563 Phil. 732
QUISUMBING, J.:
…per projection and ground verification…a tract of land with list of lot numbers attached herewith containing an area of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT POINT FOUR SIX FIVE SEVEN (138.4657) hectares, more or less, situated in the Barangay at Sta. Cruz, San Vicente and Lataban Lilo[-]an, Cebu. As shown and described in the Sketch Plan at the back hereof…The same was found to be:However, the list of lot numbers referred to in the certification was not included in the certification, nor was it attached to the Manifestation. The list was never submitted to the trial court. The petitioner’s Manifestation merely informed the court that it had failed to include the said certification in its formal offer of exhibits, and that it was “submitting” the same “in compliance with the requirements of the application.” Petitioner did not move to re-open the proceedings to present the certification in evidence, have it authenticated and subjected to cross-examination, or have it marked as an exhibit and formally offered in evidence. The original was never submitted.x x x x
- Within the Alienable and Disposable Block-1, land classification project no. 29 per LC Map no. 1391 of Lilo[-]an, Cebu. Certified under Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-537 dated July 31, 1940; and
(signed) (signed) EDUARDO M. INTING ATTY. ROGELIO C. LAGAT Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (Emphasis supplied.)
On January 16, 1998, the trial court rendered its decision granting the application, and directed the issuance of the respective decrees of registration for each of the eight parcels of land, all in petitioner’s name.
- [T]hat neither the applicant/nor his/her/their predecessors-in-interest have been in open[,] continuous[,] ex[c]lusive[,] and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto…[;]
- [T]hat the muniment/s of title and/or tax declaration/s and tax payment/s receipt/s of applicant/s if any, attached to or alleged in the application, do/es not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of a bona-fide acquisition of the lands applied for or of his/her/their open, continuous, exclusive[,] and notorious possession and occupation…[;]
- [T]hat the claim of ownership in fee simple on the basis of Spanish Title or grant can no longer be availed of by the applicant/s who have failed to file an appropriate application for registration within the period of six (6) months from February 16, 1976 as required by Presidential Decree No. 892.[10] From the records, it appears that the instant application was filed on November 18, 1996[;]
That the applicant is a private corporation disqualified under the [N]ew Philippine Constitution to hold alienable lands of the public domain…- [T]hat the parcel/s applied for in/are portions of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines not subject to private appropriation.[11]
The State filed its notice of appeal.All in [f]avor and in the name of Gordoland Development Corporation, a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of Philippine Laws with address at Suite 801, Ermita Center Building, Roxas Blvd., Manila.
- Lot No. 4221 described in the Technical [D]escription (Exhibit “L”), situated at San Vicente, Lilo-an, Cebu[,] containing an area of Ten Thousand Two Hundred [F]orty[-][E]ight (10,248) square meters, more or less;
- Lot No. 4222 described in the Technical Description (Exhibit “T”), situated at Lataban, Lilo-an, Cebu[,] containing an area of Two Thousand [F]our [H]undred [T]wenty-[O]ne square meters (2,421), more or less;
- Lot No. 4242 described in the Technical Description (Exhibit “AA”), situated at San Vicente, Lilo-an, Cebu, containing an area of Three Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Eight (3,428) square meters, more or less;
- Lot No. 7250 described in the Technical Description (Exhibit “MM”), situated at Lataban, Lilo-an, Cebu, containing an area of Forty-Six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-Seven (46,487) square meters, more or less;
- Lot No. 7252 described in the Technical Description (Exhibit “XX”), situated at Lataban, Lilo-an, Cebu, containing an area of Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Two (7,932) square meters, more or less;
- Lot No. 7260 described in the Technical Description (Exhibit “QQQ”), situated at Lataban, Lilo-an, Cebu, containing an area of Two Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty (2,920) square meters, more or less;
- Lot No. 7264 described in the Technical Description (Exhibit “CCC”), situated at Lataban, Lilo-an, Cebu, containing an area of Two Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-Seven (2,787) square meters, more or less;
- Lot No. 7269 described in the Technical Description (Exhibit “III”), situated at Barangay Lataban, Lilo-an, Cebu, containing an area of Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Eight (9,978) square meters, more or less;
Upon finality of this decision, let the corresponding decree of registration be issued in favor of applicants in accordance with Section 39, P.D. 1529.
SO ORDERED.[12]
WHEREFORE, finding merit to the appeal of [respondent] Republic of the Philippines, the Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 55 dated January 16, 1998 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied. Hence, the instant petition, raising the following issues:
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[15]
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE APPLICATION FOR LAND REGISTRATION AND THE CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING WERE DEFECTIVE FOR LACK OF AUTHORITY FROM THE CORPORATION’S BOARD OF DIRECTORS.Stated simply, the petitioner raises the following issues, to wit: (1) whether or not its petition for registration is defective; (2) whether or not the subject parcels of land are alienable and disposable; and (3) whether or not petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest were in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the properties for a period of at least 30 years.II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES WERE ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE PUBLIC LAND.III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER AND ITS PREDECESSOR[S]-IN-INTEREST FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE 30-YEAR POSSESSION REQUIRED BY LAW.[16]
Exception (7) as quoted above is present in this case. In its decision the trial court found that the subject parcels of land were within the alienable and disposable land of the public domain. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals found that petitioner had not been able to prove that the subject parcels of land were indeed alienable and disposable.[26]
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;(7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[25]
…What was attached to the Manifestation quoted above is merely a photocopy of the Certification dated January 10, 1996 without the list of lot numbers attached thereto. It does not appear that said Certification was ever utilized by Gordoland in support of its application, neither was the original copy or certified true copy thereof ever presented nor submitted to the lower court to form part of the records of the case. It was not marked and formally offered in evidence. Evidence not formally offered before the trial court cannot be considered on appeal, for to consider them at such stage will deny the other parties their right to rebut them. (Ong v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 387 [1997]). The reason for the rule prohibiting the admission of evidence that has not been formally offered is to afford the other party the chance to object to their admissibility (Ong Chia v. Republic, 328 SCRA 749 [2000]).It must be stressed that incontrovertible evidence must be presented to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable.[29]
It is true that the trial court had noted the said Certification in its questioned decision of January 16, 1998. Thus:
“In resolving the Opposition interposed by the State,…And as certified to by the CENRO, these lots are already within the alienable and disposable land of the public domain and therefore susceptible to private appropriation.”…
Verily, the trial court just adopted entirely the statements embodied in the said Certification, a photocopied document, which had not been formally offered in evidence, without inquiring into the supposed attachments thereto, without examining the contents thereof, and without verifying whether such Certification really pertained to the lands in question. The trial court simply could not ascertain such facts, for nowhere in the records can be found the alleged attachments.[28]
The facts and circumstances in the record render untenable that Gordoland had performed all the conditions essential to reinforce its application for registration under the Property Registration Decree.…WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision and the Resolution dated January 13, 2003 and May 20, 2004, respectively, of the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the Decision dated January 16, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Mandaue City, are hereby AFFIRMED.
The Court is of the opinion, and so finds, that subject Lot No. 4221, Lot No. 4222, Lot No. 4242, Lot No. 7250, Lot No. 7252, Lot No. 7260, Lot No. 7264, and Lot No. 7269 form part of the public domain not registrable in the name of Gordoland. To reiterate, under the Regalian doctrine, all lands belong to the State. Unless alienated in accordance with law, it retains its basic rights over the same as dominus.…[31]