Trinidad Diaz-Enriquez, petitioner v.
Director of Lands, respondents
G.R. No. 168065/G.R. No. 168070
September 6 2017
FACTS:
Geronimo, Josefino, and Rodrigo (the Saclolos) filed before the then RTC Naic, Cavite, a joint application for
registration of title over three (3) parcels of land (subject lands) (375.2 hectares). The Saclolos averred that they had
acquired title to the subject lands through purchase and that together with their predecessors-in-interest, they had been in
actual and exclusive possession, occupation, and cultivation of the subject lands since time immemorial.
The government, thru respondent, the Director of Lands, Abdon Riego de Dios, and Angelina Samson filed oppositions to
the application. The Director of Lands argued that the subject lands are not alienable and disposable because: they are
located within the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation, segregated from the public domain by Proclamation No. 307,
dated November 20, 1967; that by virtue of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6236, the right to judicial confirmation of imperfect title
under Section 48 of the Public Land Law, with respect to lands having an area of more than 144 hectares, has expired;
that the Saclolos had not acquired title over the subject lands through any recognized mode of acquisition of title; that the
Saclolos and their predecessors-in-interest had not been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the subject lands for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application; and that PSU 68,
69, and 70, the plans which cover the subject lands, have not been verified by the Bureau of Lands as required by
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 239.
The petitioner, (Enriquez) filed a motion for intervention alleging that the Saclolos had sold to her all their interests and
rights over the subject lands. The RTC allowed Enriquez's claim to be litigated.
The RTC Ruling
RTC ruled that the subject lands are alienable and disposable lands of the public domain because Proclamation No. 307
itself stressed that the segregation of the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation was subject to private rights. The
application for title of the petitioners confirmed.
The CA Ruling
CA reversed the RTC’s decision; declared that the subject lands are all within the Calumpang Point Naval Resevation,;
thus, the said lands could not be privately titled. It held that even if Proclamation No. 307 qualifies the reservation as being
subject to private rights, the Saclolos have not established by adequate proof their open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession over the subject lands. It further noted that the trial court's jurisdiction to entertain the application
was not established since the plans had not been verified by the Bureau of Lands as required by P.D. No. 239 and the
alleged verifications in the plans were not authentic.
Aggrieved, the Saclolos and Enriquez moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied.Hence, these consolidated
petitions.
In G.R. No. 168070, the Saclolos argue that the Director of Lands did not appeal from the RTC decision, thus, the facts
pertaining to the registration of titles are already final and settled
In G.R. No. 168065, Enriquez, citing Carrion v. CA, avers that the appellate court committed a reversible error when it
modified the decision of the trial court and granted to the Director of Lands, who did not appeal from such decision,
affirmative reliefs other than those granted to them by the trial court's judgment.
ISSUE:
Whether the appellate court may resolve issues which are not raised as errors on appeal
RULING: YES. The petitions are without merit.
The subject lands may still be
declared public lands
notwithstanding the Director
of Lands' failure to appeal
from the RTC decision.
In addition, an applicant is not necessarily entitled to have the land registered under the Torrens system simply because
no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the registration of his land. He must show, even though there is no
opposition to the satisfaction of the court, that he is the absolute owner, in fee simple.
Consequently, the appellate court may still determine whether the subject lands are indeed alienable and disposable
lands of the public domain, notwithstanding the Director of Lands' failure to appeal from the RTC decision.
The appellate court may
reverse the decision of the trial
court on the basis of grounds
other than those raised as
errors on appeal.
As a general rule, only matters assigned as errors in the appeal may be resolved. Section 8, Rule 51 of the Rules of
Court provides:
SECTION 8. Questions that May Be Decided. - No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or
the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless stated in the assignment
of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may
pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.
The exceptions to this rule have been enumerated in Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals:21
[T]he appellate court is accorded a broad discretionary power to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to
consider errors not assigned. It is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors in
the appeal. Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals may consider grounds other than those touched upon in the decision of the
trial court and uphold the same on the basis of such other grounds, the Court of Appeals may, with no less authority,
reverse the decision of the trial court on the basis of grounds other than those raised as errors on appeal. We have
applied this rule, as a matter of exception, in the following instances:
(1) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(2) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law;
(3) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and
complete resolution of the case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice;
(4) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having
some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored;
(5) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and
(6) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned, is
dependent.
In this case, there is no doubt that the application for registration of title hinges upon the determination of whether the
subject lands are alienable and disposable. Further, this is consistent with the appellate court's authority to review the
totality of the controversy brought on appeal.
