Mere casual cultivation of the land does not amount to exclusive and notorious possession that would give rise to ownership.

RAMON ARANDA vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 172331, August 24, 2011

“x x x.

Petitioner likewise failed to prove the alleged possession of his predecessors-in-interest. His witness Luis Olan testified that he had been visiting the land along with his father Lucio since he was 6 years old (he was 70 years old at the time he testified), or as early as 1936. Yet, there was no evidence that Lucio Olan declared the property for tax purposes at anytime before he sold it to Anatalio Aranda. There is also no showing that Anatalio Aranda declared the property in his name from the time he bought it from Lucio Olan. And even assuming that Lucio actually planted rice and corn on the land, such statement is not sufficient to establish possession in the concept of owner as contemplated by law. Mere casual cultivation of the land does not amount to exclusive and notorious possession that would give rise to ownership.^[22] Specific acts of dominion must be clearly shown by the applicant.

X x x.”

Footnotes:

^[14] SECTION 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, 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 under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

x x x x

^[15] Republic v. Lao, G.R. No. 150413, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 291, 298, citing Seville v. National Development Company, G.R. No. 129401, February 2, 2001, 351 SCRA 112, 120; Bracewell v. Court of Appeals, 380 Phil. 156, 162 (2000); Menguito v. Republic, G.R. No. 134308, December 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 128, 139; and Pagkatipunan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129682, March 21, 2002, 379 SCRA 621, 628.

^[16] Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127060, November 19, 2002, 392 SCRA 190, 201.

^[17] Republic v. Tri-Plus Corporation, G.R. No. 150000, September 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 91, 102.

^[20] See Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 154953, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 477, 492.

^[21] Buenaventura v. Republic, G.R. No. 166865, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 271, 289.

^[22] Wee v. Republic, G.R. No. 177384, December 8, 2009, 608 SCRA 72, 83, citing Director of Lands v. Judge Reyes, 160-A Phil. 832, 851 (1975) and Ramirez and Bayot de Ramirez v. Director of Lands, 60 Phil. 114 (1934).

^[23] Arbias v. Republic, G.R. No. 173808, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 582, 597, citing Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-66069, September 28, 1984, 132 SCRA 395, 397, cited in Edao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83995, September 4, 1992, 213 SCRA 585, 592.

^[24] Id., citing Maloles and Malvar v. Director of Lands, 25 Phil. 548, 553 (1913), cited in Edao v. Court of Appeals, id. at 593.