REPUBLIC v. TIO GO

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HAROLD TIO GO

G.R. No. 168288

January 25, 2017

FACTS :

Respondent Harold Tio Go filed an application for original registration of title in 1999.[4] His application covered two (2) parcels of land located in Liloan, Cebu, identified as Lot No. 9196, Pls-823 (identical to Lot No. 281-A) with an area of 404 square meters and Lot No. 9197 (identical to Lot No. 281-B) with an area of 2,061 sq m.

The Republic filed an opposition[5] to the application on the grounds that: (1) Go or his predecessors-in-interest have not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the property since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto; (2) Go failed to adduce evidence showing bona fide acquisition of the land applied for; (3) the claim of ownership can no longer be availed of by Go since he failed to file an application within six months from February 16, 1976 as required by Presidential Decree No. 892; and (4) the parcels of land applied for belong to a portion of the public domain.[6] Despite its written opposition, the Republic failed to appear during the initial hearing of the case.[7] After reception of Go’s evidence, the RTC granted his application in its Decision dated February 4, 2002.

The Republic appealed the RTC decision on the ground that the trial court erred in granting Go’s application in the absence of proof that the land applied for is within alienable and disposable land of the public domain. In the assailed decision, the CA denied the Republic’s appeal and affirmed the RTC decision, taking into account the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) Certification dated September 15, 2003 issued by CENR Officer Elpidio R. Palaca (Palaca), which was attached to Go’s appellee’s brief. The certification stated, in part: This is to certify that per projection conducted by Forester Anastacio C. Cabalejo, a tract of land, Lot No. 281, PLS 823, containing an area of TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY[-]FIVE (2,465) [sq m], more or less situated at Tayud, Liloan, Cebu as shown and described in the plan at the back hereof, x x x was found to be within the Alienable and Disposable Land, Land Classification Project 29 Per map 1391 of Liloan, Cebu FAO 4-537 dated July 31, 1940.[11] (Emphasis ours)

The CA concluded that Go’s submission of the certificate “settles the issue on whether or not the subject lots in this case are alienable and disposable in the affirmative.”[12] The main contention of the Republic is that the CENRO Certification should not have been admitted by the CA as it was not adduced and marked as evidence during the trial, and consequently not formally offered and admitted by the trial court, in violation of Rule 132, Section 34 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA committed a reversible error in admitting the CENRO Certification. And whether or not Go sufficiently established the alienability and disposability of the subject properties.

HELD :

The Petition is Denied, the CA correctly admitted the CENRO Certification and Go has adequately established his and his predecessors-in-interest’s open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the properties subject of the application. The Court is convinced and so holds, that applicant, [GO], married to Mich Y. Go, is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in his application. His possession of the subject property, including his predecessors-in-interest is more than thirty (30) years, which is open, public, peaceful continuous and uninterrupted in the concept of an owner and against the whole world. Thus, applicant is entitled to the issuance of title over the subject land and the same should be registered and confirmed. The factual findings and conclusion of the RTC on the issue of Go’s possession and occupation were neither controverted nor refuted by the Office of the Solicitor General on appeal to the CA or on review to this Court. The rule is that “issues or grounds not raised below cannot be resolved on review by the Supreme Court, for to allow the parties to raise new issues is antithetical to the sporting idea of fair play, justice and due process.” For all intents and purposes, the matter of Go’s possession and occupation is already settled and considering that the CA correctly admitted the CENRO Certification, there is, therefore, no more obstacle to the issuance of title in the name of Go for Lot No. 9196 and Lot No. 9197, Pls-823.