CASE DIGEST: Union Leaf vs. Republic
G.R. No. 185683 : March 16, 2011.
UNION LEAF TOBACCO CORP., REP. ITS PRES. MR. HILARION P. UY, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union on December 1, 2004 four applications for land registration covering various parcels of land. Petitioner alleged that it is the absolute owner of those parcels of land, having bought them from various individuals; and that its predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the properties for more than thirty (30) years.
The Republic opposed the applications, citing Article XII, Section 3 of the Constitution which proscribes private corporations or associations from holding, except by lease, alienable lands of the public domain for a period not exceeding twenty five (25) years and not to exceed one thousand (1,000) hectares in area.
The RTC first denied the applications, but then affirmed after the introduction of testimonial evidence by petitioner. The CA reversed the RTCs decision, stating that there was no proof presented to show that the lands have been reclassified as alienable or disposable by the State.
Its earlier petition for review being denied by the SC, petitioner, in its present motion for reconsideration, petitioner argues in the main that its documentary evidence shows that the government declared and confirmed that the subject properties are alienable and disposable. It points to the Advance Plans and Consolidated Plans which all noted that the subject lands are inside alienable and disposable area as per project No. 5-A, LC Map No. 2891.
ISSUES: Whether or not sufficient proof has been presented by petitioner to show the reclassification of the parcels of land as alienable or disposable
HELD: The motion is denied.
CIVIL LAW: Proof of reclassification of land as alienable or disposable.
The Advance Plans and Consolidated Plans are hardly the competent pieces of evidence that the law requires.The notation by a geodetic engineer on the survey plans that properties are alienable and disposable does not suffice to prove these lands classification. Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.directs thatthe applicant for registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretaryandcertified as a true copyby the legal custodian of the official records. Respondent failed to comply with this directive.
The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
UNION LEAF TOBACCO CORP., REP. ITS PRES. MR. HILARION P. UY, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union on December 1, 2004 four applications for land registration covering various parcels of land. Petitioner alleged that it is the absolute owner of those parcels of land, having bought them from various individuals; and that its predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the properties for more than thirty (30) years.
The Republic opposed the applications, citing Article XII, Section 3 of the Constitution which proscribes private corporations or associations from holding, except by lease, alienable lands of the public domain for a period not exceeding twenty five (25) years and not to exceed one thousand (1,000) hectares in area.
The RTC first denied the applications, but then affirmed after the introduction of testimonial evidence by petitioner. The CA reversed the RTCs decision, stating that there was no proof presented to show that the lands have been reclassified as alienable or disposable by the State.
Its earlier petition for review being denied by the SC, petitioner, in its present motion for reconsideration, petitioner argues in the main that its documentary evidence shows that the government declared and confirmed that the subject properties are alienable and disposable. It points to the Advance Plans and Consolidated Plans which all noted that the subject lands are inside alienable and disposable area as per project No. 5-A, LC Map No. 2891.
ISSUES: Whether or not sufficient proof has been presented by petitioner to show the reclassification of the parcels of land as alienable or disposable
HELD: The motion is denied.
CIVIL LAW: Proof of reclassification of land as alienable or disposable.
The Advance Plans and Consolidated Plans are hardly the competent pieces of evidence that the law requires.The notation by a geodetic engineer on the survey plans that properties are alienable and disposable does not suffice to prove these lands classification. Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.directs thatthe applicant for registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretaryandcertified as a true copyby the legal custodian of the official records. Respondent failed to comply with this directive.
The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.