For more than 35 years, a couple in Banate, Iloilo waited for the finality of the Dec. 5, 1985 municipal circuit trial court’s (MCTC) decision which ordered the registration and issuance of title in their names over a 170-square-meter residential lot.
On March 25, 2021, the Court of Appeals (CA) based in Cebu City reversed the trial court’s ruling in favor of Ernesto Arroyo and his wife Judith Baldemor on appeal lodged by the government on Feb. 21, 1986.
It was not known immediately if the couple or their lawyer has received a copy of the CA decision. Under the rules, they can file a motion to reconsider the decision and if denied by the CA they can elevate it to the Supreme Court (SC).
Arroyo claimed that since 1946, he has occupied, possessed, and owned the 170-square-meter residential lot in Zona-Sur in Banate town.
He filed with the MCTC on Sept. 16, 1985 a motion to lift order of general default which the court had issued on Sept. 18, 1970 in Cadastral Case No. N-19/LRC Cad. Rec. No. N-514.
Arroyo presented as evidence “Tax Declaration No. 0340 with Property Index No. 041-06-017-01-083 dated 25 September 1984, in the name of Ernesto Arroyo; Tax Receipt No. 4090656-L dated 4 October 1984; District Forester's Certificate dated 23 August 1984; and Lot Description issued by the Gonzales Surveying Office dated 17 August 1984.”
After hearing, the MCTC granted Arroyo’s motion and ordered the issuance of a registration decree and title in his name and that of his wife’s.
The government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, received a copy of the MCTC decision on Feb. 18, 1986. On Feb. 21, 1986, the OSG filed a notice of appeal with the CA.
On March 14, 2016 when Arroyo was already 84 years old, he filed with the MCTC a motion to disallow appeal and to render the decision on the case final and executory. He said the appeal should be dismissed for lack of interest to prosecute the case due to the length of time that the government has abandoned its appeal.
In its comment, the OSG told the trial court it cannot be faulted for the inactivity of the case because its appeal (with the CA) was perfected with the filing of the notice of appeal and it was the duty of the trial court to transmit the records of the case to the appellate court.
On Aug. 6, 2018, the trial court denied Arroyo’s motion and ordered the transmittal of all the records of the case to the CA.
In resolving the issue, the CA explained that “for thirty (30) years there had been no action from the appellate court as the records of the case were not forwarded by the court a quo” (MCTC).
Reversing the trial court’s order and granting the government’s appeal, the CA, among other things, said:
“Ernesto (Arroyo) failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
“He only presented oral evidence that his mother owned and possessed the land since 1946 and that he inherited it in 1962 after her death.”
The CA said that Arroyo lacked the requisites under Presidential Decree No. 1529 in relation to Commonwealth Act 141 on the judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title to a landholding.
One of the requisites, the CA said, is that the applicants “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 under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.”
It also said that the land sought to be registered “forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain.”
The CA said:
“Unfortunately, Ernesto (Arroyo), failed to prove by clear, positive and convincing evidence all of the aforementioned requisites.
“He failed to present clear and convincing evidence to prove that he and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject property since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
“In addition, the earliest Tax Declaration presented by Ernesto was dated 25 September 1984. He failed to explain why, despite his claim that he and his mother have been in possession of the subject property since 1946, it was only in 1984 that he started to declare the same for purposes of taxation.
“Although it is an acknowledged policy of the State to promote the distribution of alienable public lands to spur economic growth, in line with the ideal of social justice, the law imposes stringent safeguards upon the grant of such resources lest they fall into the wrong hands to the prejudice of the national patrimony.
“Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has directed that these safeguards are not to be relaxed.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Republic's appeal is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 5 December 1985 of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, in Cadastral Case No. N-19/LRC Cad. Rec. No. N-514 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.”
The CA decision was written by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo Gonzaga with the concurrence of Executive Justice Gabriel T. Ingles and Associate Justice Bautista G. Corpin Jr.
Read more: SC remands to RTC 22-year old land case in Carmona, Cavite