What are the requirements for land registration, and what other evidence can one present to comply with the required years of possession?
The new requirements for land registration are now governed by Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) 11573 or An Act Improving the Confirmation Process for Imperfect Land Titles, Amending for the Purpose Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, otherwise known as The Public Land Act, and Presidential Decree 1529, as amended, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree:
"Section 6. Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file at any time, in the proper Regional Trial Court in the province where the land is located, an application for registration of title to land, not exceeding twelve (12) hectares, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
"(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain not covered by existing certificates of title or patents under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least twenty (20) years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. They 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 this section.
"(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned riverbeds by right of accession or accretion under the provisions of existing laws.
"(3) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law. xxx"
Generally, tax declarations are proofs of payment of real property tax, but they are also indications of possession. This was reiterated in the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Spouses Tan, GR 232778, Aug. 23, 2023, where Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan said that:
"Although tax declarations and realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of the possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. They constitute al least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens one's bonafide claim of acquisition of ownership."
In Arlo Aluminum Co., Inc. vs. Republic of the Philippines, GR 254433, April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, also stated that:
"In addition, Arlo may present other competent witnesses or documentary or object evidence to prove overt acts of possession and occupation by them and their predecessors-in-interest as held in the case of Spouses Tan:
"Accordingly, respondents may present anew other competent witnesses or other documentary or object evidence that show the overt acts of possession and occupation by their predecessors-in-interest, such as duly authenticated photographs of structures on the subject property built or erected by the said predecessors-in-interest predating March 11, 1989, but to speculate or suggest further would be to preempt the action of the CA in its reception and consideration of future evidence that may come before as a result of the remand of the instant petition."
Thus, the tax declarations may be used as additional proof of possession, but one must still present competent witnesses or other documentary or object evidence to show overt acts of possession through the predecessor-in-interest so as to comply with the 20-year occupation requirement as provided under Section 6 of RA 11573.
Source: Manila Times
コメント