PERTINENT FACTS:

In 1940’s, there was a parcel of land owned by private persons as evidenced by tax declarations, there being no certificate of title in their favor.

In 1960’s, a law was passed which became the charter of a certain city. Pursuant to that law, all foreshore lands and submerged lands shall belong, if not

turned over, to the city. Despite the declaration, the heirs continued to pay for the certificate of tax

declaration of the said parcel of land. Both the city and the heirs claimed ownership over the said parcel of land.

ISSUE:

Who has a better right? The heirs of the land by virtue of their tax declaration, or the city pursuant to its charter?

FIRST VIEW (Our View):

The city has a better right.

i. The charter provides that all foreshore lands and submerged lands shall belong, if not turned over, to the city. Since the charter says so, it must be the law pursuant to the principle that a charter is the city’s constitution.

Legal Basis:

A. Governing Law (Republic Act No. 7160)

Charters, ordinances, and codes are essential to identifying the powers, privileges, rules, and regulations of a municipality or county. More specifically, cities and counties have some type of charter, which defines their terms of existence. In addition, the charter is the city or county’s “constitution,” and the starting point for all other regulations.1 . As the city’s constitution, the charter creates the city, defines its boundaries, provides its system of government, and defines the powers and duties of its officials.2

In the case at hand, R.A. 5519 provides that all foreshore lands and submerged lands shall belong, if not turned over, to the city. Therefore, it shall be accorded

1 Peter j. Egler, “What Gives Cities And Counties The Authority To Create Charters, Ordinances, And Codes?”, Teachable Moments For Students, 1 (2001).2 http://www.ph.net/htdocs/government/phil/loc-gov/

with respect and finality. Where the law is clear, there is only room for application.

B. Jurisprudence

ii. Moreover, the heirs did not apply for an original registration proceeding in to obtain a title over the said property. The specific evidence of ownership of a parcel of land is a certificate of title obtained through original registration, not a tax declaration.

Legal Basis:

A. Governing Law (Presidential Decree No. 1529 otherwise known as Property Registration Decree)

Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Hence, all applicants in land registration proceedings have the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land thus sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. Unless the applicant succeeds in showing by clear and convincing evidence that the property involved was acquired by him or his ancestors by any means for the proper acquisition of public lands, the property must be held to be part of the public domain.3

An applicant for registration is not necessarily entitled to have the land registered in his name simply because no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the registration of the land. He must show, even in the absence of opposition, to the satisfaction of the court, that he is the absolute owner, in fee simple.4

Interestingly, Section 14 of the Property Registration Decree laid down the persons who may file in the proper court an application for registration of title to

land to wit:

(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.

(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision of existing laws.

3 1Note that Spanish titles are no longer admissible as evidence of ownership pursuant to PD No. 892 dated Feb. 16, 1976.

4 Laragan v. Court of Appeals, GR No. L-47644, Aug. 21, 1987, 152 SCRA 172.

(3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under the existing laws.

(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law.

Therefore, any person qualified can then own the land through judicial confirmation of imperfect title or through prescription.

An applicant for confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title must show open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the property

in question, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945.5 Possession, to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right, must be possession under a claim of title or it must be adverse.6

Upon the finality of the judgment of the court adjudicating the land as private property, the court shall, within fifteen (15) days from the entry thereof,

issue an order directing the LRA Administrator to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title. The Administrator shall then prepare the decree of registration as well as the original and duplicate of the corresponding certificate of title. The original certificate of title, signed by him, shall be a true copy of the decree of registration, and shall be sent, together with the owner’s duplicate certificate, to the Register of Deeds of the City or province where the land lies. The certificate of the title is the transcript of the decree of registration made by the Register of Deeds in the registry.7

iii. Tax declaration is just a proof of possession, not ownership.

Legal Basis:

a. Governing Law

b. Jurisprudence

1. Republic vs. de la Paz (G.R. No. 171631, November 15, 2010)

“Well settled is the rule that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported by any other evidence. The fact that the disputed property may have been declared

5 Sec. 48(b), CA No. 141; Sec. 14(1), PD No. 1529.6 Cuaycong v. Benedicto, GR No. 9989, March 13, 1918, 37 Phil. 781.7 Philippine National Bank v. Tan Ong Zse, GR No. 27991, Dec. 24, 1927, 51 Phil. 317.

for taxation purposes in the names of the applicants for registration or of their predecessors-in-interest does not necessarily prove ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.”

2. Spouses Nicanor Magno and Caridad Magno vs. Heirs of Pablo Parulan (G. R. No. 183916, April 25, 2012)

“A mere tax declaration cannot defeat a certificate of title.”

3. Republic of the Philippines vs. Metro Index Realty and Development Corporation

“It is well-settled that tax declarations are mere bases for inferring possession. They must be coupled with proof

of actual possession for them to constitute "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence of a claim of

ownership.”

SECOND VIEW (Opponent’s View):

The heirs have a better right.

i. Laws should not impair vested rights.

Rebuttal:

ii. Law on Prescription

Rebuttal: