|.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition for reconstitution should be granted

HELD:
NO as the petition did not comply with the requirements of Sec. 12 and 13 of RA 26.
The non-compliance with the requirements prescribed in Sections 12 and 13 of R.A.
No. 26 is fatal.
Section 12 of R.A. No. 26 requires among others that a petition must contain (d) the
nature and description of the building or improvements, if any, which do not belong to
the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or
improvements and (e) the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in
possession of the property, of the owners of the adjoining properties and of all persons
who may have any interest in the property. The petition did not mention anything
pertaining to item (d). There was a failure to fully comply with item (e). By Fernando's
admission, there exist two other co-owners of the property covered by TCT No. T-
16755. Fernando's siblings Emma and Elpidio were not mentioned anywhere in the
petition. 
Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 prescribes the requirements of publication, posting and
notice. While the trial court’s order was indeed posted in the places mentioned in
Section 13, and published twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette. The
notice, however, did not state Felisa as a registered co-owner. Neither did the notice
identify Fernando's siblings Emma and Elpidio as interested parties. In effect, the trial
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution. When the trial
court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, it lacks authority over the whole
case and all its aspects. All the proceedings before the trial court, including its order
granting the petition for reconstitution, are void for lack of jurisdiction.

Huelgas, Maria Zaida Ariza L. | July to December 2011

ESTRELLA TIONGCO YARED V. JOSE B. TIONGCO AND ANTONIO DORONILLA, JR.

G.R. No. 161360 | October 19, 2011 | Reconveyance | Villarama, Jr., J.

FACTS:
The case involves three parcels of land under the name of the Heirs of Maria Luis Tiongco.
While all of the Heirs of Maria Luis de Tiongco have died, they were survived by their
children and descendants. Among the legitimate children of Jose were petitioner and Carmelo
Tiongco, the father of respondent Jose B. Tiongco. |||Sometime in 1965, petitioner built her
house on one lot and sustained herself by collecting rentals from the tenants of the other lots.
In 1983, respondent Jose prohibited petitioner from collecting rentals from the tenants. He
also filed a suit for recovery of possession with preliminary injunction against several tenants
wherein he obtained a judgment in his favor. Jose also filed a case for unlawful detainer with
damages against petitioner as she was staying on the first lot but the case was ruled in favor
of petitioner. As such, respondent Jose never took possession of the properties. However,
Jose averred that he has been paying real property taxes on the said properties for more than
ten (10) years and that petitioner collected rentals only because he allowed her. In 1988,
petitioner discovered that respondent Jose had already executed an Affidavit of Adjudication
dated April17, 1974, declaring that he is the only surviving heir of the registered owners and
adjudicating unto himself all three lots. Consequently, the Register of Deeds of Iloilo City
issued transfer certificate of titles all in the name of respondent Jose. Based on the records
with the Register of Deeds, it also appears that on May 10, 1974, the same day when the
TCTs were issued, respondent Jose sold the said lots to Catalino Torre. Certificates of title
were also issued in the name of Catalino Torre. The former then sold the properties to
Antonio Doronila, Jr., and back again to Jose.

ISSUE:
Who has a better right over the properties|||
HELD:
Estrella has a better right over the properties. An action for reconveyance can indeed be
barred by prescription.. An action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust
must perforce prescribe in ten (10) years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the
property.||There is but one instance when prescription cannot be invoked in an action for
reconveyance, that is, when the plaintiff is in possession of the land to be reconveyed. In this
case, petitioner never lost possession of the said properties, and as such, she is in a position to
file the complaint with the court a quo to protect her rights and clear whatever doubts has
been cast on her title by the issuance of TCTs in respondent Jose's name.|||
Huelgas, Maria Zaida Ariza L. | July to December 2011

LUCIANO PAZ V. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 157367 (677 PHIL 78-87) | November 23, 2011 |
Cancellation of Certificate of Title | Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Paz brought a petition for the cancellation of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
684 ostensibly made under Sec. 108 of P.D. 1529 governing the amendment and
alterations of certificate of title. The petition involves a total landing of 14, 310
hectares located in different cities in Metro Manila. That OCT No. 684 was
registered under the name of the Republic. Part of that landholding is Lot 392
which was developed by Filinvest Development Corporation (FDC), and Filinvest
Alabang, Inc. (FAI) into a subdivision based on their joint venture agreement with
the Government. Pursuant to the joint venture agreement, Lot 392 was further
subdivided, causing the cancellation of TCT No. 185552, and the issuance of TCTs
for the resulting individual subdivision lots in the names of the Republic and FAI
and that the subdivision lots were then sold to third parties. Both the RTC and CA
dismissed the petition for non-compliance with the regular ruled of civil
procedure.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Sec. 108 of P.D. 1529 is applicable in this case and therefore
exempt from the requirements of paying docket fees, of service of summons,
and of the certification against forum shopping due to its not being an initiatory
pleading

HELD:
NO. The proceeding for the amendment and alteration of a certificate of title under
Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 is applicable in seven instances or situations,
namely: (a) when registered interests of any description, whether vested,
contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (b) when new
interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the
certificate; (c) when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a
certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate; (d) when
the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; (e) when the
registered owner has been married, or, registered as married, the marriage has
been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be
affected; (f)when a corporation, which owned registered land and has been
dissolved, has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution;
and (g) when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title.
What the petitioner is seeking in this case is the reconveyance of the property and
not the cancellation of title. Thus, this petition did not fall under any of the
situations covered by Section 108, and was for that reason rightly dismissed.  Most
importantly, the filing of the petition would have the effect of reopening the decree
of registration, and could thereby impair the rights of innocent purchasers in good
faith and for value. To reopen the decree of registration was no longer permissible,
considering that the one-year period to do so had long ago lapsed, and the
properties covered by OCT No. 684 had already been subdivided into smaller lots
whose ownership had passed to third persons.

Huelgas, Maria Zaida Ariza L. | July to December 2011

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK V. CIRIACO JUMAMOY

AND HEIRS OF ANTONIO GO PACE
G.R. No. 169901 | August 3, 2011 | Reconveyance | Del Castillo, J.

FACTS:
Jumamoy, Ciriaco’s predecessors-in-intrest, filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of
Mortgage, Foreclosure Sale, Reconveyance and Damages against PNB and the Paces to effect
the Deed of Reconveyance which the RTC of Digos City has issued favorably to Ciriaco in
1989. The latter could not annotate the said deed since the OCT No. P-4952 was already
cancelled as it was already foreclosed and consolidated in the name of PNB. Jumamoy alleged
that Pace cannot validly mortgage the entire lot since a portion of it belong to him. Thus, PNB
is not a mortgagee/purchaser in good faith because it failed to take the necessary steps to
protect its interest such as sending a field inspector to the area to determine the real owner, its
occupants, its improvements and its boundaries. PNB however argued that at the time of the
constitution and registration of the mortgage in 1971, Antonio's title was clean as the notice
of lis pendens was annotated only in 1988. And since there was no cause to arouse suspicion, it
may rely on the face of the Torrens title.|| RTC ordered the partial nullification of the mortgage
and found that RTC was not a mortgagee/purchaser in good faith. The CA held that PNB could
not validly claim that it merely relied on the face of a "clean" Torrens title because when the
disputed lot was first mortgaged in 1971, the same was still an untitled and unregistered land. It
likewise ruled that Ciriaco's action for reconveyance is based on implied trust and is
imprescriptible because the land has always been in his possession.

ISSUE:
Whether or not PNB is an innocent mortgagee/purchaser for value

HELD:
NO. PNB could not validly raise the defense that it relied on Antonio's clean title. The land,
when it was first mortgaged, was then unregistered under our Torrens system. The first
mortgage was on February 25, 1971 while OCT No. P-4952 was issued on July 19, 1971. Since
the Paces offered as collateral an unregistered land, with more reason PNB should have proven
before the RTC that it had verified the status of the property by conducting an ocular inspection
before granting Antonio his first loan. Good faith which is a question of fact could have been
proven in the proceedings before the RTC, but PNB dispensed with the trial proper and let its
opportunity to dispute factual allegations pass. Had PNB really taken the necessary precautions,
it would have discovered that a large portion of Lot 13521 is occupied by Ciriaco. A banking
institution is expected to exercise due diligence before entering into a mortgage contract. The
ascertainment of the status or condition of a property offered to it as security for a loan must be
a standard and indispensable part of its operations. ||| 

Huelgas, Maria Zaida Ariza L. | July to December 2011

PACIFICO VALIAO V. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 170757 (677 PHIL 318-331) | November 28, 2011 |
Application for Registration of Title | Peralta, J.

FACTS:
Pacifico and his co-heirs filed a petition for the application for registration of title
covering a lot in Barrio Galicia, Ilog, Negros Occidental. Petitioner alleged that they
acquired the subject property in 1947, upon the death of their uncle Basilio Millarez
(Basilio), who purchased the land from a certain Fermin Payogao, pursuant to a Deed of
Sale dated May 19, 1916 entirely handwritten in Spanish language. Basilio possessed the
land in question from May 19, 1916 until his death in 1947. Basilio's possession was
open, continuous, peaceful, adverse, notorious, uninterrupted and in the concept of an
owner. Upon Basilio's death, the applicants as co-heirs possessed the said land until
1966, when oppositor Zafra unlawfully and violently dispossessed them of their
property, which compelled them to file complaints of Grave Coercion and Qualified
Theft against Zafra. In support of their claim of possession over the subject property,
petitioners submitted in evidence Tax Declaration No. 9562 dated September 29, 1976
under the names of the heirs of Basilio Millarez.||| Manuel Zafra and Manuel Yusay as
well as the Republic opposed the application on the following grounds: (1) the land
applied for has not been declared alienable and disposable; (2) res judicata has set in to
bar the application for registration; (3) the application has no factual or legal basis; (4)
that neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest had been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question
since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto; (5) that the muniment/s of title and/or the tax
declaration/s and tax payments/receipts of applicants, if any, attached to or alleged in the
application, does not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona
fide acquisition of the land applied for or of their open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation in the concept of owner, since June 12, 1945 or
prior thereto; (6) that the parcel of land applied for is a portion of public domain
belonging to the Republic, which is not subject to private appropriation; and (7) that the
present action is barred by a previous final judgment in a cadastral case prosecuted
between the same parties and involving the same parcel of land.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the application for registration of title should be granted

HELD:
NO. Petitioners failed to prove that: (1) the land forms part of the alienable and
disposable land of the public domain; and (2) they, by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership from
June 12, 1945 or earlier. 

To prove the first, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the
government, such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative
action; investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators and a legislative act or a
statute. |||No such evidence was presented by the petitioners.

To prove the second, the applicant must present proof of specific acts of ownership to
substantiate the claim and cannot just offer general statements which are mere
conclusions of law than factual evidence of possession. Yet no tax declaration covering
the subject property, during the period Basilio allegedly occupied the subject property
was presented in evidence. Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of
ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported by any other evidence.|||
Other than the bare allegations of Nemesio and Pacifico that Basilio allegedly
introduced improvements on the subject property, there is nothing in the records which
would substantiate petitioners' claim that Basilio was in possession of Lot No. 2372
since June 12, 1945 or earlier, the period of possession required by law.
Hence, petitioners' assertion that Basilio possessed the property in question from 1916 to
1947 is, at best, conjectural and self-serving.