12. Republic v Lee.

Facts: Respondent Maria P. Lee filed before the then Court of First
Instance, an application for registration in her favor of a parcel of land
consisting of 6,843 square meters, more or less, located at Mangaldan,
Pangasinan. The Director of Lands, in representation of the Republic of
the Philippines, filed an opposition, alleging that neither the applicant nor
her predecessors-in-interest have acquired the land under any of the
Spanish titles or any other recognized mode for the acquisition of title;
that neither she nor her predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land in concept of
owner at least thirty (30) years immediately preceding the filing of the
application; and that the land is a portion of the public domain belonging
to the Republic of the Philippines.
The court rendered judgment in favor of respondents. Upon appeal
CA affirmed the lower court decision thus this appeal to the Supreme
Court. Republic of the Philippines contends that respondent failed to
prove by conclusive evidence that she has ownership of the land by fee
simple title and her testimony as to the ownership of her predecessor-in-
interest is self-serving after claiming that she obtained her Deed of Sale
of the property from Laureana Mataban and Sixto Espiritu who obtained
their title from the previous owners of the land, Urbano Diaz and
Bernarda Vinluan. From the time of filing the application of registration,
the respondent was in possession of the land for 13 years but she sought
to tack her possession on the said land from her predecessor-in-interests
who were in possession of the land for 20 years.
Conditions provided by Sec. 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141
as amended, to wit: (b) Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
domain. under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June
12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the applications
for confirmation of title," except when prevented by war or force majeure.
These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the
conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a
certificate of title under the provisions of this Chapter.

Issue: Whether or not the the bare statement of the applicant that
the land applied for has been in the possession of her predecessors-in-
interest for more than 20 years constitute the "well-nigh incontrovertible"
and "conclusive" evidence required in proceedings of this nature?

Held: The most basic rule in land registration cases is that "no
person is entitled to have land registered under the Cadastral or Torrens
system unless he is the owner in fee simple of the same, even though there
is no opposition presented against such registration by third persons. . . .
In order that the petitioner for the registration of his land shag be
permitted to have the same registered, and to have the benefit resulting
from the certificate of title, finally, issued, the burden is upon him to show
that he is the real and absolute owner, in fee simple.
It is incumbent upon private respondent to prove that the alleged
twenty year or more possession of the spouses Urbano Diaz and
Bernarda Vinluan which supposedly formed part of the thirty (30) year
period prior to the filing of the application, was open, continuous,
exclusive, notorious and in concept of owners. This burden, private
respondent failed to discharge to the satisfaction of the Court. The bare
assertion that the spouses Urbano Diaz and Bernarda Vinluan had been
in possession of the property for more than twenty (20) years found in
private respondent's declaration is hardly the "well-nigh incontrovertible"
evidence required in cases of this nature. Private respondent should have
presented specific facts that would have shown the nature of such
possession. The phrase "adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful and
in concept of owner" by which she described her own possession in
relation to that of her predecessors-in-interest are mere conclusions of
law which require factual support and substantiation. Private respondent
having failed to prove by convincing, positive proof that she has complied
with the requirements of the law for confirmation of her title to the land
applied for, it was grave error on the part of the lower court to have
granted her application. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
GRANTED. The decision appealed from is SET ASIDE. No
pronouncement as to costs.