DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

GR No. 45828, 1 June 1992

Ponen Romero, J.
te
Facts Spouses Manlapaz and Pizarro filed an application for land
registration and confirmation of titles to 2 parcels of land in Bulacan
under Act 496 in relation to Sec 48B of CA No 141.
Prior to the hearing, with the direction of court, chief surveyor of
the LRC filed a manifestation stating that the lands have been the
subjects of registration in a prior case though there are no records
of the same on file by reason of the war.
The Director of Lands filed an opposition on the ground that the
applicants and their predecessors in interest have not been in
OCEN possession of the lands for at least 30 years and that the
land form part of the public domain.
In order to establish 30 years of OCEN, private respondents
presented 2 witnesses,
- Angeles, a predecessor-in-interest, who claimed he took
possession of land in 1931, cleared the land and planted
different kinds of fruit bearing trees, seasonal crops and a
ricefield. Then sold the parcel to Punay who cultivated and
introduced improvements. Then sold to spouses.
- Balila, owner of adjoining property, had seen Angeles clear and
plant trees.
The CFI confirmed the property in name of spouses and ordered a
decree for registration.
DOL interposed appeal with the defense of res judicata to CA. CA
affirmed CFI decision holding that spouses had satisfactorily proven
the 30 year continuous possession and the Director of Lands not
having presented any evidence to contradict, impugn or impeach
the facts established by private respondents.
Issue WON CA erred on affirming CFI decision on the ground that DOL did not
present any evidence
Held Yes. Petition granted.
Ruling Court respects factual findings of CA, imparting certain
measure of finality. However, exceptions may be applied
when (a) the interference made is manifestly mistaken (b)
judgment based on misapprehension of facts and (c) when
the finding of fact is premised on absence of evidence and is
contradicted by evidence on record.
It must be emphasized that the burden is on applicant to
prove his positive averments and not for the government or
the private oppositors to establish a negative proposition
insofar as the applicants' specific lots are concerned.
The conclusions reached by the court a quo and respondent
Court of Appeals that the private respondents through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession of the subject land under
a bonafide claim of ownership are not persuasive.
Undoubtedly, the private respondents have failed to submit
convincing proof of their predecessors-in-interest's actual,
peaceful and adverse possession in the concept of owner of
the lots in question during the period required by law. This is
of utmost significance in view of the basic presumption that
lands of whatever classification belong to the State and
evidence of a land grant must be "well-nigh incontrovertible.