Republic_ vs_Lee_Environmental_Law. pptx

Envi Law

1. Republic vs. Lee G.R. No. 64818, 13 May 1991 197 SCRA 13 Prepared by: R. A. Maribao NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW “ It is a basic assumption of our polity that lands of whatever classification belong to the state. Unless alienated in accordance with law, it retains its rights over the same as dominus . x x x” -Santiago vs. de los Santos G.R. No. L-20241 November 22, 1974 (61 SCRA 146):

2. Republic vs. Lee G.R. No. 64818, 13 May 1991 197 SCRA 13 Prepared by: R. A. Maribao NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Facts: Spouses Urbano and Bernarda owned a parcel of land in Mangalda, Pangasinan. In 1960, they sold half portions of it to Mataban and Espiritu. In 1963, Mataban and Espiritu sold their respective half portions to private respondent Maria Lee. On June 29, 1976, or after almost 13 years of having been in possession of said property, Lee filed an application for registration with the then CFI Pangasinan. The Director of Lands opposed alleging that: - neither the applicant nor her predecessors-in-interest have acquired the land under any of the Spanish titles or any other recognized mode for the acquisition of title;

3. Facts: - neither she nor her predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land in concept of owner at least thirty (30) years prior to the filing of the application; - the land is a portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines. After trial, the CFI adjudicated the land in favor of the spouses Stephen and Maria Lee as their conjugal property. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. Republic vs. Lee G.R. No. 64818, 13 May 1991 197 SCRA 13 Prepared by: R. A. Maribao NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

4. Issue relevant to Environmental Law: Can public lands be acquired by private persons without any grant from the government? Republic vs. Lee G.R. No. 64818, 13 May 1991 197 SCRA 13 Prepared by: R. A. Maribao NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

5. Arguments of the Petitioner: Lee failed to establish by conclusive evidence her fee simple title or imperfect title which entitles her to registration under the Land Registration Act or the Public Land Act; Lee failed to overthrow the presumption that the subject land is public land belonging to the State. Lee presented clearly incompetent, self-serving and unresponsive testimony that her predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the property “for more than 20 years.’” Republic vs. Lee G.R. No. 64818, 13 May 1991 197 SCRA 13 Arguments of the Respondent: Lee was able to prove her title to the land in question through documentary evidence consisting of Deeds of sale and tax declarations and receipts as well as her spontaneous testimony; The fiscal should have cross-examined Lee to test her credibility; The reason why the fiscal failed to do so was that the latter is personally aware of facts showing that the land being applied for is a private land. Versus Prepared by: R. A. Maribao NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

6. Decision and Ruling relevant to Environmental Law: No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from government. A grant is conclusively presumed by law when the claimant, by himself or through his predecessor-in-interest has occupied the land openly, continuously, exclusively and under a claim of title since 26 July 1894 or prior thereto. All lands that were not acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. Republic vs. Lee G.R. No. 64818, 13 May 1991 197 SCRA 13 Prepared by: R. A. Maribao NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

7. Decision and Ruling relevant to Environmental Law: As enunciated in the case of Santiago vs. de los Santos (61 SCRA 146): “x x x Both under the 1935 and the present Constitutions, the conservation no less than the utilization of the natural resources is ordained. There would be a failure to abide by its command if the judiciary does not scrutinize with care applications to private ownership of real estate. To be granted, they must be grounded in well-nigh incontrovertible evidence. Where, as in this case, no such proof would be forthcoming, there is no justification for viewing such claim with favor. It is a basic assumption of our polity that lands of whatever classification belong to the state. Unless alienated in accordance with law, it retains its rights over the same as dominus . x x x” Republic vs. Lee G.R. No. 64818, 13 May 1991 197 SCRA 13 Prepared by: R. A. Maribao NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

8. Decision and Ruling relevant to Environmental Law: In this case, Lee failed to prove by convincing, positive proof that she has complied with the requirements of the law for confirmation of her title to the land applied for, thus, her application for registration should not have been granted by the lower court. Republic vs. Lee G.R. No. 64818, 13 May 1991 197 SCRA 13 Prepared by: R. A. Maribao NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

9. Other Major Subjects: LAND REGISTRATION - In land registration cases, the burden of proof is upon the applicant to show that he is the real and absolute owner in fee simple. Republic vs. Lee G.R. No. 64818, 13 May 1991 197 SCRA 13 Prepared by: R. A. Maribao NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

10. Questions to be Answered: 1. Was it right for Lee to contend that the failure of the fiscal to cross-examine her is material to her case? 2. Was the supposition that the fiscal had knowledge of facts showing that the land applied for is private land helpful to Lee? Republic vs. Lee G.R. No. 64818, 13 May 1991 197 SCRA 13 Answers: 1. No, that the fiscal did not cross-examine her does not help her cause because the burden of proof is upon her to prove by clear, positive and absolute evidence that her predecessor’s possession was indeed adverse, continuous, open, public, peaceful and in concept of owner. Her bare allegation without more, did not constitute such preponderant evidence that would shift the burden of proof to the oppositor. 2. No, it is not the fiscal , but the court which should be convinced, by competent proof, of Lee’s registrable right over the subject parcel of land. Prepared by: R. A. Maribao NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW