CASE DIGEST: Wee vs. Mardo

G.R. No. 202414 : June 4, 2014

JOSEPHINE WEE, Petitioner v. FELICIDAD MARDO, Respondent.



Respondent FelicidadMardo was granted a registered Free Patent No. (IV-2) 15284, dated April 26, 1979, covering the Lot No. 8348, situated in Putting Kahoy, Silang, Cavite.

On February 1, 1993, respondent allegedly conveyed to petitioner Josephine Wee, through a Deed of Absolute Sale a portion of the said lot known as Lot No. 8348-B, for a consideration of P250,000.00 which was fully paid. Respondent however refused to vacate and turnover the subject property claiming that the alleged sale was falsified.

Petitioner file an Application for Original Registration of a parcel of land claiming that she is the owner of said unregistered land by virtue of a deed of absolute sale.

Respondent filed a Motion to dismiss the application alleging that the land described in the application was different from the land being claimed for titling. The motion was however, denied. A motion for reconsideration and second urgent motion for reconsideration were subsequently filed by respondent, but both were denied by the RTC.

Upon presentation of evidence by the parties, the RTC granted the application of the petitioner. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the RTC, hence, respondent appealed to the CA.

The CA held, among others, that petitioner was not able to comply with the requirement of possession and occupation under Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529. Her admission that the subject lot was not physically turned over to her due to some objections and oppositions to her title suggested that she was not exercising any acts of dominion over the subject property, an essential element in the requirement and occupation contemplated under Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether Petitioner is entitled to the subject property.

HELD: Court of Appeals decision is sustained.

CIVIL LAW: registration of title

Based on the legal paramaters, applicants for registration of title under Section 14(1) must sufficiently establish: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; (2) that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same; and (3) that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. Republic v. Manimtim, G.R. No. 169599, March 16, 2011

The CA denied the application on the issue of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land. It was of the view that she could not have complied with the requirement of possession and occupation under Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 considering that she admitted that it was not physically turned over to her.

A more important consideration, however, is that the subject land is already registered under OCT No. OP-1840 (Patent No. 042118-03-6111) of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite, under the name of respondent Felicidad Mardo.

The Petition is DENIED.