Scribd
Upload
59 views2 pages

REPUBLIC V NICOLAS

1. Nicolas filed a petition to register title over 118,448 sq.m of land claiming open, continuous, exclusive possession since 1964. However, the Republic opposed arguing the land was public domain. 2. While Nicolas presented documents like a CENRO report and survey, the Court found this insufficient to prove the land was alienable and disposable, as required. 3. To sufficiently establish a land is alienable, applicants must submit a certification from CENRO/PENRO and a copy of the original DENR classification, neither of which Nicolas provided. Her application for registration therefore failed.

Uploaded by

Steven Ave
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
59 views2 pages

REPUBLIC V NICOLAS

1. Nicolas filed a petition to register title over 118,448 sq.m of land claiming open, continuous, exclusive possession since 1964. However, the Republic opposed arguing the land was public domain. 2. While Nicolas presented documents like a CENRO report and survey, the Court found this insufficient to prove the land was alienable and disposable, as required. 3. To sufficiently establish a land is alienable, applicants must submit a certification from CENRO/PENRO and a copy of the original DENR classification, neither of which Nicolas provided. Her application for registration therefore failed.

Uploaded by

Steven Ave
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

REPUBLIC v.

NICOLAS

FACTS:

1. March 22, 1996 – Nicolas filed a petition before the RTC of Rizal seeking to register her title over
a parcel of land (118,448 sq.m.)
a. OCEN possession daw since 1964 (gipasurvey nila)
b. Presented 3 witnesses to testify (daughter, Eulin (hired to plant vegies), Valdez of the
LRA who identified the original tracing cloth plan for the property)
2. Republic opposed
a. Wala daw OCEN since June 12, 1945
b. Tax dec not sufficient evidence
c. Nicolas failed to apply for registration of title w/in 6 mos. From Feb 16, 1976 as required
by PD 892 (wa man guro ni apil, pero in case mag ask sya)
d. Land was PUBLIC DOMAIN – thus not subject to private appropriation
3. CENRO submitted report
a. Land "appears to be [n]ot covered by any public land application nor embraced by any
administrative title." However, entry with respect to whether the land was within the
alienable and disposable zone was left blank with a notation that the area was "not
projected due to [u]navailability of coordinates re[:] Tala Estate Tie-Line."
4. LRA’s report:
a. that it "was not in a position to verify whether or not the parcel of land subject of
registration is already covered by land patent and is within the area classified as
alienable and disposable land of the public domain."
5. RTC
a. Granted application and issued decree. Declared OCEN since 1940
6. CA
a. Granted application for lot. Even assuming daw nga property was only possessed in
1964, pwede gyapon sa 14(2) daw kay acquisitive prescription (BOGO KAAYO CA)
b. Land is private property (TOPIC)
i. Ang private survey daw, nya kato report nga not covered by any public land
application.

ISSUE

WON the evidence presented by Nicolas was sufficient

HELD

NO!

1. To prove that the property subject of an application for original registration is part of the
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, applicants must "identify a positive act of
the government, such as an official proclamation, declassifying inalienable public land into
disposable land for agricultural or other purposes."
2. To sufficiently establish this positive act, they must submit (1) a certification from the CENRO or
the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO); and (2) a copy of the original
classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian
of the official records.

APPLICATION:

Nicolas failed to to submit the required CENRO/PENRO certification and DENR classification

1. Mao rani iya gisubmit:


a. A CENRO Report stating that the land was not covered by any public land application or
embraced by any administrative title, but with a notation that that the alienability of the
land was "[n]ot projected due to [u]navailability of coordinates re: Tala Estate Tieline'';
(di ni enough. Republic v. Lualhati)
b. A CENRO Certification69 that the lot "is not covered by any kind of public land
application"
c. A Report from the (LRA) declaring that it was "not in a position to verify whether or not
the parcel of land subject of registration is already covered by land patent and is within
the area classified as alienable and disposable land of the public domain"; and
d. (The testimonies of Leonila Alfaro,71 her daughter, and Santiago Eulin72 (the caretaker
of the land) confirming that the property is agricultural in nature.

“The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land
classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land
subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey
by the PENRO or CENRO” – WA SYA KASUBMIT ANI. GA YA-YA RANG AGI ANING NICOLAS.

TOPIC!!!!! EYES HERE!

1. The fact that the land has been privately surveyed is not sufficient to prove its classification or
alienable character.
2. While the conduct of a survey and the submission of the original tracing cloth plan are
mandatory requirements for applications for original registration of land under P.D. 1529, they
only serve to establish the true identity of the land and to ensure that the property does not
overlap with another one covered by a previous registration.
3. These documents do not, by themselves, prove alienability and disposability of the property.
4. In fact, in several cases, the Court has declared that even a survey plan with a notation that the
property is alienable cannot be considered as sufficient evidence of alienability. Here, the survey
plan and original tracing cloth plan submitted by Nicolas does not even bear that notation.
Consequently, it was grave error for the CA to consider the mere conduct of a private survey as
proof of the classification and the alienability of the land.

SO IN SHORT, WALA SYA KA COMPLY SA REQUISITES SA 14(1) OG 14(2) – WHICH IS ANG LAND DAPAT
ALIENABLE (1) , AND SA (2) KAY DAPAT PATRIMONIAL --- KAY ILA BASIS RA KAY ANG PRIVATE SURVEY
ATONG 1964 WHICH IS DILI DAW ENOUGH TO PROVE CLASSIFICATION OR ALIENABLE CHARACTER.
THANK YOU MADLANG PEOPLE. LABYU.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy