Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs.Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation, Respondent G.R. No. 172102 | July 2, 2010 | Peralta, J. SUMMARY: On October 15, 1993, Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation filed an application for Registration of Title over the lot situated in Barrio Sacsac, Consolacion, Cebu, pursuant to the Property Registration Decree. The application stated that Hanover is the owner in fee simple of Lot No. 4488, its title thereto having been obtained through purchase evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Except for the Republic, there were no other oppositors to the application. The Republic argues that neither Hanover nor its predecessors-in-interest are in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question since June 12, 1945 or prior thereto and that Hanover is a private corporation disqualified under the Constitution to hold alienable lands of the public domain. On August 7, 1997, the RTC rendered its Decision approving Hanover’s application for registration of the subject lot. The judgment of the RTC was later affirmed by the CA. DOCTRINE: A mere showing of possession and occupation for 30 years or more is not sufficient. Therefore, since the effectivity of P.D. 1073 on January 25, 1977, it must now be shown that possession and occupation of the piece of land by the applicant, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, started on June 12, 1945 or earlier. This provision is in total conformity with Section 14 (1) of P.D. 1529 .Thus, pursuant to the provisions of law, applicants for registration of title must prove: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain, and (2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. While tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they constitute proof of claim of ownership. The pieces of documentary evidence submitted by respondent neither show that its predecessor’s possession and occupation of the subject land is for the period or duration required by law. The earliest date of the Tax Declarations presented in evidence by respondent is 1965, the others being 1973, 1980, 1992 and 1993. Respondent failed to present any credible explanation why the realty taxes due on the subject property were only paid starting in 1965. The payment of realty taxes starting 1965 gives rise to the presumption that respondent’s predecessors-in-interest claimed ownership or possession of the subject lot only in that year.