REPUBLIC vs. GALENO

Republic of the Philippines vs. Carmen Santorio Galeno

G.R. No. 215009

January 23, 2017

Facts:

Respondent Carmen Santorio Galeno filed a petition for the correction of the area of Lot No. 2285 covered by OCT No. 46417. She alleged that she is one of the co-owners of the subject property by virtue of Deed of Sale; the subject property was duly approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Moreover, she alleged that when she and her co-owners had the subject property resurveyed, they discovered a discrepancy in the land area – which the title reflects an area of 20, 948 square meters while the certification issued by the DENR shows an area of 21, 298 square meters. She sought to correct the area of the subject property in order to avoid further confusion, and claimed to have notified the adjoining owners. The RTC granted the petition, finding that the respondent was able to substantiate the allegations. It directed the registry of Deeds of the province of Iloilo to correct such area in OCT No. 46417 from 20, 948 to 21, 298 square meters. Herein petitioner republic of the Philippines through the office of the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that the adjoining owners had not been notified, stressing that such notice is a jurisdictional requirement. RTC denied the motion, finding that respondent was able to prove compliance with the said jurisdictional requirement. The CA affirmed the RTC order; it found that respondent was able to prove that the true and correct area of the subject property was 21, 298 square meters.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in upholding the correction of the area of the subject property?

Held:

Yes. A scrutiny of the evidence marked an formally offered by respondent before the court a quo shows that the former failed to prove that there was sufficient basis to allow the correction of the area of the subject property. Unfortunately, the forgoing documentary evidence is not sufficient to warrant the correction prayed for. The court cannot accord probative weight upon them in view of the fact that the public officers who issued the same did not testify on court to prove the facts stated therein. The testimonies of Acevedo, Caballero, and other public officers who issued respondent’s documentary evidence are bereft of probative value and cannot, there mere issuance, prove the facts stated therein. The general rule is that, hearsay evidence is not admissible. Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not cannot be given credence for it has no probative value. Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendant’s. Respondent’s petition for the correction of the said Certificate of Title must be denied.