see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/march2013/182449.pdf
"x x x.
In a judicial confirmation of title under original registration proceedings, applicants may obtain the registration of title to land upon a showing that they or their predecessors-in-interest have been in (1) open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of (2) agricultural lands of the public domain, (3) under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, (4) for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure.17 The burden of proof in land registration cases rests on applicants who must show clear, positive and convincing evidence that
their alleged possession and occupation were of the nature and duration
required by law.18
In this case, what is questioned is the sufficiency of the evidence submitted to prove that the possession by respondent’s predecessors-ininterest was of the nature required by the Public Land Act and the Property Registration Decree. Specifically, respondent must prove that his predecessors-in-interest openly, continuously, exclusively, and notoriously possessed the realties.
Possession is acquired in any of the following ways: (1) by the material occupation of the thing; (2) by the exercise of a right; (3) by the fact
that the property is subject to the action of our will; and (4) by the proper
acts and legal formalities established for acquiring the right.19 In Director of Lands v. IAC,20 we explained the nature of the possession required to
confirm one’s title as follows:
Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not
clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted, unbroken and not
intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor can show
exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use
and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally
known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood.
(Emphasis supplied)
In perusing the evidence submitted by respondent, petitioner claims 21
that the former merely presented (1) a witness’ testimony full of otherhood
statements, and (2) Tax Declarations and realty payments that do not
conclusively prove ownership. Thus, the Republic claims that the evidence
of possession is insufficient.
However, as found by the courts a quo, it is clear from the records that
respondent presented several pieces of documentary evidence to prove that
he openly possessed the properties. He submitted notarized Deeds of Sale,
Agreements of Partition and Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate and Sale to
show the acquisition of the lands from his predecessors-in-interest.22
Moreover, he presented Tax Declarations and realty payments showing that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been paying real estate
taxes since 1948 until the inception of this case in 1997; hence, for more
than 30 years. He also submitted the original tracing cloth plan in which the advance survey plan shows that the subject lots had previously been under the names of the vendors, the previous transferors, and the original owners of the lots.23
As we have ruled in Republic v. Sta. Ana-Burgos,24 while tax declarations and realty tax payments on property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are nevertheless good indicia of possession in the concept
of owner, for no one in the right frame of mind would be paying taxes for a
property that is not in one’s actual or at least constructive possession.
The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes
is an announcement of one’s claim against the State and all other interested parties.25 In fact, these documents already constitute prima facie evidence of possession.26 Moreover, if the holders of the land present a deed of conveyance in their favor from its former owner to support their claim of ownership, the declaration of ownership and tax receipts relative to the property may be used to prove their good faith in occupying and possessing it.27 Additionally, when considered with actual possession of the property, tax receipts constitute evidence of great value in support of the claim of title of ownership by prescription.28
x x x."
