Scribd
Upload
927 views2 pages

Buyco vs. Republic Digest

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the Buycos' second application for land registration. The Court held that the Buycos did not prove the land's classification as alienable and disposable, which requires presenting the original DENR classification and a certificate from CENRO or PENRO. A CENRO certificate alone is insufficient evidence of alienable status under prior cases.

Uploaded by

Emir Mendoza
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
927 views2 pages

Buyco vs. Republic Digest

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the Buycos' second application for land registration. The Court held that the Buycos did not prove the land's classification as alienable and disposable, which requires presenting the original DENR classification and a certificate from CENRO or PENRO. A CENRO certificate alone is insufficient evidence of alienable status under prior cases.

Uploaded by

Emir Mendoza
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

Buyco vs.

Republic (2018)

Petitioners: SAMUEL AND EDGAR BUYCO

Respondents: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Ponente: Caguioa (Second Division)

Topic: Civil Law – Land Titles and Deeds

SUMMARY: The SC affirmed the CA’s dismissal of the second application for registration by the
Buycos on the ground that the classification of the land as alienable and disposable has not been
proven.

DOCTRINE: In the recent case of In Re: Application for Land Registration Suprema T. Dumo v.
Republic of the Philippines (Dumo), the Court reiterated the requirement it set in Republic of the
Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. that there are TWO documents that must be presented to prove
that the land subject of the application for registration is alienable and disposable: (1) 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, and (2) a certificate of land classification status issued by the CENRO
or the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) based on the land classification
approved by the DENR Secretary.

Dumo also stated that: "a CENRO or PENRO certification is not enough to prove the alienable and
disposable nature of the property sought to be registered because the only way to prove the
classification of the land is through the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary or the
President himself." This is consistent with Republic of the Philippines v. Nicolas, which cited Republic
of the Philippines v. Lualhati, wherein the Court rejected the attempt of the applicant to prove the
alienable and disposable character of the subject land through PENRO or CENRO certifications.
FACTS:

On October 14, 1976, brothers Edgardo H. Buyco and Samuel H. Buyco, through their attorney-in-fact
Rieven H. Buyco, filed an application for registration of a parcel of land with [then] Court of First Instance of
Ro[m]blon, Branch 82. The case was docketed as LRC Case No. N-48, LRC Record No. N-51706.

The Land Registration Court granted the application. The CA affirmed. The SC reversed, on the ground
that there was no proof that the land was alienable and disposable.

On December 6, 1995, or approximately six (6) years later, Edgar Buyco and Samuel Buyco filed for the
second time an application for registration of title covering the same parcel of land. The RTC granted the
application. The CA reversed.

ISSUES:

 WoN the subject land is alienable and disposable


o NO. Given that the proofs which the petitioners presented in this case to prove the alienable and
disposable character of the Subject Land proceed mainly from a Certification dated August 14,
1998 issued by the CENRO of Odiongan, Romblon, which is insufficient, their second attempt to
register the Subject Land under the Torrens system must suffer the same fate as their first.

NOTES: Petition DENIED. The Application for Registration of the petitioners in LRC Case No. OD-06 is
dismissed without prejudice.

You might also like