G.R. No. 199898. September 3, 2014.
* 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEO DE LA
TRINIDAD y OBALLES, accused-appellant.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Denials; Frame-Up; The
defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed
with disfavor by this Court for it can easily be concocted and is a
common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act.—It bears to stress that the defense of denial or
frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed with disfavor by this
Court for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in
most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. They are
self-serving evidence, and unless substantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, cannot be given weight over the positive
assertions of credible witnesses.
Same; Same; Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs; Elements
of.—In the prosecution of illegal possession of regulated or prohibited
drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is
in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be prohibited
or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. As
correctly ruled by the CA, these elements were duly established by the
prosecution. Jurisprudence is consistent in that mere possession of a
prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge
or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence
of any satisfactory explanation.
Same; Same; Same; Actual possession exists when the drug is
in the immediate possession or control of the accused. On the other
hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the
dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to
exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found.—The
prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess
(animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not
only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
posses-
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
284
ANNOTATED
People vs. De la Trinidad
sion exists when the drug is in the immediate possession or
control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession
exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused
or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the
place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not
necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise
control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located,
is shared with another.
Same; Same; Same; The finding of illicit drugs and
paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular
person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof
which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict.—It must be emphasized
that the finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building
owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of
knowledge and possession thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient
to convict. Here, accused-appellant failed to present any evidence to
overcome such presumption. He merely insisted that he was framed
and had no knowledge of where the prohibited drugs came from. In
the absence of any contrary evidence, he is deemed to be in full
control and dominion of the drugs found in his house.
Same; Same; Chain of Custody Rule; The integrity of the
evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a
showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been
tampered with.—The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have
been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof
that the evidence has been tampered with. Accused-appellant bear
the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled
with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling
of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers
properly discharged their duties. Accused-appellant in this case failed
to present any plausible reason to impute ill motive on the part of the
arresting officers. Thus, the testimonies of the apprehending officers
deserve full faith and credit. In fact, accused-appellant did not even
question the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He anchored his
appeal solely on his allegation of frame-up and denial and on the
alleged broken chain of the custody of the seized drugs.
 285
VOL. 734, SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 285
People vs. De la Trinidad
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.
PEREZ, J.:
Before this Court is an appeal assailing the 24 March 2011
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
04288. The CA affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 25, Naga City, Camarines Sur finding the accused
guilty of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002.
1 Rollo, pp. 105-118; Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P.
Punzalan-Castillo with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga
and Franchito N. Diamante, concurring.
The Antecedents
On 22 October 2008, an Information was filed against accused Leo
De la Trinidad y Oballes (appellant) before the RTC, Naga City,
Camarines Sur for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A No. 9165,
to wit:
That on or about October 21, 2008, in the City of Naga, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and criminally have in his possession, custody and control
nine and one-half (9 1/2) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves
with fruiting tops weighing more or less 475 grams including its (sic)
wrapper; two (2) big bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves with
fruiting tops weighing more or less 550 grams including its (sic)
286
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. De la Trinidad
wrapper; four (4) pieces of medium size cubes of suspected dried
marijuana leaves weighing more or less 41.1 grams including its (sic)
plastic containers; eighteen (18) pieces of small cubes of suspected
dried marijuana leaves with fruiting tops weighing more or less 55.4
grams including its (sic) plastic container; and seventy[-]seven (77)
pieces of small empty transparent plastic sachet, with a total weight of
more or less 1,121.5 grams, which is a dangerous drug, in violation of
the above cited law.2
Version of the Prosecution
On 27 September 2008, the Office of the Intelligence Section of
the Naga City Police (Intelligence Section) received an information
concerning a certain Leo De la Trinidad who was allegedly involved in
drug trafficking. Police Senior Inspector Benigno Albao, Sr. (PSI.
Albao), Chief of the Intelligence Section, interviewed the informant and
after having been convinced that the information was true,3 he referred
the matter to Senior Police Officer 1 Feliciano Aguilar (SPO1 Aguilar)
and SPO1 Fersebal Abrantes (SPO1 Abrantes) for the conduct of a
surveillance operation for further details.4
The surveillance operation confirmed the identity and exact
location of appellant. The police operatives also observed during the
surveillance that some suspected drug pushers visited the residence
of appellant.5
After having verified the report that appellant is indeed involved in
drug trade, a test-buy was conducted on 10 October 2008.6 The test-
buy brought forth positive result as the police asset was able to buy
marijuana cubes, dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops worth
P100.00 from appellant. After
_______________
2 Rollo, p. 3.
3 TSN, 12 February 2009, p. 4.
4 TSN, 19 March 2009, p. 4.
5 TSN, 12 February 2009, p. 5.
6 TSN, 19 March 2009, p. 7.
287
VOL. 734, SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 287
People vs. De la Trinidad
the initial test-buy, the informant was directed by the police operatives
to continue monitoring appellant because there was a report that the
latter is in possession of quantities of marijuana by the kilo.7
On 13 October 2008, a discussion on the use of code names was
made by the members of the team in order to conceal the identity of
appellant and to secure their operation.8 The code name is “Leonidas
de Leon” and the name of the plan is “Code Plan Sativa.”9
On 16 October 2008, around 5:30 PM, another test-buy took place
through SPO1 Aguilar and SPO1 Abrantes and again, the asset was
able to purchase one brick of dried marijuana leaves from appellant. 10
On 17 October 2008, the bricks of marijuana purchased from
appellant on 10 October 2008 and 16 October 2008 were submitted
to the Camarines Sur Police Provincial Office.11
On 20 October 2008, the police operatives applied for two search
warrants from the RTC, Branch 25 in Naga City.12 One search warrant
was applied for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 while
the other one was for violation of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A.
No. 8294 or for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions
because during the second test-buy, the police asset saw appellant
with a gun which was tucked in his waist.13 Upon receipt of the search
warrants, the team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA), as shown by the Certificate of
_______________
7 TSN, 12 February 2009, p. 9.
8 TSN, 19 March 2009, p. 8.
9 TSN, 12 February 2009, p. 10.
10 Id., at p. 9.
11 TSN, 19 March 2009, p. 9.
12 Id., at p. 10.
13 Id.
288
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. De la Trinidad
Coordination. A pre-operation report was then submitted to the
PDEA.14
The police operatives proceeded to conduct a briefing for the
execution of the search warrants. The said briefing was made at the
Conference Room of the Naga City Police Office on 21 October 2008,
at about 4:10 AM15 The briefing of the team was photographed.
Among those present are the members of the raiding team 16 and the
mandatory witnesses, i.e., representative from the DOJ, Carlo
Lamberto Tayo; media representative, Roy Ranoco; elected punong
barangay of Sabang, Naga City Jose Jacobo and Kagawad Eugene
Froyalde of Sabang, Naga City.
Around 5:10 AM of 21 October 2008, the group proceeded to the
residence of appellant. They were accompanied by the DOJ and
media representatives together with the local barangay officials. Upon
reaching appellant’s house, the raiding team knocked at his door and
identified themselves as police officers from the Naga City Police
Office and informed him that they are executing the search warrants
issued by Judge Jaime Contreras. They told appellant that they have
witnesses with them, and read to him the contents of the warrants and
apprised him of his constitutional rights.17 PO2 Quintin Tusara took
pictures of everything that transpired while the operatives were
executing the warrants.18
When appellant was asked to produce the items enumerated in the
search warrant, if indeed he really had them, appellant voluntarily
presented the items which he took under his pillow. The items
consisted of nine and a half (9 1/2)
_______________
14 Id., at p. 11.
15 TSN, 12 February 2009, p. 16.
16 Members of the Intelligence Section who participated in the
operation were SPO1 Aguilar, SPO1 Abrantes, PO3 Quintin Tusara,
PO1 Louie Ordonez, and PO1 Albao.
17 TSN, 12 February 2009, p. 20.
18 Id., at p. 21.
289
VOL. 734, SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 289
People vs. De la Trinidad
bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves sealed with packaging
tape, two (2) big bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves sealed
with packaging tape, four (4) medium size cubes of suspected dried
marijuana leaves placed inside the small transparent plastic sachet,
and eighteen (18) pieces of small cubes of suspected dried marijuana
leaves placed inside the small transparent plastic sachet.19 Also found
were seventy-seven (77) pieces of empty transparent plastic sachets.
SPO1 Aguilar, placed his initial, “FBA,” in the said items.20
No firearm was found at the residence of appellant. An inventory
was then conducted right inside the house of appellant and a
certificate of inventory was prepared by SPO1 Louie Ordonez.21 The
Certificate of Inventory and Certification of Orderly Search were duly
signed by the witnesses in the presence of appellant.22
After making the necessary markings, appellant and the items
seized from him were brought to the Naga City Police Station.23
The seized items were returned to the court of origin but were
subsequently withdrawn for laboratory examination. 24 A request to the
Camarines Sur Provincial Office was subsequently made by SPO1
Aguilar and the seized items were immediately brought to the Crime
Laboratory for field test examination.25 The seized items were duly
received by P/Insp. Edsel Villalobos (P/Insp. Villalobos). 26
_______________
19 Id., at pp. 29-30.
20 Id., at p. 31.
21 TSN, 19 March 2009, p. 19.
22 TSN, 12 February 2009, pp. 25-26.
23 TSN, 19 March 2009, pp. 25-26.
24 Id., at pp. 26-27.
25 TSN, 12 February 2009, pp. 33-34.
26 Id., at p. 37.
290
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. De la Trinidad
When subjected to both initial and final test examinations by
P/Insp. Villalobos, the seized items were found positive for the
presence of marijuana.27
Version of the Defense
In the early morning of 21 October 2008, appellant was in his
house located in Sabang, Naga City together with his wife and
children. Somebody knocked at their door, so he peeped through the
window and asked who was knocking. He noticed a lot of people
outside and asked them who were they. Somebody answered that he
was Kapitan, so the witness opened the door. They entered
appellant’s house and immediately took pictures of it. He was told to
just stay at the side and asked him to bring out the gun and the illegal
drugs. When asked to bring out the illegal drugs, he heard somebody
shouted, “I have already found it.” They went near the table, but he
was not able to see what they were doing because the table was
surrounded by men. At that time, the appellant was seated on a
bamboo chair with his hands placed on his nape. Thereafter, he was
called and asked to sign on a piece of paper. When he asked what
was that for, they told him that they were for the things found in his
house. A man approached him and read to him the contents of the
warrant. Then, he was handcuffed and brought to the police station.28
Ruling of the RTC
In a Decision dated 16 November 2009, the trial court found
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The
RTC found that the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant for violation of Section 11,
Article II, R.A. No. 9165. Appellant was
_______________
27 Id.
28 CA Rollo, p. 49; Brief for the Accused-Appellant.
291
VOL. 734, SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 291
People vs. De la Trinidad
sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00).
The RTC ruled that the evidence presented during the trial
adequately proved all the elements of the offense. It held that
appellant, not being authorized by law, with full knowledge that the
items were dangerous drugs, had actual and exclusive possession,
control and dominion over the drugs found in his house. 29 It likewise
held that the officers strictly complied with the guidelines prescribed
by law on how drug operations should be conducted by law enforcers
and in taking custody and control of the seized drugs. 30 On the other
hand, accused failed to present any substantial evidence to establish
his defense of frame-up. The RTC placed more weight on the
affirmative testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, rather than the
denials of the accused because positive testimonies are weightier
than negative ones.31 With the positive identification made by the
government witnesses as the perpetrator of the crime, his self-serving
denial is worthless.32 Since there was nothing in the record to show
that the arresting team and the prosecution witnesses were actuated
by improper motives, their affirmative statements proving appellant’s
culpability were respected by the trial court.
 The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, upon a finding that all of
the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drug have been sufficiently
established by the prosecution. It found credible the statements of
prosecution witnesses about what transpired during and after the test-
buy, service of search
_______________
29 Records, pp. 143-144.
30 Id., at p. 144, citing Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165.
31 Id., citing People v. Macario, 310 Phil. 581; 240 SCRA 531
(1995).
32 People v. Aquino, 379 Phil. 845, 853; 322 SCRA 769, 775
(2000).
292
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. De la Trinidad
warrant, and arrest of the accused. Further, it ruled that the
prosecution has proven as unbroken the chain of custody of evidence.
The CA likewise upheld the findings of the trial court that the entire
operation conducted by the police officers enjoyed the presumption of
regularity, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of those who
conducted the same.
The CA likewise found appellant’s defenses of denial and frame-
up unconvincing and lacked corroboration. It noted that appellant did
not even present his wife, who was allegedly present during the
search, to corroborate his claim.33
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
Appellant raised in his brief a lone error on the part of the appellate
court, to wit:
The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of
the crime charged despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
Appellant submits that the trial court overlooked and misapplied
some facts of substance, which if considered, could have altered the
verdict. He maintains that he has no knowledge as to where the illegal
drugs were found as he was not in possession of the same, and
alleged that the bricks of marijuana were merely planted by the police
operatives.34
Appellant’s contention is belied by the testimonies of the witnesses
for the prosecution. It bears to stress that the defense of denial or
frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably
_______________
33 CA Rollo, p. 10.
34 Id., at p. 50.
293
VOL. 734, SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 293
People vs. De la Trinidad
viewed with disfavor by this Court for it can easily be concocted and
is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act.35 They are self-serving evidence, and unless
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, cannot be given
weight over the positive assertions of credible witnesses.36
In the prosecution of illegal possession of regulated or prohibited
drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is
in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be prohibited
or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.37 As
correctly ruled by the CA, these elements were duly established by the
prosecution. Jurisprudence is consistent in that mere possession of a
prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge
or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence
of any satisfactory explanation.38
The ruling of this Court in People v. Lagman39 is instructive. It held
that illegal possession of regulated drugs is mala prohibita, and, as
such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the
prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess
(animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not
only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
possession exists
_______________
 35 People v. Ulama, G.R. No. 186530, 14 December 2011, 662
SCRA 599, 613.
36 People v. Bagares, G.R. No. 99026, 4 August 1994, 235 SCRA
30, 35.
37 People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January 2011,
640 SCRA 697, 716, citing People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777, 4
December 2009, 607 SCRA 377, 390-396, further citing People v.
Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, 31 August 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 846.
38 Id., citing Buenaventura v. People, G.R. No. 171578, 8 August
2007, 529 SCRA 500, 513.
39 593 Phil. 617, 625; 573 SCRA 224, 233 (2008), citing People
v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 134.
294
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. De la Trinidad
when the drug is in the immediate possession or control of the
accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the
drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has
the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is
found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused
cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion
over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.
It must be emphasized that the finding of illicit drugs and
paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular
person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof
which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict.40 Here, accused-
appellant failed to present any evidence to overcome such
presumption. He merely insisted that he was framed and had no
knowledge of where the prohibited drugs came from. In the absence
of any contrary evidence, he is deemed to be in full control and
dominion of the drugs found in his house.
Accused-appellant argues that the corpus delicti has not been
clearly established. He points out that although SPO1 Aguilar
allegedly placed his markings on the confiscated items, no such
marking was indicated in the certificate of inventory, nor were the
weight of the said specimens indicated thereon. He further argues that
the markings allegedly placed on the specimens seized were not even
indicated in the return of the search warrant.41 Thus, he centers his
argument on the contention that the integrity of the dangerous drugs
was not ensured and its identity was not established with moral
integrity.
Relevant to appellant’s case is the procedure to be followed in the
custody and handling of the seized dangerous drugs as
_______________
40 Id., citing People v. Torres, 533 Phil. 227; 501 SCRA 591
(2006).
41 CA Rollo, p. 52.
295
VOL. 734, SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 295
People vs. De la Trinidad
outlined in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II, R.A. No. 9165, which
reads:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of
the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof[.]
This provision is elaborated in Section 21(a), Article II of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, which
states:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant
is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that noncompliance with
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items. (Emphasis supplied)
296
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. De la Trinidad
Strictly speaking, the aforecited provision of the IRR does not even
require that the certificate of inventory must indicate the markings and
the weight of the seized items. In fact, the rule even sanctions
substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of
custody, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are property preserved by the apprehending officers. In People
v. Pringas,42 the Court recognized that the strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field
conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at
all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of
confiscated evidence.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution was able to establish
the integrity of corpus delicti and the unbroken chain of custody. Aptly
noting the findings of the trial court:
It was sufficiently established that representatives from the media
and Department of Justice and even two (2) barangay local officials
were present during the briefing and even until the conduct of the
inventory. And that immediately after seizure and confiscation of the
dangerous drugs, the same were inventoried and photographed in the
presence of appellant and said persons, who even signed copies of
the inventory. The seized illegal drugs were marked at accused’s
residence and in his presence. P/SInsp. Villalobos testified that the
seized items he received from Aguilar already contained the markings,
“FBA.” Besides, he also placed his own initials and signatures in blue
markings to preserve and maintain the integrity of the specimens.
Thus, there was no cogent reason why the court should doubt the
trustworthiness and credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.43
_______________
42 G.R. No. 175928, 31 August 2007, 531 SCRA 828.
43 Records, p. 144.
297
VOL. 734, SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 297
People vs. De la Trinidad
The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved
unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence
has been tampered with. Accused-appellant bear the burden of
showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to
overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by
public officers and the presumption that public officers properly
discharged their duties.44 Accused-appellant in this case failed to
present any plausible reason to impute ill motive on the part of the
arresting officers. Thus, the testimonies of the apprehending officers
deserve full faith and credit.45 In fact, accused-appellant did not even
question the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He anchored his
appeal solely on his allegation of frame-up and denial and on the
alleged broken chain of the custody of the seized drugs.
In sum, we find no reason to modify or set aside the decision of
the CA. Accused-appellant was correctly found to be guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the 24 March 2011
Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04288 is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 164823. August 31, 2005.*
MARIA CARLOS, represented by TERESITA CARLOS VICTORIA,
petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Land Registration; Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect
Title; Requisites.—Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must
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 June 12, 1945.
Same; Same; Occupation; Words and Phrases; The applicant
for judicial confirmation of imperfect title must show that he is in actual
possession of the property at the time of the application; Taken with
the words open, continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word
_______________
* of the property to Ususan Development Corporation in 1996 and in
SECOND DIVISION.
710
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Carlos vs. Republic
occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to
qualify, his possession must not be a mere fiction.—The Court held
in Republic vs. Alconaba that the applicant must show that he is
in actual possession of the property at the time of the application, thus:
The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are
separated by the conjunction [“]and[”], the clear intention of the law is
not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader
than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When,
therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-
encompassing effect of 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. Actual possession of a land
consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a
nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Possession; Possession may be
had in two ways: possession in concept of an owner and possession
of a holder—a possessor in concept of an owner may be the owner
himself or one who claims to be so while one who possesses as a
mere holder acknowledges in another a superior right which he
believes to be ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong; Under
the law, only he who possesses the property under a bona fide claim
of ownership is entitled to confirmation of title.—Even if it were true
that it was petitioner who had actual possession of the land at that
time, such possession was no longer in the concept of an owner.
Possession may be had in one of two ways: possession in the concept
of an owner and possession of a holder. A possessor in the concept
of an owner may be the owner himself or one who claims to be so. On
the other hand, one who possesses as a mere holder acknowledges
in another a superior right which he believes to be ownership, whether
his belief be right or wrong. Petitioner herein acknowledges the sale
fact promised to deliver the certificate of title to the corporation upon
its obtention. Hence, it cannot be said that her 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.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of
Appeals.
711
VOL. 468, AUGUST 31, 2005 711
Carlos vs. Republic
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Erlinda Francia Contreras for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
PUNO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari to annul the decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 76824 entitled “Re: Application
for Land Registration of a Parcel of Land in Taguig, Metro Manila,
Maria Carlos represented by Teresita Carlos Victoria, Applicant-
Appellee vs. Republic of the Philippines through the Office of the
Solicitor General, Oppositor-Appellant.”
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 with an area
of 3,975 square meters located at Pusawan, Ususan, Taguig, Metro
Manila, covered by Plan Psu-244418. Petitioner alleged, among
others, that she is the owner of said parcel of land which she openly,
exclusively and notoriously possessed and occupied since July 12,
1945 or earlier under a bona fide claim of ownership; that 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. Petitioner further claimed that she has been in possession
of the subject land in the concept of an owner; that her possession has
been peaceful, public, uninterrupted and continuous since 1948 or
earlier; and tacking her possession with that of her predecessors-in-
interest, petitioner has been in possession of the land for more than
50 years.1
_______________
1 Exhibit “A,” Original Records, pp. 1-5.
712
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Carlos vs. Republic
The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands,
filed an opposition to petitioner’s application. 2
During the initial hearing, however, only petitioner and her counsel
appeared. They presented documentary evidence to prove the
jurisdictional requirements.3
Petitioner later presented testimonial evidence consisting of the
testimonies of her neighbors, Sergio Cruz and Daniel Castillo, and
Teresita Carlos Victoria herself.4
Sergio Cruz, 83 years old, a native of Ususan, Taguig, and
neighbor of Maria Carlos, testified that the property subject of the
application was previously owned and possessed by Jose Carlos. He
planted it with palay and sold the harvest. Everyone in the community
knew him as the owner of said parcel of land. He also paid the taxes
thereon. After the death of Jose Carlos in 1948, his daughter, Maria
Carlos, inherited the property and immediately took possession
thereof. Her possession was peaceful, open, public, continuous,
uninterrupted, notorious, adverse and in the concept of an owner.
When Maria Carlos died, her heirs took over the property.5
Cruz’s testimony was corroborated by Daniel Castillo, 76 years
old, Barangay Captain of Ususan, Taguig.6
Teresita Carlos Victoria stated on the witness stand that her
mother, Maria Carlos, was in possession of the subject property until
she passed away on January 6, 2001. Upon the demise of Maria
Carlos, Victoria took possession of the property with the consent of
her brothers and sisters. She characterized Maria Carlos’s possession
as peaceful, open, public, continuous, adverse, notorious and in the
concept of an owner. She has never been disturbed in her possession;
the whole community recognized her as the owner of the land; she de-
_______________
2 Original Records, pp. 29-31.
3 Original Records, pp. 63-65.
4 Original Records, p. 70.
5 TSN, June 14, 2002, pp. 3-7.
6 TSN, June 14, 2002, pp. 8-12.
713
VOL. 468, AUGUST 31, 2005 713
Carlos vs. Republic
clared the land for tax purposes; and she paid the taxes thereon. In
addition, Victoria informed the court that the heirs of Maria Carlos have
not yet instituted a settlement of her estate. However, they have
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. Victoria admitted that her
mother had sold the land to Ususan Development Corporation 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.7
Petitioner also presented in court the concerned officers of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to
establish that the land in question is alienable and disposable.
Elvira R. Reynaldo, Records Officer, DENR—Lands Management
Bureau, appeared to certify that their office “has no record of any kind
of public land application/land patent covering the parcel of land
situated at Ususan, Taguig, Rizal, identified/described in Plan Psu-
244418.”8
Ulysses Sigaton, Land Management Inspector, DENR—National
Capital Region, stated that he conducted an ocular inspection of the
subject property and found that it is within the alienable and disposable
area under Project No. 27-B, LC Map No. 2623, certified by the Bureau
of Forest Development on January 4, 1968. He also noted that the
land is being used for industrial purposes. It had several warehouses,
four big water tanks and is enclosed by a fence. 9
The trial court granted the application in its decision dated October
24, 2002. It held:
_______________
7 TSN, June 14, 2002, pp. 13-27.
8 Exh. “MM,” TSN, June 27, 2002, pp. 4-5.
9 Exh. “QQ,” TSN, July 3, 2002, pp. 3-8.
714
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Carlos vs. Republic
“After considering the applicant’s evidence ex-parte which is based on
factual and meritorious grounds, and considering that the applicant
acquired the property under registration through inheritance from her
father, Jose Carlos, and considering further that her possession
thereof, tacked with that of her predecessor-in-interest, is open,
continuous, exclusive, notorious and undisturbed, under claim of
ownership since time immemorial up to the present time; and
considering further that the subject parcel of land is part of the
disposable and alienable land (Tsn, July 3, 2002, p.6) and considering
further that the realty taxes due thereon have been religiously paid
(Exhs. “HH,” “II,” “JJ,” and “JJ-1”), and considering finally that the
subject parcel of land belong[s] to the applicant and that she
possess[es] a perfect title thereto which may be confirmed and
registered in her name under the (P)roperty Registration Decree (P.D.
1529), the herein application is hereby GRANTED.”10
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision
of the trial court. It noted that:
“In the instant case, 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
Clearly, as early as 1996, possession and occupation of the land
in question pertains not to the applicant but to Ususan Development
Corporation, thus it can be said that the applicant has no registrable
title over the land in question.”11
Hence, this petition.
We affirm the findings of the appellate court.
Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must 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 noto-
_______________
10 Decision, LRC Case No. N-11468, p. 9; Rollo, p. 33.
11 Decision, CA-G.R. CV No. 76824, p. 6; Rollo, p. 20.
715
VOL. 468, AUGUST 31, 2005 715
Carlos vs. Republic
rious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim
of ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945. 12
As found by the Court of Appeals, petitioner has met the first
requirement but not the second.
The Court held in Republic vs. Alconaba13 that the applicant must
show that he is in actual possession of the property at the time of the
application, thus:
“The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these words are
separated by the conjunction [“]and[“], the clear intention of the law is
not to make one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader
than occupation because it includes constructive possession. When,
therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-
encompassing effect of 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. Actual possession of a land Hence, it cannot be said that her possession since 1996 was under
consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a a bona fide claim of ownership. Under the law, only he who possesses
nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property.” the property under a bona fide claim of ownership is entitled to
confirmation of title.
It is clear in the case at bar that the applicant, Maria Carlos, no longer We therefore find that the Court of Appeals did not err in denying
had possession of the property at the time of the application for the the issuance of a certificate of title to petitioner.
issuance of a certificate of title. The application was filed in court on IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED.
December 19, 2001. Teresita Carlos Victoria, the daughter of Maria SO ORDERED.
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, 1996.14 The document states, among others:
_______________

12 Republic vs. Alconaba, 427 SCRA 611 (2004); Republic vs.

Court of Appeals, 392 SCRA 190 (2002).
13 427 SCRA 611 (2004).
14 Exhibit “KK,” Original Records, p. 132.

716
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Carlos vs. Republic
“x x x
4. That the VENDOR, by this Deed hereby transfer(s) possession
of the property to the VENDEE.”15
This contradicts petitioner’s claim that she was in possession of the
property at the time that she applied for confirmation of title.
Nonetheless, even if it were true that it was petitioner who had
actual possession of the land at that time, such possession was no
longer in the concept of an owner. Possession may be had in one of
two ways: possession in the concept of an owner and possession of a
holder. A possessor in the concept of an owner may be the owner
himself or one who claims to be so. On the other hand, one who
possesses as a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior right
which he believes to be ownership, whether his belief be right or
wrong.16 Petitioner herein acknowledges the sale of the property to
Ususan Development Corporation in 1996 and in fact promised to
deliver the certificate of title to the corporation upon its obtention.