HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN the Alienable or Disposable land per Land

vs. REPUBLIC OF THE Classification Map No. 3013 established

under Project No. 20-A and approved as
PHILIPPINES such under FAO 4-1656 on March 15,
HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN vs. 1982. On 3 December 2002, the RTC
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES approved the application for registration.
GR No. 179987
April 29, 2009 The Republic interposed an appeal to the
en banc Court of Appeals, arguing that Malabanan
had failed to prove that the property
belonged to the alienable and disposable
FACTS: land of the public domain, and that the RTC
had erred in finding that he had been in
On 20 February 1998, Mario Malabanan possession of the property in the manner
filed an application for land registration and for the length of time required by law for
before the RTC of Cavite-Tagaytay, confirmation of imperfect title. On 23
covering a parcel of land situated in Silang February 2007, the Court of Appeals
Cavite, consisting of 71,324 square meters. reversed the RTC ruling and dismissed the
Malabanan claimed that he had purchased appliocation of Malabanan.
the property from Eduardo Velazco, and
that he and his predecessors-in-interest had
been in open, notorious, and continuous ISSUES:
adverse and peaceful possession of the
land for more than thirty (30) years. Velazco 1. In order that an alienable and disposable
testified that the property was originally land of the public domain may be registered
belonged to a twenty-two hectare property under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree
owned by his great-grandfather, Lino No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property
Velazco. Lino had four sons Benedicto, Registration Decree, should the land be
Gregorio, Eduardo and Estebanthe fourth classified as alienable and disposable as of
being Aristedess grandfather. Upon Linos June 12, 1945 or is it sufficient that such
death, his four sons inherited the property classification occur at any time prior to the
and divided it among themselves. But by filing of the applicant for registration
1966, Estebans wife, Magdalena, had provided that it is established that the
become the administrator of all the applicant has been in open, continuous,
properties inherited by the Velazco sons exclusive and notorious possession of the
from their father, Lino. After the death of land under a bona fide claim of ownership
Esteban and Magdalena, their son Virgilio since June 12, 1945 or earlier?
succeeded them in administering the
properties, including Lot 9864-A, which 2. For purposes of Section 14(2) of the
originally belonged to his uncle, Eduardo Property Registration Decree may a parcel
Velazco. It was this property that was sold of land classified as alienable and
by Eduardo Velazco to Malabanan. disposable be deemed private land and
therefore susceptible to acquisition by
Among the evidence presented by prescription in accordance with the Civil
Malabanan during trial was a Certification Code?
dated 11 June 2001, issued by the
Community Environment & Natural 3. May a parcel of land established as
Resources Office, Department of agricultural in character either because of its
Environment and Natural Resources use or because its slope is below that of
(CENRO-DENR), which stated that the forest lands be registrable under Section
subject property was verified to be within 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree in
relation to the provisions of the Civil Code government manifestation that the property
on acquisitive prescription? is already patrimonial or no longer retained
for public service or the development of
4. Are petitioners entitled to the registration national wealth, under Article 422 of the
of the subject land in their names under Civil Code. And only when the property has
Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the become patrimonial can the prescriptive
Property Registration Decree or both? period for the acquisition of property of the
public dominion begin to run.
HELD:
(a) Patrimonial property is private property
The Pertition is denied. of the government. The person acquires
ownership of patrimonial property by
(1) In connection with Section 14(1) of the prescription under the Civil Code is entitled
Property Registration Decree, Section 48(b) to secure registration thereof under Section
of the Public Land Act recognizes and 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree.
confirms that those who by themselves or
through their predecessors in interest have (b) There are two kinds of prescription by
been in open, continuous, exclusive, and which patrimonial property may be acquired,
notorious possession and occupation of one ordinary and other extraordinary. Under
alienable and disposable lands of the public ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person
domain, under a bona fide claim of acquires ownership of a patrimonial
acquisition of ownership, since June 12, property through possession for at least ten
1945 have acquired ownership of, and (10) years, in good faith and with just title.
registrable title to, such lands based on the Under extraordinary acquisitive prescription,
length and quality of their possession. a persons uninterrupted adverse
possession of patrimonial property for at
(a) Since Section 48(b) merely requires least thirty (30) years, regardless of good
possession since 12 June 1945 and does faith or just title, ripens into ownership.
not require that the lands should have been
alienable and disposable during the entire It is clear that the evidence of petitioners is
period of possession, the possessor is insufficient to establish that Malabanan has
entitled to secure judicial confirmation of his acquired ownership over the subject
title thereto as soon as it is declared property under Section 48(b) of the Public
alienable and disposable, subject to the Land Act. There is no substantive evidence
timeframe imposed by Section 47 of the to establish that Malabanan or petitioners as
Public Land Act. his predecessors-in-interest have been in
possession of the property since 12 June
(b) The right to register granted under 1945 or earlier. The earliest that petitioners
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act is can date back their possession, according
further confirmed by Section 14(1) of the to their own evidencethe Tax Declarations
Property Registration Decree. they presented in particularis to the year
1948. Thus, they cannot avail themselves of
(2) In complying with Section 14(2) of the registration under Section 14(1) of the
Property Registration Decree, consider that Property Registration Decree.
under the Civil Code, prescription is
recognized as a mode of acquiring Neither can petitioners properly invoke
ownership of patrimonial property. However, Section 14(2) as basis for registration. While
public domain lands become only the subject property was declared as
patrimonial property not only with a alienable or disposable in 1982, there is no
declaration that these are alienable or competent evidence that is no longer
disposable. There must also be an express intended for public use service or for the
development of the national evidence, "3. That defendant Commissioner
conformably with Article 422 of the Civil
Code. The classification of the subject
of Land Registration and
property as alienable and disposable land of defendant Register of Deeds of
the public domain does not change its Davao City whose Offices are at
status as property of the public dominion Espaa Extension, Quezon City
under Article 420(2) of the Civil Code. Thus,
it is insusceptible to acquisition by
and Davao City, respectively, are
prescription. included in this complaint, the
first being the public Official
charged under the law with the
[ GR No. L-39248, May 07, 1976 ] approval of subdivision surveys of
private lands while the second is
REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF LUISA the Official vested with the
VILLA ABRILLE + authority to issue certificates of
titles, pursuant to the provisions of
Act 496, as amended, otherwise
DECISION
known as the Land Registration
162 Phil. 913
Law;
"4. That defendant Estate of Luisa
Villa Abrille (now Heirs of Luisa
ESGUERRA, J.: Villa Abrille) is the owner of a
This case was originally appealed parcel of land in the City of Davao
containing an area of FIVE
to the Court of Appeals where it
HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE
was docketed as CA-G.R. No. THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
47438-R. The Court of Appeals FIFTY-TWO SQUARE
certified it to this Court for final METERS (525,652), more or
consideration and resolution of less, under Transfer Certificate of
the pure question of law involved. Title No. T-1439 of the Registry of
Deeds of Davao City, issued in her
The factual background of the case name;
is as follows: "5. That deceased Luisa Villa
On May 9, 1969, a Complaint for Abrille during her lifetime caused
Annulment of Certificate of Title the subdivision of the aforesaid
was filed by the Republic of the parcel of land into two lots
Philippines (represented by the designated as Lots Nos. 379-B-2-
Director of Lands), with the Court B-1 and 379-B-2-B-2 under
of First Instance of Davao, Branch subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-69322
I, alleging, among others, the which was approved by the Land
following:
Registration Commissioner on "9. That the registration of Lot No.
March 17, 1967; 379-B-2-B-2, which includes the
aforementioned excess area of
"6. That under Subdivision Plan
82,127 Square Meters, was not in
(LRC) Psd-69322, Lot No. 379-B-
accordance with law for lack of the
2-B-1 contains an area of 30,100
required notice and publication as
Square Meters while Lot No. 379-
prescribed in Act 496, as
B-2-B-2 contains an area of
amended, otherwise known as the
577,679 Square Meters or a total
Land Registration Law;
area of 607,779 Square Meters,
which is 82,127 Square Meters "10. That the excess or enlarged
more than the original area area of 82,127 Square Meters as a
covered in Transfer Certificate of result of the approval of the
Title No. T-1439 in the name of subdivision survey (LRC) Psd-
said defendant Luisa Villa Abrille; 69322 was formerly a portion of
the Davao River which dried up by
"7. That on March 27, 1967 or ten
reason of the change of course of
days after the approval by the
the said Davao River; hence a land
Land Registration Commissioner,
belonging to the public domain;
said Luisa Villa Abrille was able to
and
secure an order from the Court of
First Instance of Davao in LRC "11. That as a consequence thereof,
(GLRO) Doc. No. 9969, directing Transfer Certificate of Title No.
the Register of Deeds for the City 18887 which covers Lot No. 379-
of Davao and Province of Davao, B-2-B-2 of Subdivision Survey
to correct the area of Certificate of (LRC) Psd-69322, wherein the
Title No. T-1439 and thereafter to excess area of land belong to the
cancel the same and issue in lieu public domain (not private land) is
thereof TCT Nos. T-18886 and T- null and void ab initio."
18887; On June 10, 1969, defendant
Register of Deeds of Davao City
"8. That on March 30, 1967, the
filed her answer averring that she,
Register of Deeds concerned
"in the performance of her
registered Lot 379-B-2-B-1 and
ministerial duty, honestly and in
issued TCT No. 18886 therefor, in
good faith effected the registration
the name of Luisa Villa-Abrille and
of Subdivision Lot No. 379-B-2-B-
on the same date registered Lot
1 and Lot No. 379-B-2-B-2 and the
No. 379-B-2-B-2 and issued TCT
issuance of corresponding TCT
No. 18887 in the name of Luisa
No. 18886 and TCT No. 18887
Villa-Abrille;
therefor, respectively, in view of
the approval of the Land
Registration Commissioner of Luisa Villa Abrille, predecessor-in-
Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd- interest of herein defendant-
69322, and in view of the Order of appellant, as riparian owner was
the Court of First Instance of entitled under the law to claim, as
Davao in LRC (GLRO) Doc. No. she did, the increase or excess in
1969, directing the Register of area of her original land as her
Deeds to correct the area in own.
Certificate of Title No. T-1439, to
On August 12, 1969, defendant
cancel the same and to issue in
Commissioner of Land
lieu thereof TCT Nos. T-18886 and
Registration prays for a judgment
T-18887".
on the pleadings and avers in his
On July 2, 1969, herein defendant- answer that he has no knowledge
appellants filed their answer of the subject matter of the
admitting the allegations complaint since the subdivision
contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 plan involved therein was
and 7 of the complaint that they approved by the then
admit the increase in area of the Commissioner of Land
land of their predecessor but that Registration, Antonio Noblejas;
the increase in area of the land and that on February 19, 1968, the
was acceded to and concurred in then Commissioner of Land
by the defendant, Land Registration, Antonio Noblejas,
Registration Commissioner, and issued LRC Circular No. 167
the same was duly noted and directing the Register of Deeds
approved by the Court of First throughout the Philippines to,
Instance of Davao; that they admit among others, deny the
the issuance of TCT Nos. T-18886 registration of subdivision plans
and T-18887 out of Certificate of with increased or expanded areas
Title No. T-1439 in the name of and to withhold the issuance of the
their predecessor-in-interest Luisa corresponding titles, or if the plans
Villa Abrille but that TCT No. T- have already been registered and
18886 had been cancelled and in the titles issued, to recall the titles
lieu thereof, TCT No. T-19077 was and to take appropriate steps for
issued in favor of Gaudencio their cancellation.
Consunji, and, TCT No. T-18887
Some private persons, as actual
had likewise been cancelled and
possessors and occupants, tried to
several Transfer Certificates of
intervene in the case as movant-
Title were issued thereunder; that
intervenors but they were denied
the subject increase of area was
standing in court by the trial court
made in accordance with law and
in its order of August 16, 1969.
existing jurisprudence; and that
On January 6, 1970, the parties as Annex "A", and made integral
litigants submitted in court their part hereof;
"Agreed Stipulation of Facts" and
"4. That Transfer Certificate of
pray that judgment be rendered by
Title No. T-18886 was
the trial court on their case based
subsequently cancelled by virtue of
on their stipulation of facts. The
deed of sale, and Transfer
"Agreed Stipulation of Facts" of
Certificate of Title No. T-19077
the parties reads as follows:
was issued in the name of
"COME NOW the parties assisted Gaudencio Consunji, a purchaser
by their respective attorneys, and in good faith and for value;
unto the Honorable Court, most
"5. That the said subdivision plan
respectfully submit the following
Annex "A" was also approved by
stipulation of facts and allege:
the Court of First Instance of
"1. That Lot 379-B-2-B was Davao, Branch IV, through an
originally registered on June 28, Order dated March 27, 1967, copy
1916 in the Registry Book of the of which order is hereto attached
Register of Deeds of Zamboanga as Annex "B" and made part
as Vol. A-27, Page 40 under hereof;
Original Certificate of Title No.
"6. That the said Order Annex "B"
5609, Case No. 1, G.L.R.O. Rec.
was issued by the Court of First
No. 317, in the name of Francisco
Instance of Davao, Branch IV, on
Villa Abrille Lim Juna, father of
the strength of the Report of the
Luisa Villa Abrille;
defendant, Land Registration
"2. That upon the death of the Commissioner, copy of which
original owner, the said property report is hereto attached as Annex
was inherited by Luisa Villa Abrille "C" and made integral part hereof;
and Transfer Certificate of Title
"7. That much later on, Transfer
No. T-1439 was issued in the name
Certificate of Title No. T-18887
of said Luisa Villa Abrille;
was, by virtue of an Order of the
"3. That subsequently, by virtue of Court of First Instance, Branch I,
an approved subdivision plan Psd- in Special Proceedings No. 1357,
69322 by the defendant, Land entitled: In the Matter of the
Registration Commissioner, Testate Estate of Luisa Villa
Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. Abrille, approving a project of
T-18886 and 18887 were issued by partition cancelled, and in lieu
the defendant, Register of Deeds thereof, the following Transfer
of Davao, copy of which Certificates of Title were issued to
subdivision plan is hereto attached
the following named persons, to or prejudiced in the increase in
wit: area as only Luisa Villa Abrille as
the registered owner holds
(a) T-20690 - Huang Siu Sin;
property adjacent to the parcel of
(b) T-20692 - Huang Siu Sin; land in question;
(c) T-20701 - Josefino Huang; "10. That the portion of land
subject of the increase adjoins Lot
(d) T-20702 - Josefino Huang;
379-B-2-B and abuts the Davao
(e) T-20703 - Josefino Huang; River;
(f) T-20732 - Huang Siu Sin, et "11. That the parcel of land subject
al.; of the increase is fully planted with
coconuts, bananas and other
(g) T-20733 - Huang Siu Sin, et
seasonal crops by the defendants,
al.;
through their predecessor-in-
(h) T-20713 - Miguel Huang; interest;
(i) T-20715 - Miguel Huang; "12. That the increase in area
could have taken place very long
(j) T-20725 - Milagros Huang;
time ago as the coconuts planted
(k) T-20726 - Milagros Huang; thereon had long been fruit
which certificates of title were bearing;
issued on the basis of a
"13. That Transfer Certificate of
subdivision plan LRC Psd-71236
Title No. 18886 does not contain
duly approved by the defendant,
any portion of the increase in
Land Registration Commissioner,
area;
copy of which subdivision plan
(LRC) Psd-71236 is hereto "14. That of the certificates of title
attached as Annex "D" and made issued based under subdivision
integral part hereof; plan (LRC) Psd-71236, only
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
"8. That the parties admit that
T-20725; T-20701; T-20713; and
there was an increase in the area
T-20690 contain the increase in
of Lot 379-B-2-B, but the same
area; while all the other
was with the knowledge of the
certificates of title issued under
defendant, Land Registration
subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-71236
Commissioner and the Court of
do not contain any increase in
First Instance of Davao, Branch
area;
IV;
"15. That the parties agree that the
"9. That the parties admit that no
issuance of the Order Annex "B"
registered owner has been affected
was without notice to the Director Certificates of Title Nos. T-20725
of Lands." in the name of Milagros Huang, T-
The trial court thereafter rendered 20701 in the name of Josefino
its decision dated January 27, Huang, T-20713 in the name of
1970, which reads as follows: Miguel Huang and T-20690 in the
name of Huang Siu Sin, is from
"This is an ordinary civil action for
525,652 square meters to 607,779
annulment of certificate of title
square meters, or 82,127 square
instituted by the Republic of the
meters.
Philippines, represented by the
Director of Lands, against the "The remedy sought by defendant
Estate of Luisa Abrille, heirs of Luisa Villa Abrille in order
represented by Huang Siu Sin, to include the increase in area was
Administrator, the Land a petition for approval of
Registration Commissioner and Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-79322
the Register of Deeds of the City of recommended by the
Davao. Because the residue of the Commissioner of Land
intestate estate of Luisa Villa Registration in his Report, and for
Abrille had been divided among issuance of new titles under
Huang Siu Sin, Josefino Huang, Section 44, Act 496, as amended,
Milagros Huang, Miguel Huang filed with this Court, which was
and Iap Tong Ha, heirs, they were assigned to Branch IV.
directed to appear and to
"Even pursuant to Section 44 of
substitute for the intestate estate
Act 496 under which the aforesaid
and they did.
remedy was sought, notice before
"The parties submitted the the hearing is required. The
following stipulation of facts: parties admit that there was no
notice to the persons interested,
*** *** ***
including the Director of Lands,
*** *** *** *** before the petition was heard.
"The increase in area of the land "Worse, the increase in area could
covered by Original Certificate of not have been included in Transfer
Title No. 5609 of the Register of Certificates of Title Nos. T-20725,
Deeds of Davao in the name of T-20701, T-20713 and T-20690
Francisco Villa Abrille Lim Juna even assuming arguendo that the
and subsequently by Transfer same belonged to the owner of the
Certificate of Title No. T-1439 in land to which it is adjacent by the
the name of Luisa Villa Abrille and simple expediency of a petition for
finally, based on subdivision plan approval of subdivision plan and
(LRC) Psd-71236, by Transfer issuance of new titles, because a
subdivision of a registered land proceedings have been instituted
under Section 44 of Act 496 does by the owner. And the only way by
not authorize the inclusion of land which a title to the land in
or area not embraced in the titled question can be issued for the first
or in excess of what is stated in the time is for the Land Registration
title. And the approval of the Court Commissioner to issue a decree of
of such subdivision plan does not registration based upon final
lend validity to it. The subdivision judgment rendered by a court of
must be limited to the area stated competent jurisdiction after trial.
in the title. Neither amendment of
"WHEREFORE, judgment is
the title under Section 112 of Act
hereby rendered cancelling
496 would be a valid remedy.
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
"The heirs of Luisa Villa Abrille, T-20725, T-20701, T-20713 and T-
owners of the adjacent estate, 20690 and directing the Register
might have acquired a registrable of Deeds of Davao to issue new
title to the land in question but to certificates of title in lieu thereof
bring it under the operation of the after the portions consisting of
Land Registration Act, a petition 82,127 square meters, the land
for registration under Act 496 involved, shall have been
should have been filed. More so segregated therefrom in
when the title acquired is by accordance with law."
continuous possession for at least Not satisfied with the judgment of
30 years under a claim of the trial court, defendant Heirs of
ownership. And even assuming Luisa Villa Abrille brought the
that the land is an accretion, the case on appeal to the Court of
fact that the riparian estate is Appeals. The Court of Appeals,
registered does not bring ipso however, in its Resolution dated
facto effect its accretion thereto July 22, 1974, certified the case
under the operation of the Land (CA-G.R. No. 47438-R) to this
Registration Act. No decree of Court for consideration and final
registration of the land based upon disposition.
final judgment promulgated by a
Defendant-appellant maintains
court of competent jurisdiction
that the lower court erred in
after due publication, notice and
holding the approval of
hearing, has been issued by the
Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-69322
Commissioner of Land
of no legal effect merely on ground
Registration and transcribed by
of lack of notice to interested
the Register of Deeds of Davao in
persons, and in ordering the
the registry, for the reason that no
cancellation of Certificates of Title
initial or original registration
Nos. T-20725, T-20701, T-20713, order of the Court of First Instance
and T-20690. It is the contention of Davao, Branch IV, approving
of the defendant-appellant that the subdivision plan concerned, as
since the government agencies the required giving of notice to all
having to do with lands know all parties interested in defendant-
the time the increase in area in appellant's petition for approval of
subdivision plan Psd-69322, and subdivision plan was not at all
the government agencies followed.
concerned tolerated if not abetted
Before Us, therefore, for
the ultimate inclusion of the
consideration and final resolution,
involved increase in area,
in order to arrive at a judicious
defendant-appellant should not be
disposition of the case at bar, is
made to suffer the effect of the
whether or not the lower court
allegedly wrong procedure or step
erred in ordering the cancellation
taken in the approval of the
of Transfer Certificates of Title
aforementioned subdivision plan.
Nos. T-20725, T-20701, T-20713
Besides, defendant-appellant
and T-20690 which cover the
claims that it is their honest belief
increased area in question
that the legal remedy taken by
totalling 82,127 square meters.
them in seeking the approval of
their subdivision plan concerned After a careful and thorough
was well within the law, deliberation of the matter in
particularly the provision of controversy, We are of the opinion
Section 44 of Act 496, as and so hold that the lower court
amended. acted correctly in ordering the
cancellation of Transfer
Plaintiff-appellee, on the other
Certificates of Title Nos. T-20725,
hand, maintains that the approval
T-20701, T-20713 and T-20690
of the subdivision plan, with the
which admittedly covered the
increase in area, by the defendant-
increased area of 82,127 square
appellant Land Registration
meters under Subdivision Plan
Commission does not lend validity
(LRC) Psd-71236 (and formerly
to the said subdivision plan; and
under Psd-69322) for the City of
that the issuance of the four
Davao.
transfer certificates of title (Nos.
T-20725, T-20701, T-20713 and T- Certainly, the step taken by
20690) over the increased area in defendant-appellant in petitioning
question is improper and invalid the court for the approval of their
notwithstanding the conformity of Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-69322
the Land Registration and then Psd-71236 to include the
Commissioner and the subsequent questioned increased area of
82,127 square meters is, to say the incomplete title or claim to a land
least, unwarranted and irregular. to be originally registered under
This is so, for the increased area in Act 496, the following requisites
question, which is not a registered should all be satisfied:
land but formerly a river bed, is so
1. Survey of land by the Bureau of
big as to give allowance for a mere
Lands or a duly licensed private
mistake in area of the original
surveyor;
registration of the tracts of land of
the defendant-appellant formerly 2. Filing of application for
belonging to and registered in the registration by the applicant;
name of their grandfather,
3. Setting of the date for the initial
Francisco Villa Abrille Lim Juna.
hearing of the application by the
In order to bring this increase in
Court;
area, which the parties admitted to
have been a former river bed of the 4. Transmittal of the application
Davao River, under the operation and the date of initial hearing
and coverage of the Land together with all the documents or
Registration Law, Act 496, other evidences attached thereto
proceedings in registrations of by the Clerk of Court to the Land
land title should have been filed Registration Commission;
instead of an ordinary approval of
5. Publication of a notice of the
subdivision plan.
filing of the application and date
It should be remembered that and place of the hearing in the
recourse under Section 44 of Act Official Gazette;
496, which the predecessor-in-
6. Service of notice upon
interest (Luisa Villa Abrille) of the
contiguous owners, occupants and
herein defendant-appellant took,
those known to have interests in
is good only insofar as it covers
the property by the sheriff;
previously registered lands. In the
instant case, part of the tracts of 7. Filing of answer to the
land, particularly the area of application by any person whether
82,127 square meters, has not yet named in the notice or not;
been brought under the operation
8. Hearing of the case by the
of the Torrens System. Worse still,
Court;
the approval of Subdivision Plans
(LRC) Psd-69322 and Psd-71236 9. Promulgation of judgment by
was without notice to all parties in the Court;
interest, more particularly the
10. Issuance of the decree by the
Director of Lands. For an
Court declaring the decision final
applicant to have his imperfect or
and instructing the Land
Registration Commission to issue
a decree of confirmation and
registration; 48 Phil. 424
11. Entry of the decree of
registration in the Land
Registration Commission; VILLA-REAL, J.:

12. Sending of copy of the decree This action was commenced in the
of registration to the Court of First Instance of
corresponding Register of Deeds; Pampanga by a complaint filed by
and Valentin Susi against Angela
Razon and the Director of Lands,
13. Transcription of the decree of praying for judgment: (a)
registration in the registration Declaring plaintiff the sole and
book and the issuance of the absolute owner of the parcel of
owner's duplicate original land described in the second
certificate of title to the applicant paragraph of the complaint; (b)
by the Register of Deeds, upon annulling the sale made by the
payment of the prescribed fees. Director of Lands in favor of
Hence, with the foregoing Angela Razon, on the ground that
requisites not having been the land is a private property; (c)
complied with, the lower court ordering the cancellation of the
committed no error in its appealed certificate of title issued to said
decision dated January 27, 1970. Angela Razon; and (d) sentencing
Wherefore, the judgment appealed the latter to pay plaintiff the sum
from is hereby affirmed in toto. of P500 as damages, with the
costs.
No special pronouncement as to For his answer to the complaint,
costs. the Director of Lands denied each
So ordered. and every allegation contained
therein and, as special defense,
Teehankee, (Chairman), alleged that the land in question
Makasiar, Muoz was a property of the Government
Palma, and Martin, JJ., concur. of the United States under the
administration and control of that
of the Philippine Islands before its
sale to Angela Razon, which was
made in accordance with law.
After trial, whereat evidence was B). After having been in
introduced by both parties, the possession thereof for about eight
Court of First Instance of years, and the fish pond having
Pampanga rendered judgment been destroyed, Apolonio Garcia
declaring the plaintiff entitled to and Basilio Mendoza, on
the possession of the land, September 5, 1899, sold it to
annulling the sale made by the Valentin Susi for the sum of P12,
Director of Lands in favor of reserving the right to repurchase it
Angela Razon, and ordering the (Exhibit A). Before the execution
cancellation of the certificate of of the deed of sale, Valentin Susi
title issued to her, with the costs had already paid its price and
against Angela Razon. From this sown "bacawan" on said land,
judgment the Director of Lands availing himself of the firewood
took this appeal, assigning thereto gathered thereon, with the
the following errors, to wit: (1) The proceeds of the sale of which he
holding that the judgment had paid the price of the property.
rendered in a prior case between The possession and occupation of
the plaintiff and defendant Angela the land in question, first, by
Razon on the parcel of land in Apolonio Garcia and Basilio
question is controlling in this Mendoza, and then by Valentin
action; (2) the holding that Susi has been open, continuous,
plaintiff is entitled to recover the adverse arid public, without any
possession of said parcel of land; interruption, except during the
the annulment of the sale made by revolution, or disturbance, except
the Director of Lands to Angela when Angela Razon, on September
Razon; and the ordering that the 13, 1913, commenced an action in
certificate of title issued by the the Court of First Instance of
register of deeds of the Province of Pampanga to recover the
Pampanga to Angela Razon by possession of said land (Exhibit
virtue of said sale be cancelled; C), wherein after considering the
and (3) the denial of the motion evidence introduced at the trial,
for new trial filed by the Director the court rendered judgment in
of Lands. favor of Valentin Susi and against
Angela Razon, dismissing the
The evidence shows that on
complaint (Exhibit E). Having
December 18, 1880, Nemesio
failed in her attempt to obtain
Pinlac sold the land in question,
possession of the land in question
then a fish pond, to Apolonio
through the court, Angela Razon
Garcia and Basilio Mendoza for
applied to the Director of Lands
the sum of P12, reserving the right
for the purchase thereof on August
to repurchase the same (Exhibit
15, 1914 (Exhibit C). Having about forty-five years. While the
learned of said application, judgment of the Court of First
Valentin Susi filed an opposition Instance of Pampanga against
thereto on December 6, 1915, Angela Razon in the forcible entry
asserting his possession of case does not affect the Director of
the land for twenty-five years Lands, yet it is controlling as to
(Exhibit P). After making the Angela Razon and rebuts her claim
proper administrative that she had been in possession
investigation, the Director of thereof. When on August 15, 1914,
Lands overruled the opposition of Angela Razon applied for the
Valetin Susi and sold the land to purchase of said land, Valentin
Angela Razon (Exhibit S). By Susi had already been in
virtue of said grant the register of possession thereof personally and
deeds of Pampanga, on August 31, through his predecessors for
1921, issued the proper certificate thirty-four years. And if it is taken
of title to Angela Razon. Armed into account that Nemesio Pinlac
with said document, Angela Razon had already made said land a fish
required Valentin Susi to vacate pond when he sold it on December
the land in question, and as he 18, 1880, it can hardly be
refused to do so, she brought an estimated when he began to
action for forcible entry and possess and occupy it, the period
detainer in the justice of the peace of time being so long that it is
court of Guagua, Pampanga, which beyond the reach of memory.
was dismissed for lack of These being the facts, the doctrine
jurisdiction, the case being one of laid down by the Supreme Court of
title to real property (Exhibits F the United States in the case of
and M). Valentin Susi then Cario vs. Government of the
brought this action. Philippine Islands (212 U. S.,
449[1]), is applicable here. In
With these facts in view, we shall
favor of Valentin Susi, there is,
proceed to consider the questions
moreover, the presumption juris
raised by the appellant in his
et de jure established in
assignments of error.
paragraph (b) of section 45 of
It clearly appears from the Act No. 2874, amending Act
evidence that Valentin Susi has No. 926, that all the necessary
been in possession of the land in requirements for a grant by the
question openly, continuously, Government were complied with,
adversely and publicly, personally for he has been in actual and
and through his predecessors, physical possession, personally
since the year 1880, that is, for and through his predecessors, of
an agricultural land of the public If, as above stated, the land, the
domain openly, continuously, possession of which is in dispute,
exclusively and publicly since had already become, by operation
July 26, 1894, with a right to a of law, private property of the
certificate of title to said land plaintiff, there lacking only the
under the provisions of Chapter judicial sanction of his title,
VIII of said Act. So that when Valentin Susi has the right to bring
Angela Razon applied for the grant an action to recover the possession
in her favor, Valentin Susi had thereof and hold it.
already acquired, by operation of
For the foregoing, and no error
law, not only a right to a grant, but
having been found in the
a grant of the Government, for it is
judgment appealed from, the same
not necessary that certificate of
is hereby affirmed in all its parts,
title should be issued in order that
without special pronouncement as
said grant may be sanctioned by
to costs. So ordered.
the courts, an application therefor
is sufficient, under the provisions Avancea, C. J., Malcolm, Street,
of section 47 of Act No. 2874. If by Villamor, Ostrand, Johns,
a legal fiction, Valentin Susi had and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
acquired the land in question by a Johnson, J., did not take part.
grant of the State, it had already
ceased to be of the public domain
and had become private property,
at least by presumption, of Land Titles And
Valentin Susi, beyond the control Deeds Case Digest:
of the Director of Lands.
Consequently, in selling the land Director Of Lands V.
in question to Angela Razon, the
Director of Lands disposed of a IAC (1986)
land over which he had no longer
G.R. No. 73002 December 29, 1986
any title or control, and the sale
thus made was void and of no Lessons Applicable: Sec. 3 Art. XII, 1987
effect, and Angela Razon did not Constitution (Land Titles and Deeds)
thereby acquire any right.
FACTS:
The Director of Lands contends
that the land in question being of Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., a
the public domain, the plaintiff- corp. represented by Mr. Rodolfo
appellee cannot maintain an Nazario, acquired from Mariano and Acer
action to recover possession
thereof.
 Infiel, members of the Dumagat tribe it had already ceased to be of the public
5 parcels of land domain and had become private property, at
possession of the Infiels over the landdates least by presumption
back before the Philippines was discovered by The application for confirmation is mere
Magellan formality, the lack of which does not affect
land sought to be registered is a private land the legal sufficiency of the title as would be
pursuant to RA 3872 granting absolute evidenced by the patent and the Torrens title
ownership to members of the non-Christian to be issued upon the strength of said patent.
Tribes on land occupied by them or their The effect of the proof, wherever made, was
ancestral lands, whether with the alienable or not to confer title, but simply to establish it,
disposable public land or within the public as already conferred by the decree, if not by
domain earlier law
Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., has 2. NO
introduced more than P45M worth of
If it is accepted-as it must be-that the land
improvements
was already private land to which the Infiels
ownership and possession of the land sought
had a legally sufficient and transferable title
to be registered was duly recognized by the
on October 29, 1962 when Acme acquired it
government when the Municipal Officials of
from said owners, it must also be conceded
Maconacon, Isabela
that Acme had a perfect right to make such
donated part of the land as the townsite of
acquisition
Maconacon Isabela
The only limitation then extant was that
IAC affirmed CFI: in favor of
corporations could not acquire, hold or lease
ISSUES:
public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024
1. W/N the land is already a private land - YES hectares
2. W/N the constitutional prohibition against There cannot be a rectroactive effect of the
their acquisition by private corporations or new prohibition in the 1973 Constitution
associations applies- NO because it would abrogate the already vested
HELD: IAC affirmed Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., right of the corporation over the land applied.
Inc

1. YES
already acquired, by operation of law not only
a right to a grant, but a grant of the
Government, for it is not necessary that a
certificate of title should be issued in order
that said grant may be sanctioned by the
courts, an application therefore is sufficient