G.R. No. 167248. July 29, 2015

FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 167248, July 29, 2015 ] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V. REMEDIOS BUENAFLOR, RESPONDENT.

For disposition is this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 which seeks to reverse and set aside: (1) the October 15, 2004 Decision[1] in CA-G.R. CV No. 77011 rendered by the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Decision[2] dated July 22, 2002 of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Taguig, in L.R.C. No. 190 granting respondent's application for land registration; and (2) the February 22, 2005 Resolution[3] which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner is represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) while respondent's counsel of record with the Court of Appeals is Atty. George A. Elias. The Court, on June 15, 2005, required respondent, through Atty. Elias, to file her comment to the petition, within ten days from notice.

Before discussing the substantive issue, we first tackle the procedural issue brought about by respondent's failure to file her comment to this petition.

On July 14, 2005, Atty. Elias filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance, stating that he was, at the time, holding an elective position in the City Government of Taguig and the nature of his position constrained him from further appearing in court. Atty. Elias claimed that he had "personal differences with the client who [had] not been coordinating with [him] and whose confirmation hereto [could] not be secured."[4]

Before acting on his notice of withdrawal of appearance, the Court required Atty. Elias to submit respondent's correct and present address. In compliance, Atty. Elias declared that the address of respondent is: "No. 005 J. P. Rizal St., Comembo St. (sic), Fort Bonifacio, Makati City."[5]

In a resolution issued on January 25, 2006, the Court required respondent to cause the entry of appearance of a new counsel. However, respondent failed to comply with such resolution within the period provided, so the Court resolved to require respondent to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court for such failure, and again required her to comply with said January 25, 2006 resolution by filing her new counsel's entry of appearance.On September 4, 2006, the Court issued the following resolution:
It appearing that a copy of the resolution dated June 5, 2006 requiring respondent Remedios Buenaflor to show cause for her failure to cause the entry of appearance of her new counsel, personally served on said respondent herself was returned unserved with the process server's remarks "No longer residing", the Court resolves to require petitioner to SUBMIT the new and present address of the respondent within ten (10) days from notice hereof.[6]
Petitioner manifested to the Court that it had sought the help of the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) "for possible assistance in ascertaining the present correct address of respondent."[7] On November 30, 2006, the General Manager of LLDA wrote to petitioner that the LLDA was unable to locate the present address of respondent despite the efforts it had exerted to assist petitioner in this matter.

The OSG then wrote the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) seeking its assistance in locating the exact address of respondent. Noting that as of July 5, 2007, the OSG still had not submitted the necessary information as to the whereabouts of respondent, the Court once more resolved to require the OSG to comply with the previous resolution.

The OSG manifested that upon follow-up, the NBI said that it still had not gathered any information on respondent's present address. The OSG asked for an extension until October 14, 2007 to submit respondent's present address. The Court granted this prayer.

The OSG informed the Court that it had received a letter dated September 19, 2007 from then NBI Director Nestor M. Mantaring stating that "despite diligent efforts exerted by our Investigator to locate the present address/whereabouts of said Respondent, the same proved futile."[8] Subsequently, on November 21, 2007, the OSG received a letter from Atty. Edmundo T. Arugay, Deputy Director, Technical Services of the NBI, stating that records on file show that respondent's address is "30 Comembo Fort Bonifacio, Rizal."[9]

However, a copy of the court's resolution sent to that location requiring respondent to submit her comment on the petition for review on certiorari was returned unserved with postman's notation "RTS-Insufficient Address."[10] The Court once more required the OSG to furnish it with the complete address of respondent.

On January 22, 2009, the OSG received a facsimile copy of a letter dated January 21, 2009 from Emelyn M. Aoanan, Chief, EDP Division of the NBI which reads:
In connection with your letter request for the exact address of one REMEDIOS BUENAFLOR-CATIBOG, we regret to inform you that the records in the files of this Bureau show only the address 30 Comembo Fort Bonifacio Rizal which the Subject declared when she applied for an NBI Clearance in 1974.[11]
On March 11, 2009, the Court once more resolved to require the OSG to submit the correct and present address of respondent. Still, the OSG failed to furnish the Court with the required information. Thus, the Court resolved to archive the case pending petitioner's sufficient compliance with the March 11, 2009 resolution.

Subsequently, the Court required the NBI to locate the person of Remedios Buenaflor, respondent in this case, and to make a report thereon within thirty (30) days.

On May 23, 2011, Agent Aristotle S. Adolfo of the NBI Anti-Organized Crime Division filed a Manifestation/Report[12] which stated that the NBFs records showed two individuals of the same name, and submitted to the Court the available information as to the location of those individuals.

The Court issued a Resolution requiring the OSG and Atty. George Elias to submit anew the correct and present address of respondent. The OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion stating that it had complied with the Court's previous resolutions and that it had exerted its "best efforts" in locating the correct and present address of respondent since the petition was filed, which had proved "futile to date." The Court required petitioner to "exert more effort" to locate respondent and to submit the required information.

Once again, the action taken by the OSG was to write the NBI seeking its assistance in locating respondent. In its Manifestation and Motion, the OSG said that NBI Deputy Director Reynaldo O. Esmeralda replied on May 25, 2012, stating that respondent had "no record of clearance application and certificate issuance since 1975 to present" and the only address of respondent in the NBI records was "30 Comembo Fort Bonifacio, Rizal," which respondent "declared when she applied for an NBI clearance in 1974."[13]

In a resolution issued on July 11, 2012, the Court considered the OSG's compliance as "not satisfactory" and archived the case pending petitioner's submission of respondent's correct and present address.

It has been three years since this case was archived. Considering that this petition was filed on April 18, 2005, or more than fifteen (15) years ago, the Court deems it necessary to submit this case for resolution, despite the failure of respondent to file her comment and to even cause the entry of appearance of her counsel. As shown by the above narration, the Court has been very patient and has exerted all efforts to repeatedly require petitioner's counsel of record, the OSG, with the assistance of the NBI, as well as respondent's counsel before the lower court and the Court of Appeals, to provide the complete and present address of respondent Remedios Buenaflor, so that the pleadings and court processes could be properly served.

Similarly, in Alcantara-Aquino v. De la Cruz,[14] the Court dispensed with the submission of respondent's comment, considering that the copies of the Show Cause Resolution, which required respondent to submit her comment on the complaint sent to her at her address on record and to the new address provided by the complainant therein, were returned unserved.

Facts of the Case

On February 23, 1999, respondent filed an application for original registration of title before Branch 74 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Taguig, Metro Manila over a parcel of land situated in Wawa, Taguig with an area of 4,116 square meters (the subject land). The land was declared, for tax purposes in the name of respondent and had an assessed value of P58,800.00.

We quote the following relevant facts from the MeTC Decision:
During the hearing on October 27, 1999, applicant Remedios Buenaflor-Catibog was presented. Likewise presented was the authorized representative of the Land Registration Authority, who brought with him the approved original tracing cloth of Conversion Plan Swo-13-000450 x x x. After the comparison of the blue print copy of the said plan, which forms part of the records of this case, with the original tracing cloth plan, it was found out that said blue print copy is a faithful reproduction of the said original. After the testimony of the said applicant was completed, her counsel Atty. George A. Elias asked for and was given fifteen (15) days within which to file their Formal Offer of Evidence while the prosecution was likewise given the same period of time from receipt of the copy of the said offer to submit their comment and/or opposition thereto. During the same hearing, this case was considered submitted for decision since the public prosecutor manifested that he will no longer present any evidence for the government.

x x x x

From the testimonies of applicant Remedios Buenaflor-Catibog and from the documentary evidences presented by her, the following facts were established:

Applicant Remedios Buenaflor, who is married to Artemio R. Catibog, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of Comembo St., Fort Bonifacio, Makati City, is the owner and possessor of a parcel of agricultural land known as Lot 534 under Conversion Plan Swo-13-000450 x x x containing a total area of Four Thousand One Hundred Sixteen (4,116) square meters located at Wawa, Taguig, Metro Manila.

The subject lot was a portion of a parcel of land previously owned and declared for taxation purposes in the name of Florentina Sarmiento with Jose Buenaflor, one of her two (2) sons with Isaac Buenaflor, as Administrator x x x. On February 11, 1987, the surviving heirs of Florentina Sarmiento, who died intestate at Wawa, Taguig, Rizal (now Metro Manila) in 1912, settled and partitioned extra-judicially the properties left by her under a deed denominated as "Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Filomena Sarmiento" xxx. Under the said deed, the lot known as Lot [534], Mcadm-590-D, [Taguig] Cadastre, which is a portion of the parcel of land, declared in the name of the late Florentina Sarmiento under Tax Declaration No. B-009-00697 x x x and with an area of 4,200 square meters, was partitioned in favor of applicant Remedios Buenaflor, who is one of the children of Florentina's other son Lucio Buenaflor x x x.

Said extra-judicial settlement was published in the Manila Chronicle, a newspaper of general circulation, on February 14, February 21 and February 28, 1987, as shown by the Affidavit of Publication issued by F.C. Capistrano, Jr., advertising manager of the said newspaper x x x.

The applicant and her predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the subject property continuously, uninterruptedly, openly, publicly, adversely and in the concept of owners even before 1948 or for more than thirty (30) years now. The parcel of land from which the subject lot was taken, was previously declared for taxation purposes in the name of its former owner Florentina Sarmiento and under the administration of her son Jose Buenaflor x x x.

After the subject parcel of land was partitioned in favor of applicant Remedios Buenaflor on February 11, 1987, it was declared in her name for tax declaration purposes x x x.

Applicant Remedios Buenaflor and her predecessors-in-interest are up to date in the payment of realty taxes, x x x.

There is no mortgage or encumbrance affecting the subject parcel of land and neither is there any other person having an interest thereon, legal or equitable. There are no other persons or entity occupying the said property. The applicant herself is the one who is taking care of the farming of the subject parcel of land.

The applicants caused the survey of the subject parcel of land on April 24, 1988 by Geodetic Engineer Oscar C. Castro who, thereafter, prepared Conversion Plan Swo-13-000450, which was approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Lands Management Sector, on August 24, 1988 x x x. The said lot was found to have an actual area of Four Thousand One Hundred Sixteen (4,116) square meters under the said survey x x x. The said survey is inside alienable and disposable land area as per Project No. 27-B, L.C. Map No. 2623 dated January 3, 1968 certified by the Bureau of Forest Development, x x x.[15]
Both petitioner and the LLDA filed their respective oppositions to the application.

The LLDA averred that the "projection of the subject lot in our topographic map based on the technical descriptions appearing in the Notice of the Initial Hearing indicated that the lot subject of this application for registration particularly described as Lot 534 x x x is located below the reglementary lake elevation of 12.50 meters referred to datum 10.00 meters below mean lower water."[16]

The MeTC confirmed respondent's title to the subject property. The dispositive portion of the MeTC decision dated July 22, 2002 reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding that the allegations in the application had been sufficiently established by the applicant's evidence, this Court hereby confirms the title of applicant REMEDIOS BUENAFLOR, married to Artemio R. Catibog, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of Comembo St., Fort Bonifacio, Makati City over the subject parcel of agricultural land known as Lot 534, Mcadm-590-D, Taguig Cadastral Mapping under Conversion Plan Swo-13-000450 situated at Wawa, Taguig, Metro Manila, consisting of Four Thousand One Hundred Sixteen (4,116) square meters and hereby order the registration thereof in her name.

After the finality of this Decision and upon payment of the corresponding taxes due on the said lot, let an Order for issuance of decree of registration be issued.[17]
Petitioner questioned the MeTC decision before the Court of Appeals; however, the latter affirmed the MeTC ruling. The Court of Appeals, in its resolution dated February 22, 2005, denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.

The sole issue for our determination is whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the MeTC decision granting respondent's application for registration of the subject property.

Theory of Petitioner

Petitioner alleges that the "land subject of the application for registration of title in this case forms part of the lakebed of the Laguna Lake which is incapable of private appropriation; hence, the Court of Appeals committed grave error in affirming the trial court's decision granting the registration of the same land in favor of private respondent."[18]

Petitioner asserts that properties of the public dominion are held by the State by regalian right and that they are things res publicae in nature and are incapable of private appropriation. Petitioner cites the Civil Code[19] and the Constitution[20] in support of its arguments.

Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals' reliance on the Conversion Plan Swo-13-000450 prepared by Geodetic Engineer Oscar C. Castro and the note which states that "said survey is inside alienable and disposable land area as per Project No. 27-B, L.C. map No. 2623 dated January 3, 1968 certified by the Bureau of Forest Development"[21] insufficient to prove that the land subject of this case forms part of the alienable and disposable land of public domain.

Petitioner avers that "[considering that the parcel of land in issue is inalienable and indisposable, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the res rendering all proceedings had in the case null and void."[22] Petitioner claims that the trial court, in allowing the registration of the subject parcel of land in respondent's name, effectively violated the constitutional provision classifying subject land as forming part of the natural resources owned by the State, and "classified" the subject land as alienable or capable of registration, which is "beyond the reach of its judicial competence."[23] Petitioner avers that the classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department of the government, and not of the Courts.

This Court's Ruling

We see no reason to reverse and set aside the questioned decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner's claim actually hinges on a question of fact, that is, whether the subject property forms part of the lake bed of Laguna Lake. It is well-established that this Court is not the proper venue to thresh out factual issues. Indeed, the time to argue and prove petitioner's case has long passed. Petitioner had the opportunity to do so before the MeTC and the Court of Appeals.

Of particular interest to this Court is this portion of the MeTC decision:
There was no evidence presented by the public prosecutor assigned to this Court, who was deputized by the Office of the Solicitor General (O.S.G.) to assist said office in representing the government to support the opposition to this application filed by the O.S.G. Likewise, the Laguna Lake Development Authority did not present any evidence in support of its opposition.[24]
After refusing to present evidence to prove its claim before the MeTC, and likewise failing to get a favorable decision on appeal, petitioner goes to this Court to come to its rescue. Unfortunately, the law and the rules do not allow for such a remedy in this particular case.

Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are very rarely disturbed by this Court. The Court of Appeals made the following factual findings, and we quote:
On February 23, 1999, [respondent] Remedios Buenaflor filed before the court a quo an Application for Land Registration of Title over a parcel of agricultural land situated at Bo. Wawa, Taguig, Metro Manila with an area of four thousand one hundred sixteen (4,116) square meters. She averred that she is the owner in fee simple of subject parcel of land; that on February 11, 1987, she acquired said property by virtue of the Extra-judicial Settlement of the Estate of Faustino Sarmiento and since then occupied and possessed said land; that she declared the land for taxation purposes; and, that she has no knowledge of any existing lien or encumbrance affecting subject parcel of land.

The Director of Lands through the Solicitor General and the Laguna Lake Development Authority filed their separate Opposition to said application on April 13, 1999 and September 9, 1999, respectively.

During the initial hearing, applicant-appellee presented several documentary evidence to prove compliance with the jurisdictional requirements. Thereafter, trial ensued.

In support of her application, Remedios Buenaflor testified reiterating the material allegations of her application. She further testified that she had the property subject matter of this case surveyed by a geodetic engineer who prepared Survey Plan Swo-13-000450; that subject parcel of land is about a kilometer away from Laguna Lake; and, that for most part of the year it is dry and not affected by the Laguna Lake except during rainy season when it is inundated due to the overflowing of said lake.

[Respondent] likewise presented the testimony of Mr. Ferdinand Encarnacion, a representative of the Docket Section of Land Registration Authority, who brought with him the approved original tracing cloth of Conversion Plan of Swo-13-000450.

On July 22, 2002, the court a quo rendered the assailed Decision in the manner earlier mentioned.

x x x x

Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court are entitled to respect and shall not be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked or misinterpreted, and would otherwise materially affect the disposition of the case. Here, we find no cogent or compelling reason to disturb the findings of the court a quo.[25]
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals sufficiently found that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) had certified that subject property is part of the disposable and alienable land of the public domain. According to the Court of Appeals:
The Conversion Plan contains a notation that Lot 524 Mcadm 590-D of Taguig Cadastral Mapping (or the land subject matter of this case) is inside alienable and disposable area. The same Conversion Plan was certified to be correct and duly approved by the DENR. Hence, there is sufficient certification from the DENR that subject parcel of land is within the alienable and disposable land of public domain.

Moreover, we again quote with approval the findings of the court a quo on the matter:
"The applicant caused the survey of the subject parcel of land on April 24, 1988 by Geodetic Engineer Oscar C. Castro who, thereafter, prepared Conversion Plan Swo-13-000450, which was approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Lands Management Sector, on August 24, 1988. The said lot was found to have an actual area of Four Thousand One Hundred Sixteen (4,116) square meters under the said survey. The said survey is inside alienable and disposable land area as per Project No. 27-B, L.C. Map No. 2623 dated January 3, 1968 certified by the Bureau of Forest Development."[26]
We reiterate that the jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the appellate court is limited to reviewing errors of law, and findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon the Court since it is not the Court's function to analyze and weigh the evidence all over again.[27]

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM (1) the October 15, 2004 Decision and (2) the February 22, 2005 Resolution, both rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 77011, which in turn affirmed the July 22, 2002 Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Taguig in L.R.C. No. 190.

SO ORDERED. SERENO, C.J., on official leave; PERALTA, J., acting member per S.O. No. 2103 dated July 13, 2015.

[1] Rollo, pp. 29-34; penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo (now a member of this Court) with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Magdangal M. de Leon, concurring.

[2] Id. at 36-42.

[3] Id. at 35.

[4] Id. at 44.

[5] Id. at 47.

[6] Id. at 52.

[7] Id. at 54.

[8] Id. at 77.

[9] Id. at 84.

[10] Id. at 90.

[11] Id. at 101.

[12] Id. at 206-207.

[13] Id. at 223-228.

[14] A.M. No. P-13-3141, January 21, 2014. See also Office of the Court Administrator v. Bernardino, 490 Phil. 500 (2005) and Heirs of Kuli v. Pia, G.R. No. 199777, June 17, 2015.

[15] Rollo, pp. 38-41.

[16] Id. at 17.

[17] Id. at 42.

[18] Id. at 15-16.

[19] ARTICLE 420. The following things are property of public dominion:

(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;

(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.

ARTICLE 502. The following are of public dominion:

(1) Rivers and their natural beds;

(2) Continuous or intermittent waters of springs and brooks running in their natural beds and the beds themselves;

(3) Waters rising continuously or intermittently on lands of public dominion;

(4) Lakes and lagoons formed by Nature on public lands, and their beds;

(5) Rain waters running through ravines or sand beds, which are also of public dominion;

(6) Subterranean waters on public lands;

(7) Waters found within the zone of operation of public works, even if constructed by a contractor;

(8) Waters rising continuously or intermittently on lands belonging to private persons, to the State, to a province, or to a city or a municipality from the moment they leave such lands;

(9) The waste waters of fountains, sewers and public establishments.

[20] ARTICLE XII

x x x x

SECTION 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.

The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.

The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.

The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.

[21] Rollo, p. 20.

[22] Id. at 22.

[23] Id.

[24] Id. at 42.

[25] Id. at 30-33.

[26] Id. at 33.

[27] Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank, G.R. No. 171982, August 18, 2010, 628 SCRA 404, 413; citing Republic of the Philippines v. Regional Trial Court, Br. 18, Roxas City, Capiz, 607 Phil. 547, 557-558 (2009).