REPUBLIC v.

ALCONABA

Facts: The respondents filed an application for registration of title over five parcels of land in Barangay Sala,
Cabuyao, Laguna. They claimed to be the sole heirs of Spouses Melencio E. Melendez, Sr., and Luz Batallones
Melendez, who had been in possession of the land since 1949. After the death of their parents, the respondents
partitioned the property and subdivided it into five lots. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the respondents
did not possess sufficient title to the property and failed to provide evidence of open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession.
The trial court found that the respondents have complied with the Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act. It likewise
found that the land in question is alienable and disposable and is not within any reservation or forest zone. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment. Hence, this petition.

Issue: W/N the respondents have established their claim of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of
the land for at least thirty years, as required by law for the registration of title [NO]

Ruling: Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must, therefore, prove the following: (a) that the land forms part of
the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of the public domain; and (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 12 June 1945.

In this case, the respondents have failed to prove their claim. The judgment of the trial court and the Court of Appeals
was based on the testimonies given by Carmencita and Mauricio, that the earliest possession of the lot was sometime
in 1940 – meaning their predecessors-in-interest possessed the lot for fifty-seven (57) years). But it is quite impossible
that respondents, who were just three (3) to five (5) years old that time, had the concept of possession of such a big
tract of land and testify nearly six decades later. The Court found that the testimonies of the respondents were self-
serving and not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The term “possession” differs from “occupation” with the
former being more broader because it includes constructive possession. Taken together with the words open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to qualify,
his possession must not be a mere fiction.

The respondents claim that they immediately took possession of the subject land upon the death of their parents,
Mauricio and Luz Melendez, who died on 5 May 1976 and 19 February 1967, respectively, and that they had been
religiously paying the taxes. While belated declaration of a property for taxation purpose does not necessarily negate
the fact of possession, the Court considered the importance of tax declaration and payments as a good indicia
possession in the concept of the owner. However, the records reveal that they merely paid the taxes only for the years
1990 to 1997.

The Court concluded that the respondents did not have in their favor an imperfect title over the land, thus dismissing
their application for registration.