Additional Case Ltd

8/9/2019 Additional Case Ltd

1/58

G.R. No. L-630 November 15, 1947

ALEXANDER A. KRIVENKO,petitioner-appellant,vs.TE REGI!TER O" DEED!, #IT$ O" %ANILA,respondent and appellee.

%ORAN, C.J.:

Alenxander A. Kriventor alien, bought a residential lot from the Magdalena Estate, Inc., inDecember of 1!1, the registration of "hich "as interrupted b# the "ar. In Ma#, 1!$, he soughtto accomplish said registration but "as denied b# the register of deeds of Manila on the groundthat, being an alien, he cannot ac%uire land in this &urisdiction. Kriven'o then brought the caseto the fourth branch of the (ourt of )irst Instance of Manila b# means of a consulta,and thatcourt rendered &udgment sustaining the refusal of the register of deeds, from "hich Kriven'oappealed to this (ourt.

*here is no dispute as to these facts. *he real point in issue is "hether or not an alien under our(onstitution ma# ac%uire residential land.

It is said that the decision of the case on the merits is unnecessar#, there being a motion to

"ithdra" the appeal "hich should have been granted outright, and reference is made to theruling laid do"n b# this (ourt in another case to the e+ect that a court should not pass upon aconstitutional %uestion if its &udgment ma# be made to rest upon other grounds. *here is, "ebelieve, a confusion of ideas in this reasoning. It cannot be denied that the constitutiona%uestion is unavoidable if "e choose to decide this case upon the merits. ur &udgment cannotto be made to rest upon other grounds if "e have to render an# &udgment at all. And "e cannotavoid our &udgment simpl# because "e have to avoid a constitutional %uestion. e cannot, forinstance, grant the motion "ithdra"ing the appeal onl# because "e "ish to evade theconstitutional issue. hether the motion should be, or should not be, granted, is a %uestioninvolving di+erent considerations no" to be stated.

According to /ule $0, section !, of the /ules of (ourt, it is discretionar# upon this (ourt to grant

a "ithdra"al of appeal after the briefs have been presented. At the time the motion for"ithdra"al "as led in this case, not onl# had the briefs been prensented, but the case hadalread# been voted and the ma&orit# decision "as being prepared. *he motion for "ithdra"alstated no reason "hatsoever, and the 2olicitor 3eneral "as agreeable to it. hile the motion"as pending in this (ourt, came the ne" circular of the Department of 4ustice, instructing allregister of deeds to accept for registration all transfers of residential lots to aliens. *he hereinrespondent-appellee "as naturall# one of the registers of deeds to obe# the ne" circular, asagainst his o"n stand in this case "hich had been maintained b# the trial court and rml#defended in this (ourt b# the 2olicitor 3eneral. If "e grant the "ithdra"al, the the result "ouldbe that petitioner-appellant Alexander A. Kriven'o "ins his case, not b# a decision of this (ourt,but b# the decision or circular of the Department of 4ustice, issued "hile this case "as pendingbefore this (ourt. hether or not this is the reason "h# appellant see's the "ithdra"al of his

appeal and "h# the 2olicitor 3eneral readil# agrees to that "ithdra"al, is no" immaterial. hatis material and indeed ver# important, is "hether or not "e should allo" interference "ith theregular and complete exercise b# this (ourt of its constitutional functions, and "hether or notafter having held long deliberations and after having reached a clear and positive conviction asto "hat the constitutional mandate is, "e ma# still allo" our conviction to be silenced, and theconstitutional mandate to be ignored or misconceived, "ith all the harmful conse%uences thatmight be brought upon the national patromon#. )or it is but natural that the ne" circular beta'en full advantage of b# man#, "ith the circumstance that perhaps the constitutional %uestionma# never come up again before this court, because both vendors and vendees "ill have nointerest but to uphold the validit# of their transactions, and ver# unli'el# "ill the register ofdeeds venture to disobe# the orders of their superior. *hus, the possibilit# for this court to voice


2/58


3/58

other circumstances besides, the Act of (ongress contains onl# three classication, andma'es no special provision "ith respect to building lots or urban lands that have ceasedto be agricultural land.

In other "ords, the (ourt ruled that in determining "hether a parcel of land is agricultural, thetest is not onl# "hether it is actuall# agricultural, but also its susceptibilit# to cultivation foragricultural purposes. Fut "hatever the test might be, the fact remains that at the time the(onstitution "as adopted, lands of the public domain "ere classied in our la"s and

&urisprudence into agricultural, mineral, and timber, and that the term ;public agricultural lands;"as construed as referring to those lands that "ere not timber or mineral, and as includingresidential lands. It ma# safel# be presumed, therefore, that "hat the members of the(onstitutional (onvention had in mind "hen the# drafted the (onstitution "as this "ell-'no"nclassication and its technical meaning then prevailing.

(ertain expressions "hich appear in (onstitutions, . . . are obviousl# technical and "heresuch "ords have been in use prior to the adoption of a (onstitution, it is presumed that itsframers and the people "ho ratied it have used such expressions in accordance "iththeir technical meaning. >11 Am. 4ur., sec. BB, p. B=C.@ Also(alder vs.Full, C Dall. GH.2.C=B 1 a". ed., B!= Fronson vs.2#verson, == ash., 0B! 1$0 9., 1II 2utherland, 2tatutor# (onstruction, p. ?$=.@

*herefore, the phrase ;public agricultural lands; appearing in section 1 of Article 5III of the(onstitution must be construed as including residential lands, and this is in conformit# "ith alegislative interpretation given after the adoption of the (onstitution. ell 'no"n is the rule that;"here the egislature has revised a statute after a (onstitution has been adopted, such arevision is to be regarded as a legislative construction that the statute so revised conforms tothe (onstitution.; >$ (.4., 11


4/58

made alienable or disposable under (ommon"ealth Act 8o. 1!1, in favor of )ilipino citi:ens, is aconclusive indication of their character as public agricultural lands under said statute and underthe (onstitution.

It must be observed, in this connection that prior to the (onstitution, under section 0! of 9ublicand Act 8o. 0=?!, aliens could ac%uire public agricultural lands used for industrial or residentialpuposes, but after the (onstitution and under section 0C of (ommon"ealth Act 8o. 1!1, theright of aliens to ac%uire such 'ind of lands is completel# stric'en out, undoubtedl# in pursuanceof the constitutional limitation. And, again, prior to the (onstitution, under section $? of 9ublicand Act 8o. 0=?!, land of the public domain suitable for residence or industrial purposes couldbe sold or leased to aliens, but after the (onstitution and under section B< of (ommon"ealth Act8o. 1!1, such land ma# onl# be leased, but not sold, to aliens, and the lease granted shall onl#be valid "hile the land is used for the purposes referred to. *he exclusion of sale in the ne" Actis undoubtedl# in pursuance of the constitutional limitation, and this again is another legislativeconstruction that the term ;public agricultural land; includes land for residence purposes.

2uch legislative interpretation is also in harmon# "ith the interpretation given b# the ExecutiveDepartment of the 3overnment. a# bac' in 1C, 2ecretar# of 4ustice 4ose Abad 2antos, inans"er to a %uer# as to ;"hether or not the phrase Jpublic agricultural landsJ in section 1 ofArticle 5II >no" 5III@ of the (onstitution ma# be interpreted to include residential, commercial,

and industrial lands for purposes of their disposition,; rendered the follo"ing short, sharp andcr#stal-clear opinion6

2ection 1, Article 5II >no" 5III@ of the (onstitution classies lands of the public domain inthe 9hilippines into agricultural, timber and mineral. *his is the basic classicationadopted since the enactment of the Act of (ongress of 4ul# 1, 1


5/58

It is thus clear that the three great departments of the 3overnment 7 &udicial, legislative andexecutive 7 have al"a#s maintained that lands of the public domain are classied intoagricultural, mineral and timber, and that agricultural lands include residential lots.

Hnder section 1 of Article 5III of the (onstitution, ;natural resources, "ith the exception of publicagricultural land, shall notbe aliented,; and "ith respect to public agricultural lands, theiralienation is limited to )ilipino citi:ens. Fut this constitutional purpose conserving agriculturalresources in the hands of )ilipino citi:ens ma# easil# be defeated b# the )ilipino citi:ensthemselves "ho ma# alienate their agricultural lands in favor of aliens. It is partl# to prevent thisresult that section $ is included in Article 5III, and it reads as follo"s6

2ec. $. 2ave in cases of hereditar# succession, no private agricultural land "ill betransferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations %ualied toac%uire or hold lands of the public domain in the 9hilippines.

*his constitutional provision closes the onl# remaining avenue through "hich agriculturaresources ma# lea' into aliensJ hands. It "ould certainl# be futile to prohibit the alienation ofpublic agricultural lands to aliens if, after all, the# ma# be freel# so alienated upon theirbecoming private agricultural lands in the hands of )ilipino citi:ens. Hndoubtedl#, as aboveindicated, section $ is intended to insure the polic# of nationali:ation contained in section 1.

Foth sections must, therefore, be read together for the# have the same purpose and the samesub&ect matter. It must be noticed that the persons against "hom the prohibition is directed insection $ are the ver# same persons "ho under section 1 are dis%ualied ;to ac%uire or holdlands of the public domain in the 9hilippines.; And the sub&ect matter of both sections is thesame, namel#, the non-transferabilit# of ;agricultural land; to aliens. 2ince ;agricultural land;under section 1 includes residential lots, the same technical meaning should be attached to;agricultural land under section $. It is a rule of statutor# construction that ;a "ord or phraserepeated in a statute "ill bear the same meaning throughout the statute, unless a di+erentintention appears.; >II 2utherland, 2tatutor# (onstruction, p. ?$=.@ *he onl# di+erence bet"een;agricultural land; under section $, is that the former is public and the latter private. Fut suchdi+erence refers to o"nership and not to the class of land. *he lands are the same in bothsections, and, for the conservation of the national patrimon#, "hat is important is the nature or

class of the propert# regardless of "hether it is o"ned b# the 2tate or b# its citi:ens.

/eference is made to an opinion rendered on 2eptember 1, 1!1, b# the on. *eolo 2ison,then 2ecretar# of 4ustice, to the e+ect that residential lands of the public domain ma# beconsidered as agricultural lands, "hereas residential lands of private o"nership cannot be soconsidered. 8o reason "hatsoever is given in the opinion for such a distinction, and no validreason can be adduced for such a discriminator# vie", particularl# having in mind that thepurpose of the constitutional provision is the conservation of the national patrimon#, and privateresidential lands are as much an integral part of the national patrimon# as the residential landsof the public domain. 2peciall# is this so "here, as indicated above, the prohibition as to thealienable of public residential lots "ould become superous if the same prohibition is not e%uall#applied to private residential lots. Indeed, the prohibition as to private residential lands "ill

eventuall# become more important, for time "ill come "hen, in vie" of the constant dispositionof public lands in favor of private individuals, almost all, if not all, the residential lands of thepublic domain shall have become private residential lands.

It is maintained that in the rst draft of section $, the "ords ;no land of private o"nership; "ereused and later changed into ;no agricultural land of private o"nership,; and lastl# into ;noprivate agricultural land; and from these changes it is argued that the "ord ;agricultural;introduced in the second and nal drafts "as intended to limit the meaning of the "ord ;land; toland actuall# used for agricultural purposes. *he implication is not accurate. *he "ording of therst draft "as amended for no other purpose than to clarif# concepts and avoid uncertainties.

*he "ords ;no land; of the rst draft, un%ualied b# the "ord ;agricultural,; ma# be mista'en to


6/58

include timber and mineral lands, and since under section 1, this 'ind of lands can never beprivate, the prohibition to transfer the same "ould be superuous. Hpon the other hand, section$ had to be drafted in harmon# "ith section 1 to "hich it is supplementar#, as above indicated.Inasmuch as under section 1, timber and mineral lands can never be private, and the onl# landsthat ma# become private are agricultural lands, the "ords ;no land of private o"nership; of therst draft can have no other meaning than ;private agricultural land.; And thus the change inthe nal draft is merel# one of "ords in order to ma'e its sub&ect matter more specic "ith avie" to avoiding the possible confusion of ideas that could have arisen from the rst draft.

If the term ;private agricultural lands; is to be construed as not including residential lots or landsnot strictl# agricultural, the result "ould be that ;aliens ma# freel# ac%uire and possess not onl#residential lots and houses for themselves but entire subdivisions, and "hole to"ns and cities,;and that ;the# ma# validl# bu# and hold in their names lands of an# area for building homes,factories, industrial plants, sheries, hatcheries, schools, health and vacation resorts, mar'etsgolf courses, pla#grounds, airelds, and a host of other uses and purposes that are not, inappellantJs "ords, strictl# agricultural.; >2olicitor 3eneralJs Frief, p. B.@ *hat this is obnoxious tothe conservative spirit of the (onstitution is be#ond %uestion.

ne of the fundamental principles underl#ing the provision of Article 5III of the (onstitution and"hich "as embodied in the report of the (ommittee on 8ationali:ation and 9reservation of

ands and other 8atural /esources of the (onstitutional (onvention, is "that lands, mineralsforests, and other natural resources constitute the exclusive heritage of the )ilipino nation. *he#should, therefore, be preserved for those under the sovereign authorit# of that nation and fortheir posterit#.; >0 Aruego, )raming of the )ilipino (onstitution, p. $$.@ Delegate edesma(hairman of the (ommittee on Agricultural Development of the (onstitutional (onvention, in aspeech delivered in connection "ith the national polic# on agricultural lands, said6 ;*heexclusion of aliens from the privilege of ac%uiringpublic aricultural lands and of ownin realestate is a necessar! partof the 9ublic and a"s of the 9hilippines to 'eep pace "ith the ideaof preserving the 9hilippines for the )ilipinos.; >Emphasis ours.@ And, of the same tenor "as thespeech of Delegate Montilla "ho said6 "ith the complete nationalization of our lands andnatural resourcesit is to be understood that our 3od-given birthright should be one hundred percent in )ilipino hands . . .. ands and natural resources are immovables and as such can be

compared to the vital organs of a personJs bod#, the lac' of possession of "hich ma# causeinstant death or the shortening of life. If "e do not completel# antionali:e these t"o of our mostimportant belongings, I am afraid that the time "ill come "hen "e shall be sorr# for the time "e"ere born. ur independence "ill be &ust a moc'er#, for "hat 'ind of independence are "egoing to have if a part of our countr# is not in our hands but in those of foreignersN; >Emphasisours.@ 9rofessor Aruego sa#s that since the opening da#s of the (onstitutional (onvention one ofits xed and dominating ob&ectives "as the conservation and nationali:ation of the naturalresources of the countr#. >0 Aruego, )raming of the 9hilippine (onstitution, p $0.@ *his is ratiedb# the members of the (onstitutional (onvention "ho are no" members of this (ourt, namel#Mr. 4ustice 9erfecto, Mr. 4ustice Friones, and Mr. 4ustice ontiveros. And, indeed, if under Article5I, section =, of the (onstitution, an alien ma# not even operate a small &itne# for hire, it iscertainl# not hard to understand that neither is he allo"ed to o"n a pieace of land.

*his constitutional intent is made more patent and is strongl# implemented b# an act of the8ational Assembl# passed soon after the (onstitution "as approved. e are referring again to(ommon"ealth Act 8o. 1!1. 9rior to the (onstitution, there "ere in the 9ublic and Act 8o. 0=?!sections 10< and 101 "hich granted aliens the right to ac%uire private onl# b# "a# of reciprocit#.2aid section reads as follo"s6

2E(. 10


7/58

9hilippine Islands authori:ed therefor b# their charters, and, upon express authori:ationb# the 9hilippine egislature, to citi:ens of countries the la"s of "hich grant to citi:ens ofthe 9hilippine Islands the same right to ac%uire, hold, lease, encumber, dispose of, oralienate land, or permanent improvements thereon, or an# interest therein, as to theiro"n citi:ens, onl# in the manner and to the extent specied in such la"s, and "hile thesame are in force but not thereafter.

2E(. 101. 8o land originall# ac%uired in an# manner under the provisions of the former9ublic and Act or of an# other Act, ordinance, ro#al order, ro#al decree, or an# otherprovision of la" formerl# in force in the 9hilippine Islands "ith regard to publiclands, terrenos baldios ! realenos, or lands of an# other denomination that "ere actuall#or presumptivel# of the public domain or b# ro#al grant or in an# other form, nor an#permanent improvement on such land, shall be encumbered, alienated, or conve#ed,except to persons, corporations, or associations "ho ma# ac%uire land of the publicdomain under this Act to corporate bodies organi:ed in the 9hilippine Islands "hosecharters ma# authori:e them to do so, and, upon express authori:ation b# the 9hilippineegislature, to citi:ens of the countries the la"s of "hich grant to citi:ens of the 9hilippineIslands the same right to ac%uire, hold, lease, encumber, dispose of, or alienate land orpemanent improvements thereon or an# interest therein, as to their o"n citi:ens, andonl# in the manner and to the extent specied in such la"s, and "hile the same are in

force, but not thereafter6#rovided, however

, *hat this prohibition shall not be applicable tothe conve#ance or ac%uisition b# reason of hereditar# succession dul# ac'no"ledged andlegali:ed b# competent courts, nor to lands and improvements ac%uired or held forindustrial or residence purposes, "hile used for such purposes6#rovided, further,*hat inthe event of the o"nership of the lands and improvements mentioned in this section andin the last preceding section being transferred b# &udicial decree to persons,corporationsor associations not legall# capacitated to ac%uire the same under the provisions of thisAct, such persons, corporations, or associations shall be obliged to alienate said lands orimprovements to others so capacitated "ithin the precise period of ve #ears, under thepenalt# of such propert# reverting to the 3overnment in the contrar# case.; >9ublic andAct, 8o. 0=?!.@

It is to be observed that the pharase ;no land; used in these section refers to all private lands,"hether strictl# agricultural, residential or other"ise, there being practicall# no private land"hich had not been ac%uired b# an# of the means provided in said t"o sections. *herefore, theprohibition contained in these t"o provisions "as, in e+ect, that no private land could betransferred to aliens except ;upon express authori:ation b# the 9hilippine egislature, to citi:ensof 9hilippine Islands the same right to ac%uire, hold, lease, encumber, dispose of, or alienateland.; In other "ords, aliens "ere granted the right to ac%uire private land merel# b# "a# ofreciprocit#. *hen came the (onstitution and (ommon"ealth Act 8o. 1!1 "as passed, sections100 and 10C of "hich read as follo"s6

2E(. 100. 8o land originall# ac%uired in an# manner under the provisions of this Act, noran# permanent improvement on such land, shall be encumbered, alienated, or

transferred, except to persons, corporations, associations, or partnerships "ho ma#ac%uire lands of the public domain under this Act or to corporations organi:ed in the9hilippines authori:ed thereof b# their charters.

2E(. 10C. 8o land originall# ac%uired in an# manner under the provisions of an# previousAct, ordinance, ro#al order, ro#al decree, or an# other provision of la" formerl# in force inthe 9hilippines "ith regard to public lands terrenos baldios ! realenos,or lands of an#other denomination that "ere actuall# or presumptivel# of the public domain, or b# ro#algrant or in an# other form, nor an# permanent improvement on such land, shall beencumbered, alienated, or conve#ed, except to persons, corporations or associations "homa# ac%uire land of the public domain under this Act or to corporate bodies organi:ed in


8/58


9/58

$eria, #ablo, #erfecto, %ilado, and &riones, ''.,concur.

&G.R. No. L-7096. %'( 31, 1956.)

IN RE* +ETITION o #'/e #e2 !'2 rom #e2e o "o #e oTr'2er #er8'e2 o Te 22e o er2 o R8'ro V'-Abre Lm: AND;OR, e 'er've, ' +eo or De8'r'or( RILLE TAN,Petitioners-Appellees, v2. RE+?>LI# O" TE+ILI++INE!, Oppositor-Appellant.

D E # I ! I O N

#ON#E+#ION,J.:

*his is an appeal, ta'en b# the /epublic of the 9hilippines, from an order of the (ourt of )irstInstance of Davao, dated December 0, 1$1, the dispositive part of "hich is6 chanroblesvirtualla"librar#

PE8 2H I/*HD, el 4u:gado falla esta causa6 chanroblesvirtualla"librar#

P>a@ Declara a los recurrentes oren:o, 3uiriga, /osalia # Adolfo appellidados illa Abrille im(uidadanos lipinos

P>b@ rdena al /egistrador de *itulos de la ciudad de Davao

P>1@ %ue enmiende los (erticados de *ransferencia de *itulos 8os. *-0CB$, *-0CB0, *-0CB?, *-0CBC@ %ue enmiende los certicados de *ransferencia de *itulos 8os. *-0C$!, *-0C$0, *-0C$C, *-0C$$, *-0C$1, *-0C$B, *-0C$?, *-0C$=, *-0C$, haciendo constar de todos # cada uno de losmismos, lo siguiente6 chanroblesvirtualla"librar#Q/osalia illa Abrille im, lipinaR

P>!@ %ue enmiende los (erticados de *ransferencia de *itulos 8os. *-0C0!, *-0C01, *-0C0C, *-0C00, * 0C0$, *-0CC1, *-0CCbefore thepassage of our rst naturali:ation la", Act 8o. 00?, approved on March 0B, 10


10/58

deceased, "as survived b# his children, #etitionersoren:o, 3uiga, /osalia, Adolfo and 2a#a, alsurnamed illa Abrille. 2a#a, uisa and (andelaria illa Abrille are married, respectivel#, to (hiuKang 9o, uang 9it in and Abelardo *an (hin oc, all (hinese sub&ects. In the language of thepetition, im 4una Pconsidered himself as a 2panish sub&ect during the 2panish /egime and hadidentied himself "ith the )ilipinos, in all social and civil a+airsS, as "ell as Pcontributed to civiland social organi:ation during the 2panish regime and later during the period of AmericanoccupationS. After residing continuousl# in the 9hilippines since 1=?1 or 1=?0, im 4una diedtherein on March , 1!C, leaving extensive holdings, among "hich "ere over =


11/58

&urisdiction to hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and ma#order the entr# of a ne" certicate, or grant an# other relief upon such terms and conditions,re%uiring securit# if necessar#, as It ma# deem proper6 chanroblesvirtualla"librar#9rovided, ho"ever, *hat this sectionshall not be construed to give the court authorit# to open the original decree of registration, andthat nothing shall be done or ordered b# the court "hich shall impair the title or other interest ofa purchaser holding a certicate for value and in good faith, or his heirs or assigns, "ithout hisor their "ritten consent.

PAn# petition led under this section and all petitions and motions led under the provisions of

this Act after original registration shall be led and entitled in the original case in "hich thedecree of registration "as entered.S >Italics supplied.@

#etitionerseemingl# feels that the portion "e have underscored, referring to cases of Perror,omission or mista'e,S &usties the order appealed from. *o our mind, ho"ever, it is clear that, inthe case at bar, the# are not entitled to the benets of said provision, inasmuch as6 chanroblesvirtualla"librar#>1@ therelief therein contemplated ma# be granted onl# Pin the original case in "hich the decree ofregistration "as enteredS chan roblesvirtuala"librar#>0@ there is no allegation in the petition, and no evidence to thee+ect, that the aforementioned reference, to #etitionersherein as P(hineseS citi:ens, "as due toan# Perror, mista'e or omissionS chan roblesvirtuala"librar#and >C@ no evidence "hatsoever having been introduced onho" #etitionershappened to be so referred in the certicates of title, the presumption is that thesame had 7 in all respects, including said reference to #etitionersR nationalit# 7 been issued inconformit# "ith la", and that no Perror, mista'e or omissionS had been committed in connectionthere"ith. Indeed, considering that #etitionersclaim to have ac%uired their propriet# rights b#inheritance, said transfer certicates of title must have been issued in accordance "ith a deed ofpartition, either &udicial or extra-&udicial, stating that the# are (hinese. *his is, obviousl#, one ofthe main reasons "h# said section 110 of Act 8o. !B provides that all motions or petitionsunder its provisions Pshall be entitled and led in the original case in "hich the decree ofregistration "as entered.S ad #etitionersherein adhered to this mandate, the 3../.. recordsof the lands in %uestion "ould be before the (ourt and "e "ould no" have a concrete idea ofho" the# came to be described as (hinese in the transfer certicates of title above referred to.(ompliance "ith the re%uirement that the petition or motion for amendment of the certicatesof title shall be led in the original registration cases is essential, therefore, to the relief providedin said section and ma# not be dispensed "ith. 8eedless to sa#, #etitionersR omission frompresenting an# proof on the specic conditions under "hich the# happened to be referred to as(hinese in said certicates of title, leads to a conclusion unfavorable to them.

Ma# "e grant Pa declarator# &udgment determining the citi:enship status of all the hereinnamed#etitioners"ith a vie" of removing all doubt and uncertaint# as to their real statusS, aspra#ed for in their petitionN Identical "as the issue raised in the case of ospicio biles vs./epublic of the 9hilippines >! +. 3a:., 0C@, "hich "as resolved b# this (ourt unanimousl# inthe negative. e then said6 chanroblesvirtualla"librar#

Pcrala"upon closer anal#sis, especiall# of the pra#er of the petition and the allegation to the e+ectthat he is a )ilipino citi:en and is read# and "illing to submit evidence to sustain this allegation,"hat the #etitionersdesires is to be declared a )ilipino citi:en in spite of his registration as a(hinese citi:en. As contended b# the 2olicitor 3eneral, #etitionerRs remed# is clearl# not b# anaction for declarator# relief.

P)or the reason, therefore, that #etitionerRs action for declarator# relief is not the proper remed#because his desire is to be declared a )ilipino citi:en, and because the facts alleged in hispetition constitute no cause for a declarator# &udgment, the &udgment appealed from should be,as it hereb# is, aOrmed, "ith costs against #etitioner-Appellant.S >Italics supplied.@

e nd absolutel# no reason to depart from this vie", "hich is s%uarel# in point. hat is more,"e have no change in the matter, for section 1, of /ule BB of the /ules of (ourt sa#s6 chanroblesvirtualla"librar#

PAn# person interested under a deed, "ill, contract or other "ritten instrument, or "hose rightsare a+ected b# a statute or ordinance, ma# bring an action to determine an# %uestion of


12/58


13/58

he trial as to the land now before us opened with a stipulation to the effect that the co!position title of the #hurchwith the spanish overn!ent included this land. he #hurch presented one witness and rested. he privateoppositors then called their respective witnesses. 5ach endeavored to prove title b" possession, best understoodb" the following table6

Parcel 7o. 8ppositor. Possession began $cts of possession

*1, *191, *1+* usta de uz!an 1+9/ Planted rice0 paid taes

*1+, *1+:, *19: %elecio ;. )uenaventura 1++* Planted rice

*1+2, *1+/ usto ;. )uenaventura 1++/ #ultivation and harvest

*19* usto avier 1++/ Planted rice0 harvested.

#ounsel for the #hurch, thereupon, !ade an offer to present additional testi!on" with reference to lots *1, *1+,*1+:, *1+*, *1+2, *1+/, *19:, *191, and *19*, or the lots above enu!erated in the table. hree witnesses werecalled to the stand, but each ti!e, before an" pertinent testi!on" could be secured fro! the!, an objection was!ade b" counsel for the oppositors that the proof related to the evidence in chief of the #hurch, and this wassustained b" the court.

o resolve the facts into their si!plest ter!s, it is evident that when an ad!ission was !ade of the ro"al title, the#hurch had shown that it was the legiti!ate owner of the land to which it refers. he !ost perfect title could,

however, be lost b" abandon!ents. ;ec. 11.? $s to this court, now abolished, the and Registration $ct provides that it 4shall confor!, asnear as !a" be, to the practice in special proceedings in courts of first instance.4 >$ct 7o. 29, sec. *? he #ode of#ivil Procedure, which is thus brought into relation with the #adastral $ct, prescribes the order in which the tria!ust proceed. >;ecs. /, 13*?. he usual rules of practice, procedure, and evidence govern registrationproceedings.

8bviousl", orderl" procedure !ust be followed if injurious surprises and anno"ing dela"s in the ad!inistration ofjustice are to be avoided. 5vidence cannot be given piece!eal. he strict rule is that the plaintiff !ust tr" his caseout when he co!!ences. 7evertheless, a relaation of the rule is per!itted in the sound discretion of the court.4he proper rule for the eercise of this discretion,4 it has been said b" an e!inent author, 4is, that !aterial

testi!on" should not be ecluded because offered b" the plaintiff after the defendant has rested, although not inrebuttal, unless it has been (ept bac( b" a tric(, and for the purpose of deceiving the defendant and affecting hiscase injuriousl".4 >1 ho!pson on rials, sec. 32.? 1awph!l.net

hese principles find their echo in Philippine re!edial law.


14/58

*here being no controvers# as to the facts and the petition raising pure %uestions of la", "eadopt the ndings of fact of the (ourt of Appeals, as follo"s6 G!

n 2eptember ?, 1?1, Datu Diting'e /amos led "ith the (ourt of )irst Instance, Lue:on(it#, an application for registration of title covering a parcel of land situated in Lue:on (it#, "ithan area of 1


15/58

n August C1, 1?0, petitioner Hniversit# of the 9hilippines >hereafter, PH. 9.S@ led "ith thetrial court a Pmotion for interventionS in the case, claiming that the land covered b# theapplication >b# Datu Diting'e /amos@ is "ithin its propert# described in *ransfer (erticate of

*itle 8o. !B0.

n March 1$, 1?C, H.9. led "ith the trial court an opposition and motion to dismiss DatuDiting'e /amosR application for registration.

n 4une B, 1?C, the trial court issued an order "hich reads as follo"s6

PActing on the motion to dismiss led b# the Hniversit# of the 9hilippines and considering thecertication, s'etch plan >Exhibits PS and P9S@. the testimon# of the Acting (hief, 3eodeticEngineer as "ell as the "ritten manifestation of the and /egistration (ommission to the e+ectthat the land sub&ect matter of this application and covered b# plan 2-1$


16/58

n March 11, 1C, H.9. led "ith the /egional *rial (ourt, Franch 01, Lue:on (it# G11apetition for the cancellation of *ransfer (erticate of *itle 8o. >8-10BB?1@ CB?C1B naming2egundina, Fugna# (onstruction and Development (orporation and the /egister of Deeds ofLue:on (it#, among others, as respondents.

n 8ovember 12egundina@ and >Fugna#(onstruction and Development (orporation@ as "ell as the existence of their spuriouscerticates of title, create a cloud of doubt on the title of >[email protected]

In its third cause of action, H.9. pra#ed that *ransfer (erticate of *itle 8o. 101

n Ma# 1$, 1?, 2egundina led "ith the trial court an Pomnibus motionS for the dismissa

of H. 9.Rs third cause of action in the amended petition as "ell as the cancellation of the noticeof lis pendensannotated on *(* 8o. 101

n 8ovember 1

n December 1?, 1=, the (ourt of Appeals denied petitionerRs motion for reconsiderationG00
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn22


17/58

ence, this appeal.G0C

9etitionerRs 2ubmissions

"r2, H.9. contends that the (ourt of Appeals erroneousl# allo"ed 2egundinaRs Pmotionto dismissS as 2egundina has #et to prove in a Pfull-blo"n hearingS "hether her reconstitutedtitle traces its roots to (* 8o. 1?. According to H.9., the issuance of 2egundinaRs title "asPhighl# anomalous.SG0!

!e8o, H.9. assails the issuance of (* 8o. 1? in /( (ase 8o. L-0C as void ab

initio. According to H.9., the (ourt of )irst Instance never ac%uired &urisdiction over /( (ase L-0C as the re%uisite Psignature approval of the Director of ands...over the surve# plan..."asno"here to be found.SG0$

Tr, H.9. asserts that the (ourt of Appeals ruled on Punestablished factual issues...b#admitting all the photocopies annexed to respondent >2egundina@ /osarioRs petition as evidencedespite the fact that the# all still remained sub&ect to authentication and examination b# theparties before the trial court.SG0B

"or, H. 9. attac's the verication of 2egundinaRs petition in the (ourt of Appeals asdefective.

Te #orC2 R/

*he petition is meritorious.

e outline the histor# of the title that 2egundina holds >*itle 8o. 101

9. D. 8o. 1$0G0=re%uires the Director of ands to sign and approve the surve# plan for theland applied for, other"ise, the title is void.

P2ec. 1?. hat and where to *le- *he application for land registration shall be led "ith the(ourt of )irst Instance of the province or cit# "here the land is situated. *he applicant shallletogether "ith the application all original muniments of titles or copies thereof and a survey

plan approved by the Bureau of Lands.

P*he cler' of court shall not acceptan# application unless it is shownthat the applicant hasfurnished the Director of ands "ith a cop# of the application and all the annexes >[email protected]

8o plan or surve# ma# be admitted in land registration proceedings until approved b# theDirector of ands.G0*he submission of the plan is a statutor# re%uirement of mandator#
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/136965.htm#_edn29


18/58

character. Hnless a plan and its technical description are dul# approved b# the Director ofands, the same are of no value.GC


19/58

!reme #or%''

EN >AN#

TE !E#RETAR$ O" TE G.R. No. 167707DE+ART%ENT O" ENVIRON%ENTAND NAT?RAL RE!O?R#E!

9etitioners, E8A/D-DE (A2*/, and F/I8,''.

1 versus 1

%A$OR ERTADTALA+IAN, %ILA $. !?%NDAD, 'ANI#ETO $A+, er be' ' be' o ' o2e 2m'r( 2'e,

/espondents. ctober =, 0


20/58

Island,GB"hich identied several lots as being occupied or claimed b# named persons.G?

n 8ovember 19*A@. 9resident Marcos later approved the issuance of +TA#r8'r 3-BGdated 2eptember C, 1=0, toimplement 9roclamation 8o. 1=


21/58

Ma#or 4ose 2. Vap, 4r., ibertad *alapian, Mila V. 2umndad, and Aniceto Vap led a petition fodeclarator# relief "ith the /*( in Kalibo, A'lan.

In their petition, respondents-claimants alleged that 9roclamation 8o. 1=23@, opposed the petition for declarator#relief. *he 23 countered that Foraca# Island "as an 8'22e 'of the public domain. It formedpart of the mass of lands classied as Ppublic forest,S "hich "as not available for disposition pursuant to2ection C>a@ of 9residential Decree >9D@ 8o. ?0


22/58

private o"nership of lands in Foraca# and that onl# those forested areas in public lands "ere declared aspart of the forest reserve.G00

*he 23 moved for reconsideration but its motion "as denied.G0C*he /epublic then appealed to

the (A.

n December , 0

Again, the 23 sought reconsideration but it "as similarl# denied. G0$ ence, the present petitionunder /ule !$.

G.R. No. 173775

n Ma# 00, 0


23/58

G.R. No. 173775

9etitioners-claimants hoist ve >$@ issues, namel#6

I.A* *E *IME ) *E E2*AFI2ED 922E22I8 ) 9E*I*I8E/2 I8 (8(E9* ) 8E/E/ *EI/ /E29E(*IE A/EA2 I8 F/A(AV, 2I8(E *IME IMMEM/IA / A* *E A*E2*2I8(E C< V/2. 9/I/ * *E )II83 ) *E 9E*I*I8 )/ DE(A/A*/V /EIE) 8 8.1, 1?, E/E *E A/EA2 ((H9IED FV *EM 9HFI( A3/I(H*H/A A8D2 A2 DE)I8EDFV A2 *E8 8 4HDI(IA (8)I/MA*I8 ) IM9E/)E(* *I*E2 / 9HFI( )/E2* A2DE)I8ED FV 2E(. Ca, 9D ?


24/58

*he /egalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain belong to the 2tate, that the

2tate is the source of an# asserted right to o"nership of land and charged "ith the conservation of suchpatrimon#.G!$ *he doctrine has been consistentl# adopted under the 1C$, 1?C, and 1=? (onstitutionsG!B

All lands not other"ise appearing to be clearl# "ithin private o"nership are presumed to belong to

the 2tate.G!? *hus, all lands that have not been ac%uired from the government, either b# purchase or b#grant, belong to the 2tate as part of the inalienable public domain. G!= 8ecessaril#, it is up to the 2tate todetermine if lands of the public domain "ill be disposed of for private o"nership. *he government, as theagent of the state, is possessed of the plenar# po"er as the persona in la" to determine "ho shall be thefavored recipients of public lands, as "ell as under "hat terms the# ma# be granted such privilege, notexcluding the placing of obstacles in the "a# of their exercise of "hat other"ise "ould be ordinar# acts ofo"nership. G!

ur present land la" traces its roots to the /egalian Doctrine. Hpon the 2panish con%uest of

the 9hilippines, o"nership of all lands, territories and possessions in the9hilippines passed to the 2panish(ro"n.G$0freeholds#stem@ and b# lease >leasehold s#[email protected] It also provided the denition b# exclusion of Pagriculturapublic lands.SGBC Interpreting the meaning of Pagricultural landsS under the 9hilippine Fill of 1


25/58


26/58

Act 8o. 0B. *here is a statement in these old cases that Pin the absence of evidence to the contrar#, thain each case the lands are agricultural lands until the contrar# is sho"n.SG


27/58

In the case of'ocson vs. irector of $orestr!>supra@, the Attorne#-3eneral admittedin e+ect that "hether the particular land in %uestion belongs to one class or another is a%uestion of fact. *he mere fact that a tract of land has trees upon it or has mineral "ithin itis not of itself suOcient to declare that one is forestr# land and the other, mineralland. *here must be some proof of the extent and present or future value of the forestr#and of the minerals. hile, as "e have &ust said, man# denitions have been given forPagriculture,S Pforestr#,S and PmineralS lands, and that in each case it is a %uestion of fact,"e thin' it is safe to sa# that in order to be forestr# or mineral land the proof must sho"that it is more valuable for the forestr# or the mineral "hich it contains than it is foragricultural purposes. >2ec. ?, Act 8o. 11!=.@ It is not suOcient to sho" that there existssome trees upon the land or that it bears some mineral. and ma# be classied as forestr#or mineral toda#, and, b# reason of the exhaustion of the timber or mineral, be classied asagricultural land tomorro". And vice-versa, b# reason of the rapid gro"th of timber or thediscover# of valuable minerals, lands classied as agricultural toda# ma# be di+erentl#classied tomorro". E'8 8'2e m2 be e8e o e roo ' 'r8'r8'2e,'v/ re/'r or 2 re2e or re v'e or oe or e oerro2e2. e believe, ho"ever, considering the fact that it is a matter of public'no"ledge that a ma&orit# of the lands in the 9hilippine Islands are agricultural lands thatthe courts have a right to presume, in the absence of evidence to the contrar#, that in eachcase the lands are agricultural lands until the contrar# is sho"n. 'ever e 'vove ' 'r8'r ' re/2r'o 8'2e 2 ore2r( or mer' ' m2,ereore, be ' m'er o roo. I2 2eror v'e or oe ro2e or e oer 2' Fe2o o '8 o be 2ee b( e roo e'8 'r8'r 8'2e . *he fact thatthe land is a manglar Gmangrove s"amp is not suOcient for the courts to decide "hether itis agricultural, forestr#, or mineral land. It ma# perchance belong to one or the other of saidclasses of land. *he 3overnment, in the rst instance, under the provisions of Act 8o. 11!=,ma#, b# reservation, decide for itself "hat portions of public land shall be consideredforestr# land, unless private interests have intervened before such reservation is made. Inthe latter case, "hether the land is agricultural, forestr#, or mineral, is a %uestion of proof.Hntil private interests have intervened, the 3overnment, b# virtue of the terms of said Act>8o. 11!=@, ma# decide for itself "hat portions of the Ppublic domainS shall be set aside andreserved as forestr# or mineral land. >+amos vs. irector of )ands,C 9hil. 1?$'ocson vs.irector of $orestr!,supra@G$>Emphasis ours@

2ince 1919, courts "ere no longer free to determine the classication of lands from the facts of

each case, except those that have alread# became private lands.GB Act 8o. B74, promulgated in 11and reproduced in 2ection B of (A 8o. 1!1, gave the Executive Department, through the 9resident,the eH82veprerogative to classif# or reclassif# public lands into alienable or disposable, mineral orforest.B-a 2ince then, courts no longer had the authorit#, "hether express or implied, to determine theclassication of lands of the public domain.G?

ere, private claimants, unli'e the eirs of (iriaco *irol "ho "ere issued their title in 1CC, G=did

not present a &usticiable case for determination b# the land registration court of the propert#Rs landclassication. 2impl# put, there "as no opportunit# for the courts then to resolve if the land the Foraca#occupants are no" claiming "ere agricultural lands. hen Act 8o. 0B "as supplanted b# Act 8o. 0=?! in11, "ithout an application for &udicial conrmation having been led b# private claimants or theipredecessors-in-interest, the courts "ere no longer authori:ed to determine the propert#Rs landclassication. ence, private claimants cannot ban' on Act 8o. 0B.

e note that the /*( decisionGin 3./. 8o. 1B??


28/58


29/58

)orests, in the context of both the 9ublic and Act and the (onstitution G110classif#ing lands of the

public domain into Paricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national par7s ,S do not necessaril#refer to large tracts of "ooded land or expanses covered b# dense gro"ths of trees and underbrushes.G11C *he discussion in %eirs of Amunateui v. irector of $orestr!G11!is particularl# instructive6

A forested area classied as forest land of the public domain does not lose suchclassication simpl# because loggers or settlers ma# have stripped it of its forestcover. 9arcels of land classied as forest land ma# actuall# be covered "ith grass orplanted to crops b# 7ainincultivators or other farmers. P)orest landsS do not have to beon mountains or in out of the "a# places. 2"amp# areas covered b# mangrove trees, nipapalms, and other trees gro"ing in brac'ish or sea "ater ma# also be classied as forestland. Te 8'228'o 2 e28rve o 2 e/' 're or 2'2 ' oe2 o've o be e28rve o ' e ' '8'( oo2 e . Hnless and until the landclassied as PforestS is released in an oOcial proclamation to that e+ect so that it ma# formpart of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain, the rules on conrmation ofimperfect title do not appl#.G11$ >Emphasis supplied@

*here is a big di+erence bet"een PforestS as dened in a dictionar# and Pforest or timber landS as a

classication of lands of the public domain as appearing in our statutes. ne is descriptive of "haappears on the land "hile the other is a legal status, a classication for legal purposes.G11B At an# ratethe (ourt is tas'ed to determine the e/'status of Foraca# Island, and not loo' into its ph#sicala#out. ence, even if its forest cover has been replaced b# beach resorts, restaurants and othecommercial establishments, it has not been automaticall# converted from public forest to alienableagricultural land.

Private clai#ants cannot rely on Procla#ation (o. 4/ as basis for 5udicialcon-r#ation of i#perfect title. 6he procla#ation did not convert Boracay into an ariculturalland. o"ever, private claimants argue that 9roclamation 8o. 1=Emphasissupplied@

(learl#, the reference in the (ircular to both private ' public lands merel# recogni:es that the

island can be classied b# the Executive department pursuant to its po"ers under (A 8o. 1!1. In fact2ection $ of the (ircular recogni:es the then Fureau of )orest DevelopmentRs authorit# to declare areas inthe island as alienable and disposable "hen it provides6

2ubsistence farming, in areas declared as alienable and disposable b# the Fureau of)orest Development.

*herefore, 9roclamation 8o. 1=


30/58


31/58

e 2 re ' e ' 8'228'o m' oe2 o 8'e/or8'( 2'e' e 2'2 're b8 ore22, e '8 ' e( ere 8'22e '2e'2 o e 2'me re2. In the absence of the classication as mineral or timber land,the land remains unclassied land until released and rendered open to disposition.G10$ >Emphasis supplied@

Moreover, the prohibition under the (A/ applies onl# to a PreclassicationS of land. If the land had

never been previousl# classied, as in the case of Foraca#, there can be no prohibited reclassicationunder the agrarian la". e agree "ith the opinion of the Department of 4usticeG10Bon this point6

Indeed, the 'e# "ord to the correct application of the prohibition in 2ection !>a@ isthe "ord Preclassication.S here there has been no previous classi*cation of public forestreferrin, we repeat, to the mass of the public domain which has not been the sub(ect ofthe present s!stem of classi*cation for purposes of determinin which are needed for forest

purposes and which are notB into permanent forest or forest reserves or some other forestuses under the +evised $orestr! Code, there can be no reclassi*cation of forest landsD tospea7 of within the meanin of Section E-a.

*hus, obviousl#, the prohibition in 2ection !>a@ of the (A/ against the

reclassication of forest lands to agricultural lands "ithout a prior la" delimiting the limitsof the public domain, does not, and cannot, appl# to those lands of the public domain,denominated as Ppublic forestS under the /evised )orestr# (ode, "hich have not beenpreviousl# determined, or classied, as needed for forest purposes in accordance "ith theprovisions of the /evised )orestr# (ode.G10?

Private clai#ants are not entitled to apply for 5udicial con-r#ation of i#perfect title

under CA (o. 0. (either do they have vested rihts over the occupied lands under the saidlaw. *here are t"o re%uisites for &udicial conrmation of imperfect or incomplete title under (A 8o. 1!1namel#6 >1@ open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the sub&ect land b#himself or through his predecessors-in-interest under a bona *declaim of o"nership since timeimmemorial or from 4une 10, 1!$ and >0@ the classication of the land as alienable and disposable landof the public domain.G10=

As discussed, the 9hilippine Fill of 1


32/58


33/58

0. *he petition for certiorariin 3./. 8o. 1?C??$ is DI!%I!!EDfor lac' of merit.

!O ORDERED.

G.R. No. 1B0067 LI# O" TE +ILI++INE!,9etitioner,vs.IGLE!IA NI #RI!TO, Tr2ee ' A++LI#ANT, 2 EHe8ve %2er ERA@O %ANALO '2#oror'e !oe/espondent.

D E # I ! I O N

VELA!#O,


34/58

A parcel of land >9lan 2"o-I-

thesepiaor tracing cloth of plan 2"o-1-*D@ $


35/58


36/58

/espondent I8( counters that the (ourt has alread# claried this issue in +epublic v. Court ofAppeals>1@ *hose "ho b# themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domainunder a bona *de claim of o"nership since 4une 10, 1!$, or earlier.

In declaring that the correct interpretation of 2ec. 1!>1@ of 9D 1$0 is that "hich "as adopted in


37/58

*he (ourt in Malabanan traced the rights of a citi:en to o"n alienable and disposable lands of the publicdomain as granted under (A 1!1, other"ise 'no"n as the 9ublic and Act, as amended b# 9D 1


38/58

(auit '2 'Mrme %''b'' more '88or e !'eC2 o8(

Moreover, "e "ish to emphasi:e that our aOrmation of 1@ of 9D 1$0 relative to the rec'oning of possession vis-Z-vis the declaration ofthe propert# of the public domain as alienable and disposableWWis indeed more in 'eeping "ith the spirit ofthe 9ublic and Act, as amended, and of 9D 1$0. *hese statutes "ere enacted to conform to the 2tateRspolic# of encouraging and promoting the distribution of alienable public lands to spur economic gro"thand remain true to the ideal of social &ustice.0C*he statutesR re%uirements, as couched and amended, arestringent enough to safeguard against fraudulent applications for registration of title over alienable and

disposable public land. *he application of the more stringent pronouncement in %erbieto"ould indeedstie and repress the 2tateRs polic#.

)inall#, the (ourt in Malabananaptl# s#nthesi:ed the doctrine that the period of possession re%uired under2ec. 1!>1@ of 9D 1$0? is not rec'oned from the time of the declaration of the propert# as alienable anddisposable, thus6

e s#nthesi:e the doctrines laid do"n in this case, as follo"s6

>1@ In connection "ith 2ection 1!>1@ of the 9ropert# /egistration Decree, 2ection !=>b@ of the 9ublic andAct recogni:es and conrms that ;those "ho b# themselves or through their predecessors in interest havebeen in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposablelands of the public domain, under a bona de claim of ac%uisition of o"nership, since 4une 10, 1!$; have

ac%uired o"nership of, and registrable title to, such lands based on the length and %ualit# of theirpossession.

>a@ 2ince 2ection !=>b@ merel# re%uires possession since 10 4une 1!$ and does not re%uire thatthe lands should have been alienable and disposable during the entire period of possession, thepossessor is entitled to secure &udicial conrmation of his title thereto as soon as it is declaredalienable and disposable, sub&ect to the timeframe imposed b# 2ection !? of the 9ublic and Act.

>b@ *he right to register granted under 2ection !=>b@ of the 9ublic and Act is further conrmed b#2ection 1!>1@ of the 9ropert# /egistration Decree.

I8( entitled to registrable right over sub&ect lot

ith the resolution of the core issue, "e nd no error in the ndings of the courts a ?uothat I8( hadindeed suOcientl# established its possession and occupation of the sub&ect lot in accordance "ith the9ublic and Act and 2ec. 1!>1@ of 9D 1$0, and had dul# proved its right to &udicial conrmation ofimperfect title over sub&ect lot.

As a rule, the ndings of fact of the trial court "hen aOrmed b# the (A are nal and conclusive on, andcannot be revie"ed on appeal b#, this (ourt as long as the# are borne out b# the record or are based onsubstantial evidence. *he (ourt is not a trier of facts, its &urisdiction being limited to revie"ing onl# errorsof la" that ma# have been committed b# the lo"er courts.0!*his is applicable to the instant case.

*he possession of I8( has been established not onl# from 1$0 and 1$ "hen it purchased therespective halves of the sub&ect lot, but is also tac'ed on to the possession of its predecessors-in-interest

Fadanguio and 2abuco, the latter possessing the sub&ect lot "a# before 4une 10, 1!$, as he inherited thebigger lot, of "hich the sub&ect lot is a portion, from his parents. *hese possessions and occupationWWfrom2abuco, including those of his parents, to I8( and from 2abuco to Fadanguio to I8(WWhad been in theconcept of o"ners6 open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bonade claim of ac%uisition of propert#. *hese had not been disturbed as attested to b# respondentRs"itnesses.

E/E)/E, this petition is hereb# DE8IED. Accordingl#, the ctober 11, 0


39/58

2 /DE/ED.

&G.R. No. 13369B. Ar 4, 001)

ANTONIO TAL?!AN ' #ELIA TAL?!AN,petitioners, vs.ER%INIGILDOTA$AG '


40/58

--A nal bill of sale "as later issued Qin favor of the G/espondent ermenegildo *a#ag.R *he assessedvalue alone of the said propert# is 9C?,C1


41/58

--QG9etitioners have not complied "ith x x x 2ection =C of 9.D. 8o. !B! x x x thus, the case cannotprosperR

--Q3ranting that a Deed of 2ale "as actuall# issued in favor of the plainti+s Gbecause of the fact that it isunregistered, the same does not bind third persons including defendant herein.RS

In their (omplaint, petitioners alleged that on December ?, 1=1, the# had ac%uired the condominiumfrom Elias Imperial, the original registered o"ner, for 91


42/58

re%uirement of 2ection !B of 9.D. !B! that such notice of delin%uenc# of the pa#ment of the propert# taxshould be published.

PIII. *I/D A22I38ME8* ) E///

*he onorable (ourt of Appeals grievousl# erred in failing to consider the lac' of personal notice of thesale for public auction of the sub&ect propert# to its o"ner "hich nullies the said proceeding.

PI. )H/* A22I38ME8* ) E///

*he onorable (ourt of Appeals grievousl# erred in holding that the decision of the trial court in thepetition for the consolidation of the title case led b# the private respondent in /( Admin. (ase 0


43/58

9etitionersR reliance on 8ioncois misplaced, considering that its factual incidents are di+erent fromthose of the present controvers#. In that case, the trial court "as acting on a #etition for the Surrender ofCerti*cates of 8itle. In /( Adm. (ase 8o. 0


44/58

In the present case, the notice of delin%uenc# "as sent b# registered mail to the permanent addressof the registered o"ner in Manila. In that notice, the cit# treasurer of Faguio (it# directed him to settlethe charges immediatel# and to protect his interest in the propert#. Hnder the circumstances, "e holdthat the notice sent b# registered mail ade%uatel# protected the rights of the taxpa#er, "ho "as theregistered o"ner of the condominium unit.

)or purposes of the real propert# tax, the reistered owner of the propert! is deemed thetaFpa!er. ence, onl# the registered o"ner is entitled to a notice of tax delin%uenc# and otherproceedings relative to the tax sale. 8ot being registered o"ners of the propert#, petitioners cannot claimto have been deprived of such notice. In fact, the# "ere not entitled to it.

Lac% of Personal (otice of the 1ale or of the Public Auction of the 1ub5ect Property

9etitioners also contend that the registered o"ner "as not given personal notice of the publicauction. *he# cite 2ection ?C of 9D !B!, the pertinent portion of "hich is reproduced hereunder6

Px x x. (op# of the notices shall forth"ith be sent either b# registered mail or b# messenger, or throughmessenger, or through the barrio captain, to the delin%uent taxpa#er, at the address sho"n in the tax rollsor propert# tax records of the municipalit# or cit# "here the propert# is located, or at his residence, if'no"n to said treasurer or barrio captain. x x x.S >Hnderscoring supplied b# petitioners in theirMemorandum@

According to petitioners, the notice of public auction should have been sent to the address appearingin the tax roll or propert# records of the (it# of Faguio. *hat address is Hnit 8o. $, Faden [!1


45/58

6he act of reistration shall be the operative act to convey or a


46/58

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------- xRE!OL?TION

*I83A,'.6

*he perceived advantages of the *orrens s#stem of registration of land titles have helped stabili:e

land o"nership in the 9hilippines. Its underl#ing principle is securit# "ith facilit# in dealing "ith land.G1Itsfundamental purpose is to %uiet title to land, to perpetuall# en&oin an# %uestion in the legalit# of the title,G0hence, the titles issued under the s#stem are indefeasible. Vet the *orrens s#stem is imperfect in that itremains susceptible to fraud, either in the original registration proceedings or in subse%uent transactionsGC

*hese petitions feature apparentl# fraudulent practices relating to the attempts at registration othe sub&ect propert#. 8ecessaril#, the# call for the correct application of entrenched principles in landregistration. At the same time, the# a+ord this (ourt the opportunit# to again defend the *orrens s#stemagainst unscrupulous elements "ho use its formalities to actuali:e the theft of propert#, and to exert

&udicial might in ensuring that fraud does not prevail in the end.

*hese petitions "ere referred to the (ourt en banc b# the 2pecial )irst Division "hich had initiall#ruled on them, most comprehensivel# in a Decision dated 10 December 0


47/58

1. ots =0C-A and =0C-F, )ls-C1B=-D, containing areas of 1?1,!?C 2%. Mtrs. and 1?1,!?0 2%.Mtrs., respectivel#, covered b# *(* 8o. 01


48/58

fabricated statements and concoctions made b# Engr. Dalire in his 1 )ebruar# 1? letter.U

8ot"ithstanding its conclusion that the Manoto' title "as fraudulentl# reconstituted, the /A notedthat onl# the /egional *rial (ourt >/*(@ could cancel the Manoto' title as a *orrens title. It thus ruledG11that6

E/E)/E, in vie" of the foregoing, it is hereb# ordered that reconstitution of *(*

8o. 01C?0CE/E)/E, the Motion for /econsideration is hereb# 3/A8*ED. *he Decision of this (ourt dated0 ctober 0http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn25


49/58

n 10 December 0

earlier ruling of the Division constitutes the current standard "ith respect to administrative reconstitutionof titles. ur land registration s#stem is too vital to be st#mied b# such esoteric "rangling, and theadministrators and courts "hich implement that s#stem do not deserve needless hassle.

*he Oce of the 2olicitor 3eneral correctl# pointed out that this (ourt before had sanctioned therecall entries of &udgment.GCB*he po"er to suspend or even disregard rules of procedure can be sopervasive and compelling as to alter even that "hich this (ourt itself has alread# declared to be nalGC?*he militating concern for the (ourt en banc in accepting these cases is not so much the particular fateof the parties, but the stabilit# of the *orrens s#stem of registration b# ensuring clarit# of &urisprudence onthe eld.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn37


50/58

It is be#ond contention, even b# the parties, that since the (ourt en bancresolved to accept thesepetitions in 0F.9. 10@. 2ection of that la" restricts the exclusiveoriginal &urisdiction of the (ourt of Appeals to special civil actions and to actions for annulment o

&udgments of the regional trial court.GC 2till, the (ourt of Appeals did ac%uire &urisdiction over theFar%uesR and the Manoto'sR petitions, albeit in the exercise of its exclusive appellate &urisdictionG!1@ *he (ommissioner of and /egistration shall have the follo"ing functions6
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn40


51/58

>a@ Issue decrees of registration pursuant to nal &udgments of the courts in landregistration proceedings and cause the issuance b# the /egisters of Deeds ofthe corresponding certicates of title

>b@ Exercise supervision and control over all /egisters of Deeds and otherpersonnel of the (ommission

>c@ /esolve cases elevated en consultab#, or on appeal from decision of,/egisters of Deeds

>d@ Exercise executive supervision over all cler's of court and personnel of the(ourt of )irst Instance throughout the 9hilippines "ith respect to the dischargeof their duties and functions in relation to the registration of lands

>e@ Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated relative to theregistration of lands and issue, sub&ect to the approval of the 2ecretar# of

4ustice, all needful rules and regulations therefor>f@ erif# and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidation-subdivision

surve# plans of properties titled under Act 8o. !B except those covered b#9.D. 8o. $?.

8o"here in the aforecited provision is it stated that the /A has the po"er to cancel titles. Indeed

the Far%ues are unable to point to an# basis in la" that conrms the po"er of the /A to e+ect suchcancellation, even under /epublic Act >/.A.@ 8o. 0B as amended b# /ep. Act 8o. B?C0, "hich authori:esthe administrative reconstitution of titles in limited cases. In fact, as "e shall see shortl# such la"s ta'egreat care to ensure that a petition for administrative reconstitution of title "ill not disturbexisting *orrenstitles.

It is thus clear that neither the (ourt of Appeals nor the /A had &urisdiction to cancel the Manoto'title. *he next matter of in%uir# is "hether the /A had acted correctl# in ordering, conditional as it ma#have been, the administrative reconstitution of the Far%ue title.

Hnder /ep. Act 8o. 0B as amended b# /ep. Act 8o. B?C0, administrative reconstitution of titles ispermitted "here the certicates of titles have been lost due to Pood, re and other force ma(eure.S *hepetitioner in such a case is re%uired to execute an aOdavit, containing the follo"ing averments6

>1@ *hat no deed or other instrument a+ecting the propert# had been presented forregistration, or, if there be an#, the nature thereof, the date of its presentation, as "ell asthe names of the parties, and "hether the registration of such deed or instrument is stillpending accomplishment

>0@ *hat the o"nerJs duplicate certicate or co-o"nerJs duplicate is in due form "ithout an#apparent intentional alterations or erasures

3 T' e 8er8'e o e 2 o e 2be8 o /'o or ve2/'o,'m2r've or 8', re/'r/ 2 /eee22 or e eHe8o or 22'8e:

>!@ *hat the certicate of title "as in full force and e+ect at the time it "as lost or destro#ed

>$@ *hat the certicate of title is covered b# a tax declaration regularl# issued b# theAssessorJs Oce and>B@ *hat real estate taxes have been full# paid up to at least t"o >0@ #ears prior to the lingof the petition for reconstitution.G!1

2ection 1 of /ep. Act 8o. 0B, as amended b# /ep. Act 8o. B?C0, further provides6

2ec. 1. If the certicate of title considered lost or destro#ed, and subse%uentl# foundor recovered, is not in the name of the same person in "hose favor the reconstitutedcerticate of title has been issued, the /egister of Deeds or the part# concerned shouldbring the matter to the attention of the proper regional trial court, "hich, after due noticeand hearing, shall order the cancellation of the reconstituted certicate of title and render,"ith respect to the memoranda of ne" liens and encumbrances, if an#, made in thereconstituted certicate of title, after its reconstitution, such &udgment as &ustice and e%uit#ma# re%uire6 9rovided, ho"ever, *hat if the reconstituted certicate of title has beencancelled b# virtue of an# deed or instrument, "hether voluntar# or involuntar#, or b# anorder of the court, and a ne" certicate of title has been issued, the procedure prescribedabove, "ith respect to the memorandum of ne" liens and encumbrances made on thereconstituted certicate of title, after its reconstitution, shall be follo"ed "ith respect to the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/162335_162605.htm#_ftn41


52/58

ne" certicate of title, and to such ne" liens and encumbrances, if an#, as ma# have beenon the latter, after the issuance thereof.G!0

/ep. Act 8o. B?C0 itself also states6

!e8o 11.A reconstituted title obtained b# means of fraud, deceit or othermachination is void ab initioas against the part# obtaining the same and all persons having'no"ledge thereof.

!e8o 1.An# person "ho b# means of fraud, deceit or other machination obtainsor attempts to obtain a reconstituted title shall be sub&ect to criminal prosecution and, uponconviction, shall be liable for imprisonment for a period of not less than t"o #ears but notexceeding ve #ears or the pa#ment of a ne of not less than *"ent# thousand pesos but notexceeding *"o hundred thousand pesos or both at the discretion of the court.

An# public oOcer or emplo#ee "ho 'no"ingl# approves or assists in securing adecision allo"ing reconstitution in favor of an# person not entitled thereto shall be sub&ect tocriminal prosecution and, upon conviction, shall be liable for imprisonment of not less thanve #ears but not exceeding ten #ears or pa#ment of a ne of not less than )ift# thousandpesos but not exceeding ne hundred thousand pesos or both at the discretion of the courtand perpetual dis%ualication from holding public oOce.G!C

*hese provisions indubitabl# establish that the administrative reconstitution of *orrens titles iintended for non-controversial cases, or especiall# "here the sub&ect propert# is not covered b# an existingtitle in favor of a person other than the applicant. 2uch an implication is consonant "ith the rule that thereconstitution proceedings are not the venue for conrmation or ad&udication of title, but merel# a meanb# "hich a previousl# ad&udicated title "hose original has been lost or destro#ed ma# be reissued to ito"ner.G!!

*he 2olicitor 3eneral pertinentl# cites the rule inAlaban evelopment Corporation v. :alenzuela

G!$ "hich "e held that PGthe courts simpl# have no &urisdiction over petitions b# such third parties foreconstitution of allegedl# lost or destro#ed titles over lands that are alread# covered b# dul# issuedsubsisting titles in the names of their dul# registered o"ners.S G!B*hat such doctrine "as established focases of &udicial reconstitution does not bar its application to cases of administrative reconstitution. 8one

of the provisions pertaining to administrative reconstitution in /ep. Act 8o. 0B or B?C0 extraordinaril#empo"ers the /A to exercise &urisdiction over a petition for reconstitution, "here the propert# is alread#covered b# a *orrens title. After all, the /A in such case is po"erless to void the previous title or todiminish its legal e+ect. Even assuming that the previousl# issued title is obviousl# fraudulent or attendedb# a"s and as such cannot be countenanced b# the legal s#stem, the corrective recourse lies "ith thecourts, and not "ith the /A.

If a petition for administrative reconstitution is led "ith the /A, and it appears from the oOciarecords that the sub&ect propert# is alread# covered b# an existing*orrens title in the name of anotheperson, there is nothing further the /A can do but to dismiss the petition. *he dismissal of such petition issub&ect to &udicial revie", but the onl# relevant in%uir# in such appellate proceeding is on "hether or notthere is a previousl# existing title covering that propert#. 8either the /A nor the (ourt of Appeals at thapoint ma# in%uire into the validit# of the title or the competing claims over the propert#. *he onl# remed#is an action before the /*( for the cancellation of the existing title, "hether b# the competing claimant ob# the 23 on behalf of the /epublic.

III

*he 0


53/58

*he unusual PshortcutS that occurred in rtiashad become necessar# because in that case thtrial court had denied or stric'en out the notices of appeal respectivel# led b# rtigas and the 2olicito3eneral from the order for reconstitution of MolinaRs titles. ad these notices of appeal been allo"ed, the(ourt of Appeals "ould have then revie"ed the trial courtRs decision on appeal, "ith the ultimatel# correcresolution "hich "as the annulment of MolinaRs titles. rtigas "as forced to institute a special civil actionof certiorari and mandamus "ith this (ourt, pra#ing for either of these alternative results7the moreprudent recourse of directing the trial court to act on the notices of appeal and to for"ard the case recordto the (ourt of Appeals, or the more immediate remed# of b#passing the appellate process and the (ouritself b# directl# annulling MolinaRs titles.

*he (ourt of Appeals herein could not have e%uated its annulment of the Manoto' title "ith tha

underta'en b# the (ourt in rtiassince, unli'e in rtias, the (ourt of Appeals "as not endo"ed "ith theproper appellate &urisdiction to annul the Manoto' title.As earlier pointed out, since the /A had nooriginal &urisdiction to cancel the Manoto' title, it follo"s that the (ourt of Appeals had no &urisdictionacompetence to extend the same relief, even "hile revie"ing the /ARs ruling. (learl#, rtiascannot beapplied as a binding precedent to these cases. *he fundamental &urisdictional defects that attended theactions of both Divisions of the (ourt of Appeals have e+ectivel# diminished rtiasas a persuasiveauthorit#.

I:

*he 0'rFe2 ' ' v' 8'm o e . *he available record before the (ourt iscomprehensive enough to allo" us to engage in that tas'.

*he Far%ue title, or *(* 8o. 01


54/58

*here are signicant di+erences bet"een the technical description of ot =0C of the 9iedad Estate

as stated in )2-C1B=-D, the subdivision plan relied on b# the Far%ues, and the technical descriptionprovided b# the DE8/.G$=*he DE8/-conrmed technical description reads6

Founded on the E., along line-0 b# +'(''2 E2'e on the 2E., b# T'o E2'ealong line C-! b# ot =0! along line !-$ b# ot B1B and on the 8., along line $-1b# ot =00, all of 9iedad Estate.G$

o"ever, if "e examine the subdivision plan, there are critical changes "ith respect to theboundaries named therein. In e+ect, the boundaries as described in the subdivision plan "ould read6

Founded on the E., along line-0 b# De "r'828o on the 2E., b# De "r'828o

along line C-! b# ot =0! along line !-$ b# ot B6 and on the 8., along line $-1b# ot =00, all of 9iedad Estate.SGB


55/58

After a thorough verication from the les of this Oce, it appears that the documentsleading to the issuance of *(* 8o. 00=1C, Fl'. *-0 cannot be found from the les of thisOce.GBB

*hese ndings "ere t"ice veried "ith due diligence and reconrmed b# the DE8/, according toHndersecretar# Dela 9ea.GB?

*he DE8/ also re%uested the assistance of the 8ational Fureau of Investigation >8FI@ in conducting

the said investigation. *he 8FI examined various sales certicates and assignment of sales certicates inthe names of the purported predecessors-in-interest of the Manoto's /egina 3eronimo, Modesto \acariasand )elicisimo illanueva7certicates that "ere all dated prior to 1Csic@ purports to be.SGB=

According to the Manahans, the MF did eventuall# for"ard to the Oce of the /egister of Deeds of

Lue:on (it# a Deed of (onve#ance for registration and mandator# issuance of title to )elicitas Manahanas grantee, pursuant to 2ection 100 of the and /egistration Act. *he registration of said Deed o(onve#ance "as referred to the Administrator of the and /egistration Authorit# en consultain 0Assignee@ and sold to )elicitas Manahan b# "a# of Deed of Absolute 2ale dated August 0C,1?!. Fased on m# research at the and Management Fureau >MF@, (entral Oce, itappears that original claimant of lot =0C "as alentin Manahan.G?


56/58

declared Pthat ot 8o. ?0? D-0 of the Fanilad )riar ands Estate covered b# riginal (erticate of *itle8os. 0$1, 0C0, and 0$C legall# belongs to the 3overnment of the 9hilippines.S

*he follo"ing #ear, the (ourt, acting on the motions for reconsideration inAlonso,G?0extensivel#discussed "h# it had ta'en that extraordinar# step even though the /epublic of the 9hilippines, throughthe 2olicitor 3eneral, had not participated or intervened in that case before the lo"er courts.

It must be borne in mind that the disputed propert# is part of the ;)riar ands; over"hich the 3overnment holds title and are not public lands but private or patrimonialpropert# of the 3overnment and can be alienated onl# upon proper compliance "ith there%uirements of Act 8o. 110< or the )riar ands Act.

x x x

It "as thus primordial for the respondent to prove its ac%uisition of its title b# clear

and convincing evidence in vie" of the nature of the land. In fact, it is essential for bothrespondent and petitioners to establish that it had become private propert#. Foth partiesfailed to do so. As "e have held earlier, petitioners have not succeeded to prove their claimof o"nership over the sub&ect propert#.

x x x

8either ma# the re"ards of prescription be successfull# invo'ed b# respondent, as it

is an iron-clad dictum that prescription can never lie against the 3overnment. 2incerespondent failed to present the paper trail of the propert#Js conversion to private propert#,the length# possession and occupation of the disputed land b# respondent cannot becounted in its favor, as the sub&ect propert# being a friar land, remained part of thepatrimonial propert# of the 3overnment. 9ossession of patrimonial propert# of the3overnment, "hether spanning decades or centuries, can not ipso facto ripen intoo"nership. Moreover, the rule that statutes of limitation do not run against the 2tate, unlesstherein expressl# provided, is founded on ;the great principle of public polic#, applicable toall governments ali'e, "hich forbids that the public interests should be pre&udiced b# thenegligence of the oOcers or agents to "hose care the# are conded.;

x x x

)inall#, our declaration that ot ?0?-D-0 of the Fanilad )riar ands Estate legall#belongs to the 3overnment does not amount to reversion "ithout due process of la" insofaras both parties are concerned. *he disputed propert# is a )riar and and both parties failedto sho" that it had ceased to belong to the patrimonial propert# of the 2tate or that it hadbecome private propert#.G?C

*heAlonso approach especiall# appeals to us because, as in this case, the sub&ect propert# therein"as a )riar and "hich under the )riar ands a" >Act 8o. 110


57/58

Hnder 2ection B of /ule !B, "hich is applicable to original cases for certiorari, the(ourt ma#, "henever necessar# to resolve factual issues, delegate the reception of theevidence on such issues to an# of its members or to an appropriate court, agenc# or oOce.=< *he delegate need not be the bod# that rendered the assailed decision.

*he (ourt of Appeals generall# has the authorit# to revie" ndings of fact. Itsconclusions as to ndings of fact are generall# accorded great respect b# this (ourt. It is abod# that is full# capacitated and has a surfeit of experience in appreciating factual matters,including documentar# evidence.

In fact, the (ourt had actuall# resorted to referring a factual matter pending beforeit to the (ourt of Appeals. In +epublic v. Court of Appeals, this (ourt commissioned theformer *hirteenth Division of the (ourt of Appeals to hear and receive evidence on thecontrovers#, more particularl# to determine ;the actual area reclaimed b# the /epublic /ealEstate (orporation, and the areas of the (ultural (enter (omplex "hich are Jopen spacesJandTor Qareas reserved for certain purposes,J determining in the process the validit# of suchpostulates and the respective measurements of the areas referred to.; *he (ourt of Appealstherein received the evidence of the parties and rendered a ;(ommissionerJs /eport; shortl#thereafter. *hus, resort to the (ourt of Appeals is not a deviant procedure.

*he provisions of /ule C0 should also be considered as governing the grant ofauthorit# to the (ourt of Appeals to receive evidence in the present case. Hnder 2ection 0,/ule C0 of the /ules of (ourt, a court ma#, motu proprio, direct a reference to acommissioner "hen a %uestion of fact, other than upon the pleadings, arises upon motion orother"ise, in an# stage of a case, or for carr#ing a &udgment or order into e+ect. *he orderof reference can be limited exclusivel# to receive and report evidence onl#, and thecommissioner ma# li'e"ise rule upon the admissibilit# of evidence. *he commissioner isli'e"ise mandated to submit a report in "riting to the court upon the matters submitted tohim b# the order of reference. In +epublic, the commissionerJs report formed the basis of thenal ad&udication b# the (ourt on the matter. *he same result can obtain herein.G?B

*he primar# focus for the (ourt of Appeals, as an agent of this (ourt, in receiving and evaluating

evidence should be "hether the Manoto's can trace their claim of title to a valid alienation b# the3overnment of ot 8o. =0C of the 9iedad Estate, "hich "as a )riar and. n that evidence, this (ourma# ultimatel# decide "hether annulment of the Manoto' title is "arranted, similar to the annulment ofthe (ebu (ountr# (lub title inAlonso. At the same time, the (ourt recogni:es that the respective claims totitle b# other parties such as the Far%ues and the Manahans, and the evidence the# ma# submit on theirbehalf, ma# have an impact on the correct determination of the status of the Manoto' title. It "ould thusbe prudent, in assuring the accurate evaluation of the %uestion, to allo" said parties, along "ith the 23to participate in the proceedings before the (ourt of Appeals. If the nal evidence on record denitivel#reveals the proper claimant to the sub&ect propert#, the (ourt "ould ta'e such fact into consideration as itad&udicates nal relief.

)or the purposes above-stated, the (ourt of Appeals is tas'ed to hear and receive

Additional Case Ltd

Documents

Transcript of Additional Case Ltd