Scribd
Upload
99 views2 pages

110 GR - 218269 - 2018 Dumo vs. Republic, G.R. No. 218269, June 6, 2018

1. Petitioner Suprema Dumo filed an application to register two parcels of land totaling 1,273 square meters that she claimed to have inherited from her mother and acquired from her siblings. 2. The heirs of Marcelino Espinas opposed the application, claiming the land belonged to Espinas. The trial court consolidated the land registration case with the heirs' recovery of ownership case. 3. The trial court and appellate court both dismissed Dumo's application and found she failed to prove the land was alienable and disposable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that documents proving land status must be based on the DENR Secretary's classification, which Dumo did not provide.

Uploaded by

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

110 GR - 218269 - 2018 Dumo vs. Republic, G.R. No. 218269, June 6, 2018

1. Petitioner Suprema Dumo filed an application to register two parcels of land totaling 1,273 square meters that she claimed to have inherited from her mother and acquired from her siblings. 2. The heirs of Marcelino Espinas opposed the application, claiming the land belonged to Espinas. The trial court consolidated the land registration case with the heirs' recovery of ownership case. 3. The trial court and appellate court both dismissed Dumo's application and found she failed to prove the land was alienable and disposable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that documents proving land status must be based on the DENR Secretary's classification, which Dumo did not provide.

Uploaded by

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

G.R. No.

218269; July 6, 2018


SUPREMA T. DUMO, petitioner, vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner
Suprema T. Dumo challenges the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CV No. 95732, which modified the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court for Accion
Reivindicatoria and LRC Case No. 270-Bg for Application for Land Registration.
Petitioner Suprema T. Dumo filed an application for registration of two parcels of land,
with a total area of 1,273 square meters. Dumo alleged that the lots belonged to her mother
Bernarda M. Trinidad, and that she and her siblings inherited them upon their mother's death.
She further alleged that through a Deed of Partition with Absolute Sale, she acquired the subject
lots from her siblings. Dumo traces her title from her mother, Trinidad, who purchased the lots
from Florencio Mabalay in August 1951. Mabalay was Dumo's maternal grandfather. Mabalay,
on the other hand, purchased the properties from Carlos Calica. The heirs of Marcelino Espinas
opposed Dumo's application for land registration on the ground that the properties sought to be
registered by Dumo are involved in the accion reivindicatoria case. Thus, the RTC consolidated
the land registration case with the Complaint for Recovery of Ownership, Possession and
Damages.
On 2 July 2010, the RTC rendered its Joint Decision, finding that the subject property was
owned by the heirs of Espinas. The RTC ordered the dismissal of Dumo's land registration
application on the ground of lack of registerable title and ordered Dumo to restore ownership
and possession of the lots to the heirs of Espinas.
The CA rendered its Decision affirming the RTC's decision dismissing the application for
land registration of Dumo and finding that she failed to demonstrate that she and her
predecessors-in¬interest possessed the property in the manner required by law to merit the
grant of her application for land registration. The CA, however, modified the decision of the RTC
insofar as it found that the Subject Property belonged to the heirs of Espinas. The CA found that
since the property still belonged to the public domain, and the heirs of Espinas were not able to
establish their open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land
under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier, it was erroneous for the RTC
to declare the heirs of Espinas as the owners of the Subject Property; hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Dumo is able to prove that the subject property forms part of the alienable and
disposable land of public domain.
2. Whether or not the requirement that documents to prove the status of land shall be
based on the land classification approved by the DENR Secretary is not a mere superfluity

RULING:
NO, Dumo failed to submit any of the documents required to prove that the land
she seeks to register is alienable and disposable land of the public domain.
The applicant bears the burden of proving the status of the land. In this
connection, the Court held that there are two (2) documents which must be presented:
first, a copy of the original classification approved by the Secretary of the DENR and
certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records, and second, a
certificate of land classification status issued by the CENRO or the PENRO based on the
land classification approved by the DENR Secretary. The requirement set by this Court in
Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. that both these documents be based
on the land classification approved by the DENR Secretary is not a mere superfluity. This
requirement stems from the fact that the alienable and disposable classification of
agricultural land may be made by the President or DENR Secretary.
In this case, none of the documents submitted by respondent to the trial court
indicated that the subject property was agricultural or part of the alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain. At most, the CENRO Report and Certification stated
that the land was not covered by any kind of public land application. This was far from an
adequate proof of the classification of the land. Unfortunately for respondent, the
evidence submitted clearly falls short of the requirements for original registration in order
to show the alienable character of the lands subject herein.
YES, the requirement that documents to prove the status of land shall be based
on the land classification approved by the DENR Secretary is not a mere superfluity.
This requirement stems from the fact that the alienable and disposable
classification of agricultural land may be made by the President or DENR Secretary. And
while the DENR Secretary may perform this act in the regular course of business, this does
not extend to the CENRO or PENRO. The DENR Secretary may no longer delegate the
power to issue such certification as the power to classify lands of the public domain as
alienable and disposable lands is in itself a delegated power under CA No. 141 and PD No.
705.

You might also like