5/22/2018 3. Republic vs. CA

1/3

G.R. No. L-46145 November 26, 1986

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE !BURE"U OF L"N#$, petitioner,vs.THE HON. COURT OF "PPE"L, HEIR OF #O%INGO P. B"LO&, re're(e)*e+ b RIC"R#O B"LO&ET "L.,respondents.

Pelaez, Jalondoni, Adriano and Associates for respondents.

P"R", J.:p

This case originally emanated from a decision of the then Court of First Instance of Zambales in LRC CNo. !", LRC Record No. N!#$%&&, denying respondents' application for registration. From said orderdenial the applicants, heirs of (omingo )aloy, represented by Ricardo *. )aloy, +herein privrespondents interposed on appeal to the Court of -ppeals hich as doc/eted as C-!0.R. No. "%$

The appellate court, thru its Fifth (ivision ith the 1on. 2ustice 3agno 0atmaitan as ponente, renderedecision dated February %, $44 reversing the decision appealed from and thus approving the applicatfor registration. 5ppositors +petitioners herein 6led their 3otion for Reconsideration alleging among otthings that applicants' possessory information title can no longer be invo/ed and that they ere not ableprove a registerable title over the land. 7aid 3otion for Reconsideration as denied, hence this petitionrevie on certiorari.

-pplicants' claim is anchored on their possessory information title +89hibit F hich had been translated89hibit F! coupled ith their continuous, adverse and public possession over the land in :uestion. e9amination of the possessory information title shos that the description and the area of the land statherein substantially coincides ith the land applied for and that said possessory information title had beregularly issued having been ac:uired by applicants' predecessor, (omingo )aloy, under the provisionsthe 7panish 3ortgage La. -pplicants presented their ta9 declaration on said lands on -pril ;, $ect, it is true that the =.7. Nadid occupy it apparently for some time, as a recreation area, as this Court understands frthe communication of the (epartment of Foreign ->airs to the =.7. 8mbassy e9hibited in record, but the very tenor of the communication apparently see/s to @ustify the title of herapplicants, in other ords, hat this Court has ta/en from the occupation by the =.7. Navthat during the interim, the title of applicants as in a state of suspended animation sospea/ but it had not died eitherB and the fact being that this land as really originally privfrom and after the issuance and inscription of the possessory information 89h. F during 7panish times, it ould be most diDcult to sustain position of (irector of Lands that it land of no private onerB open to public disposition, and over hich he has controlB asince immediately after =.7. Navy had abandoned the area, applicant came in and asser

5/22/2018 3. Republic vs. CA

2/3

title once again, only to be troubled by 6rst Crispiniano )lanco ho hoever in due tim:uitclaimed in favor of applicants, and then by private oppositors no, apparently origintenants of )lanco, but that entry of private oppositors sought to be given color of onershen they sought to and did 6le ta9 declaration in $

5/22/2018 3. Republic vs. CA

3/3

deed of @udicial pronouncement. *etitioner in ma/ing such declaration relied on 7ec. E of -ct