REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and

CORAZON NAGUIT, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA, J p:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, seeking to revie the Decision 1 of the !i"th #ivision of the Court of $ppeals
dated %ul& 1', '((( in C$)*.R. !P +o. 519'1. The appellate court a,r-ed the decisions
of .oth the Regional Trial Court /RTC0, 2 1ranch 2, of 3ali.o, $klan dated 4e.ruar& '5,
1999, and the 7th 6unicipal Circuit Trial Court /6CTC0 3 of 7.a8a&)+a.as, $klan dated
4e.ruar& 12, 1992, hich granted the application for registration of a parcel of land of
Cora9on +aguit /+aguit0, the respondent herein.
The facts are as follos:
:n %anuar& 5, 199;, +aguit, a 4ilipino citi9en, of legal age and -arried to 6anolito !.
+aguit, <led ith the 6CTC of 7.a8a&)+a.as, $klan, a petition for registration of title of a
parcel of land situated in 1rg&. =nion, +a.as, $klan. The parcel of land is designated as
>ot +o. 1((49, Cad. 752)#, +a.as Cadastre, $P)(5(414)(14779, and contains an area of
;1,;74 s?uare -eters. The application seeks 8udicial con<r-ation of respondent@s
i-perfect title over the aforesaid land. aTA$C!
:n 4e.ruar& '(, 1995, the court held initial hearing on the application. The pu.lic
prosecutor, appearing for the govern-ent, and %ose $ngeles, representing the heirs of
Rustico $ngeles, opposed the petition. :n a later date, hoever, the heirs of Rustico
$ngeles <led a for-al opposition to the petition. $lso on 4e.ruar& '(, 1995, the court
issued an order of general default against the hole orld e"cept as to the heirs of
Rustico $ngeles and the govern-ent.
The evidence on record reveals that the su.8ect parcel of land as originall& declared for
ta"ation purposes in the na-e of Ra-on =r.ano /=r.ano0 in 1945 under Ta" #eclaration
+o. ;222 until 1991. 4 :n %ul& 9, 199', =r.ano e"ecuted a #eed of Buitclai- in favor of
the heirs of Conorato 6a-ing /6a-ing0, herein he renounced all his rights to the
su.8ect propert& and con<r-ed the sale -ade .& his father to 6a-ing so-eti-e in 1955
or 1955. 5 !u.se?uentl&, the heirs of 6a-ing e"ecuted a deed of a.solute sale in favor
of respondent +aguit ho thereupon started occup&ing the sa-e. !he constituted
6anuel 1lanco, %r. as her attorne&)in)fact and ad-inistrator. The ad-inistrator introduced
i-prove-ents, planted trees, such as -ahogan&, coconut and ge-elina trees in addition
to e"isting coconut trees hich ere then 5( to 5( &ears old, and paid the corresponding
ta"es due on the su.8ect land. $t present, there are parcels of land surrounding the
1
su.8ect land hich have .een issued titles .& virtue of 8udicial decrees. +aguit and her
predecessors)in)interest have occupied the land openl& and in the concept of oner
ithout an& o.8ection fro- an& private person or even the govern-ent until she <led her
application for registration.
$fter the presentation of evidence for +aguit, the pu.lic prosecutor -anifested that the
govern-ent did not intend to present an& evidence hile oppositor %ose $ngeles, as
representative of the heirs of Rustico $ngeles, failed to appear during the trial despite
notice. :n !epte-.er '7, 1997, the 6CTC rendered a decision ordering that the su.8ect
parcel .e .rought under the operation of the Propert& Registration #ecree or Presidential
#ecree /P.#.0 +o. 15'9 and that the title thereto registered and con<r-ed in the na-e of
+aguit. 6
The Repu.lic of the Philippines /Repu.lic0, thru the :,ce of the !olicitor *eneral /:!*0,
<led a -otion for reconsideration. The :!* stressed that the land applied for as
declared aliena.le and disposa.le onl& on :cto.er 15, 192(, per the certi<cation fro-
Regional A"ecutive #irector Raoul T. *eollegue of the #epart-ent of Anviron-ent and
+atural Resources, Region D7. 7 Coever, the court denied the -otion for
reconsideration in an order dated 4e.ruar& 12, 1992. 8
Thereafter, the Repu.lic appealed the decision and the order of the 6CTC to the RTC,
3ali.o, $klan, 1ranch 2. :n 4e.ruar& '5, 1999, the RTC rendered its decision, dis-issing
the appeal.
=ndaunted, the Repu.lic elevated the case to the Court of $ppeals via Rule 4' of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. :n %ul& 1', '(((, the appellate court rendered a decision
dis-issing the petition <led .& the Repu.lic and a,r-ed in toto the assailed decision of
the RTC.
Cence, the present petition for revie raising a pure ?uestion of la as <led .& the
Repu.lic on !epte-.er 4, '(((. 1!
The :!* assails the decision of the Court of $ppeals contending that the appellate court
gravel& erred in holding that there is no need for the govern-ent@s prior release of the
su.8ect lot fro- the pu.lic do-ain .efore it can .e considered aliena.le or disposa.le
ithin the -eaning of P.#. +o. 15'9, and that +aguit had .een in possession of >ot +o.
1((49 in the concept of oner for the re?uired period. 11
Cence, the central ?uestion for resolution is hether it is necessar& under !ection 14/10
of the Propert&. Registration #ecree that the su.8ect land .e <rst classi<ed as aliena.le
and disposa.le .efore the applicant@s possession under a bona fde clai- of onership
could even start.
The :!* invokes our holding in Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court 12 in
arguing that the propert& hich is in open, continuous and e"clusive possession -ust
<rst .e aliena.le. !ince the su.8ect land as declared aliena.le onl& on :cto.er 15,
'
192(, +aguit could not have -aintained a bona fde clai- of onership since %une 1',
1945, as re?uired .& !ection 14 of the Propert& Registration #ecree, since prior to 192(,
the land as not aliena.le or disposa.le, the :!* argues.
!ection 14 of the Propert& Registration #ecree, governing original registration
proceedings, .ears close e"a-ination. 7t e"pressl& provides:
!ACT7:+ 14.Who ma appl. E The folloing persons -a& <le in the proper
Court of 4irst 7nstance an application for registration of title to land,
hether personall& or through their dul& authori9ed representatives:
/10those ho .& the-selves or through their predecessors)in)interest
have .een in open, continuous, e"clusive and notorious
possession and occupation of aliena.le and disposa.le lands of
the pu.lic do-ain under a bona fde clai- of onership since
%une 1', 1945, or earlier.
/'0Those ho have ac?uired onership over private lands .&
prescription under the provisions of e"isting las. $!AcC7
""" """ """
There are three o.vious re?uisites for the <ling of an application for registration of title
under !ection 14/10 E that the propert& in ?uestion is aliena.le and disposa.le land of
the pu.lic do-ainF that the applicants .& the-selves or through their predecessors)in)
interest have .een in open, continuous, e"clusive and notorious possession and
occupation, andF that such possession is under a bona fde clai- of onership since %une
1', 1945 or earlier.
Petitioner suggests an interpretation that the aliena.le and disposa.le character of the
land should have alread& .een esta.lished since %une 1', 1945 or earlier. This is not
.orne out .& the plain -eaning of !ection 14/10. G!ince %une 1', 1945,G as used in the
provision, ?uali<es its antecedent phrase Gunder a .ona<de clai- of onership.G
*enerall& speaking, ?ualif&ing ords restrict or -odif& onl& the ords or phrases to
hich the& are i--ediatel& associated, and not those distantl& or re-otel&
located. 13 Ad pro!imum antecedents fat relation nisi impediatur sentencia.
1esides, e are -indful of the a.surdit& that ould result if e adopt petitioner@s
position. $.sent a legislative a-end-ent, the rule ould .e, adopting the :!*@s vie,
that all lands of the pu.lic do-ain hich ere not declared aliena.le or disposa.le
.efore %une 1', 1945 ould not .e suscepti.le to original registration, no -atter the
length of unchallenged possession .& the occupant. !uch interpretation renders
paragraph /10 of !ection 14 virtuall& inoperative and even precludes the govern-ent
fro- giving it eHect even as it decides to reclassif& pu.lic agricultural lands as aliena.le
and disposa.le. The unreasona.leness of the situation ould even .e aggravated
;
considering that .efore %une 1', 1945, the Philippines as not &et even considered an
independent state.
7nstead, the -ore reasona.le interpretation of !ection 14/10 is that it -erel& re?uires the
propert& sought to .e registered as alread& aliena.le and disposa.le at the ti-e the
application for registration of title is <led. 7f the !tate, at the ti-e the application is
-ade, has not &et dee-ed it proper to release the propert& for alienation or disposition,
the presu-ption is that the govern-ent is still reserving the right to utili9e the propert&F
hence, the need to preserve its onership in the !tate irrespective of the length of
adverse possession even if in good faith. Coever, if the propert& has alread& .een
classi<ed as aliena.le and disposa.le, as it is in this case, then there is alread& an
intention on the part of the !tate to a.dicate its e"clusive prerogative over the propert&.
This reading aligns confor-a.l& ith our holding in Republic v. Court of
Appeals. 14 Therein, the Court noted that Gto prove that the land su.8ect of an
application for registration is aliena.le, an applicant -ust esta.lish the e"istence of a
positive act of the govern-ent such as a presidential procla-ation or an e"ecutive orderF
an ad-inistrative actionF investigation reports of 1ureau of >ands investigatorsF and a
legislative act or a statute.G 15 7n that case, the su.8ect land had .een certi<ed .& the
#A+R as aliena.le and disposa.le in 192(, thus the Court concluded that the aliena.le
status of the land, co-pounded .& the esta.lished fact that therein respondents had
occupied the land even .efore 19'7, su,ced to allo the application for registration of
the said propert&. 7n the case at .ar, even the petitioner ad-its that the su.8ect propert&
as released and certi<ed as ithin aliena.le and disposa.le 9one in 192( .& the
#A+R. 16

This case is distinguisha.le fro- "racewell v. Court of Appeals, 17 herein the Court
noted that hile the clai-ant had .een in possession since 19(2, it as onl& in 197'
that the lands in ?uestion ere classi<ed as aliena.le and disposa.le. Thus, the .id at
registration therein did not succeed. 7n "racewell, the clai-ant had <led his application
in 195;, or nine /90 &ears .efore the propert& as declared aliena.le and disposa.le.
Thus, in this case, here the application as -ade &ears after the propert& had .een
certi<ed as aliena.le and disposa.le, the "racewell ruling does not appl&.
$ diHerent rule o.tains for forest lands, 18 such as those hich for- part of a
reservation for provincial park purposes 1 the possession of hich cannot ripen into
onership.2! 7t is ele-entar& in the la governing natural resources that forest land
cannot .e oned .& private persons. $s held in Palomo v. Court of
Appeals, 21 forestland is not registra.le and possession thereof, no -atter ho length&,
cannot convert it into private propert&, unless such lands are reclassi<ed and considered
disposa.le and aliena.le.22 7n the case at .ar, the propert& in ?uestion as
4
undisputedl& classi<ed as disposa.le and aliena.leF hence, the ruling in Palomo is
inapplica.le, as correctl& held .& the Court of $ppeals. 23
7t -ust .e noted that the present case as decided .& the loer courts on the .asis of
!ection 14/10 of the Propert& Registration #ecree, hich pertains to original registration
through ordinar& registration proceedings. The right to <le the application for registration
derives fro- a bona fde clai- of onership going .ack to %une 1', 1945 or earlier, .&
reason of the clai-ant@s open, continuous, e"clusive and notorious possession of
aliena.le and disposa.le lands of the pu.lic do-ain.
$ si-ilar right is given under !ection 42/.0 of the Pu.lic >and $ct, hich reads:
!ec. 42.The folloing descri.ed citi9ens of the Philippines, occup&ing lands
of the pu.lic do-ain or clai-ing to on an& such land or an interest
therein, .ut those titles have not .een perfected or co-pleted, -a& appl&
to the Court of 4irst 7nstance of the province here the land is located for
con<r-ation of their clai-s and the issuance of a certi<cate of title
therefor, under the >and Registration $ct, to it:
""" """ """
/.0Those ho .& the-selves or through their predecessors in interest have
.een in open, continuous, e"clusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the pu.lic do-ain, under a bona
fde clai- of ac?uisition of onership, for at least thirt& &ears i--ediatel&
preceding the <ling of the application for con<r-ation of title e"cept hen
prevented .& ar or force ma#eure. These shall .e conclusivel& presu-ed
to have perfor-ed all the conditions essential to a *overn-ent grant and
shall .e entitled to a certi<cate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
Ihen the Pu.lic >and $ct as <rst pro-ulgated in 19;5, the period of possession
dee-ed necessar& to vest the right to register their title to agricultural lands of the
pu.lic do-ain co--enced fro- %ul& '5, 1294. Coever, this period as a-ended
.& R.$. +o. 194', hich provided that the bona fde clai- of onership -ust have .een
for at least thirt& /;(0 &ears. Then in 1977, !ection 42/.0 of the Pu.lic >and $ct as
again a-ended, this ti-e .& P.#. +o. 1(7;, hich pegged the reckoning date at %une 1',
1945. This ne starting point is concordant ith !ection 14/10 of the Propert&
Registration #ecree.
7ndeed, there are no -aterial diHerences .eteen !ection 14/10 of the Propert&
Registration #ecree and !ection 42/.0 of the Pu.lic >and $ct, as a-ended. True, the
Pu.lic >and $ct does refer to Gagricultural lands of the pu.lic do-ain,G hile the Propert&
Registration #ecree uses the ter- Galiena.le and disposa.le lands of the pu.lic do-ain.G
7t -ust .e noted though that the Constitution declares that Galiena.le lands of the pu.lic
do-ain shall .e li-ited to agricultural lands.G 24 Clearl&, the su.8ect lands under !ection
5
42/.0 of the Pu.lic >and $ct and !ection 14/10 of the Propert& Registration #ecree are of
the sa-e t&pe.
#id the enact-ent of the Propert& Registration #ecree and the a-endator& P.#. +o.
1(7; preclude the application for registration of aliena.le lands of the pu.lic do-ain,
possession over hich co--enced onl& after %une 1', 1945J 7t did not, considering
!ection 14/'0 of the Propert& Registration #ecree, hich governs and authori9es the
application of Gthose ho have ac?uired onership of private lands .& prescription under
the provisions of e"isting las.G
Prescription is one of the -odes of ac?uiring onership under the Civil Code. 25 There is
a consistent 8urisprudential rule that properties classi<ed as aliena.le pu.lic land -a& .e
converted into private propert& .& reason of open, continuous and e"clusive possession
of at least thirt& /;(0 &ears. 26 Iith such conversion, such propert& -a& no fall ithin
the conte-plation of Gprivate landsG under !ection 14/'0, and thus suscepti.le to
registration .& those ho have ac?uired onership through prescription. Thus, even if
possession of the aliena.le pu.lic land co--enced on a date later than %une 1', 1945,
and such possession .eing .een open, continuous and e"clusive, then the possessor
-a& have the right to register the land .& virtue of !ection 14/'0 of the Propert&
Registration #ecree.
The land in ?uestion as found to .e local in nature, it having .een planted ith coconut
trees no over <ft& &ears old. 27 The inherent nature of the land .ut con<r-s its
certi<cation in 192( as aliena.le, hence agricultural. There is no i-pedi-ent to the
application of !ection 14/10 of the Propert& Registration #ecree, as correctl&
acco-plished .& the loer courts.
The :!* posits that the Court of $ppeals erred in holding that +aguit had .een in
possession in the concept of oner for the re?uired period. The argu-ent .egs the
?uestion. 7t is again hinged on the assertion shon earlier to .e unfounded)that there
could have .een no bona fde clai- of onership prior to 192(, hen the su.8ect land
as declared aliena.le or disposa.le.
Ie <nd no reason to distur. the conclusion of .oth the RTC and the Court of $ppeals that
+aguit had the right to appl& for registration oing to the continuous possession .& her
and her predecessors)in)interest of the land since 1945. The .asis of such conclusion is
pri-aril& factual, and the Court generall& respects the factual <ndings -ade .& loer
courts. +ota.l&, possession since 1945 as esta.lished through proof of the e"istence of
5( to 5()&ear old trees at the ti-e +aguit purchased the propert& as ell as ta"
declarations e"ecuted .& =r.ano in 1945. $lthough ta" declarations and realt& ta"
pa&-ent of propert& are not conclusive evidence of onership, nevertheless, the& are
good indicia of the possession in the concept of oner for no one in his right -ind ould
.e pa&ing ta"es for a propert& that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession.
The& constitute at least proof that the holder has a clai- of title over the propert&. The
5
voluntar& declaration of a piece of propert& for ta"ation purposes -anifests not onl&
one@s sincere and honest desire to o.tain title to the propert& and announces his adverse
clai- against the !tate and all other interested parties, .ut also the intention to
contri.ute needed revenues to the *overn-ent. !uch an act strengthens one@s bona
fde clai- of ac?uisition of onership. 28
Considering that the possession of the su.8ect parcel of land .& the respondent can .e
traced .ack to that of her predecessors)in)interest hich co--enced since 1945 or for
al-ost <ft& /5(0 &ears, it is indeed .e&ond an& cloud of dou.t that she has ac?uired title
thereto hich -a& .e properl& .rought under the operation of the Torrens s&ste-. That
she has .een in possession of the land in the concept of an oner, open, continuous,
peaceful and ithout an& opposition fro- an& private person and the govern-ent itself
-akes her right thereto undou.tedl& settled and deserving of protection under the la.
ICARA4:RA, foregoing pre-ises considered, the assailed #ecision of the Court of
$ppeals dated %ul& 1', '((( is here.& $447R6A#. +o costs.
!: :R#ARA#
HEIRS OF "ARIO "ALABANAN# $R%&'%(%n)%d
*+ Sa,,+ A. "a,a*anan-, petitioners, vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
RESOLUTION
BERSA"IN, J p:
4or our consideration and resolution are the -otions for reconsideration of the parties
ho .oth assail the decision pro-ulgated on $pril '9, '((9, here.& e upheld the
ruling of the Court of $ppeals /C$0 den&ing the application of the petitioners for the
registration of a parcel of land situated in 1aranga& Ti.ig, !ilang, Cavite on the ground
that the& had not esta.lished .& su,cient evidence their right to the registration in
accordance ith either !ection 14 /10 or !ection 14 /'0 of Presidential #ecree +o.
15'9$Propert Re%istration Decree&. !7cACC
An)%.%d%n)(
The propert& su.8ect of the application for registration is a parcel of land situated in
1aranga& Ti.ig, !ilang, Cavite, -ore particularl& identi<ed as >ot 9254)$, Cad)45')#,
ith an area of 71,;'4)s?uare -eters. :n 4e.ruar& '(, 1992, applicant 6ario
6ala.anan, ho had purchased the propert& fro- Aduardo Dela9co, <led an application
for land registration covering the propert& in the Regional Trial Court /RTC0 in Taga&ta&
Cit&, Cavite, clai-ing that the propert& for-ed part of the aliena.le and disposa.le land
7
of the pu.lic do-ain, and that he and his predecessors)in)interest had .een in open,
continuous, uninterrupted, pu.lic and adverse possession and occupation of the land for
-ore than ;( &ears, there.& entitling hi- to the 8udicial con<r-ation of his title. 1
To prove that the propert& as an aliena.le and disposa.le land of the pu.lic do-ain,
6ala.anan presented during trial a certi<cation dated %une 11, '((1 issued .& the
Co--unit& Anviron-ent and +atural Resources :,ce /CA+R:0 of the #epart-ent of
Anviron-ent and +atural Resources /#A+R0, hich reads:
This is to certif& that the parcel of land designated as >ot +o. 9254 Cad
45')#, !ilang Cadastre as surve&ed for 6r. Dirgilio Delasco located at
1aranga& Ti.ig, !ilang, Cavite containing an area of '49,7;4 s?. -eters as
shon and descri.ed on the Plan $p)(4)((95' is veri<ed to .e ithin the
$liena.le or #isposa.le land per >and Classi<cation 6ap +o. ;(1;
esta.lished under Pro8ect +o. '()$ and approved as such under 4$: 4)1555
on 6arch 15, 192'. 2
$fter trial, on #ece-.er ;, '((', the RTC rendered 8udg-ent granting 6ala.anan@s
application for land registration, disposing thusl&:
ICARA4:RA, this Court here.& approves this application for registration
and thus places under the operation of $ct 141, $ct 495 andKor P.#. 15'9,
otherise knon as Propert& Registration >a, the lands descri.ed in Plan
Csd)(4)(17;1';)#, >ot 9254)$ and containing an area of !event& :ne
Thousand Three Cundred Tent& 4our /71,;'40 !?uare 6eters, as
supported .& its technical description no for-ing part of the record of this
case, in addition to other proofs adduced in the na-e of 6$R7:
6$>$1$+$+, ho is of legal age, 4ilipino, idoer, and ith residence at
6unting 7log, !ilang, Cavite. a#$CcC
:nce this #ecision .eco-es <nal and e"ecutor&, the corresponding decree
of registration shall forthith issue.
!: :R#ARA#. 3
The :,ce of the !olicitor *eneral /:!*0 appealed the 8udg-ent to the C$, arguing that
6ala.anan had failed to prove that the propert& .elonged to the aliena.le and
disposa.le land of the pu.lic do-ain, and that the RTC erred in <nding that he had .een
in possession of the propert& in the -anner and for the length of ti-e re?uired .& la for
con<r-ation of i-perfect title.
:n 4e.ruar& ';, '((7, the C$ pro-ulgated its decision reversing the RTC and dis-issing
the application for registration of 6ala.anan. Citing the ruling in Republic v. 'erbieto
$'erbieto&, 4 the C$ declared that under !ection 14 /10 of the Propert Re%istration
Decree, an& period of possession prior to the classi<cation of the land as aliena.le and
disposa.le as inconse?uential and should .e e"cluded fro- the co-putation of the
2
period of possession. +oting that the CA+R:)#A+R certi<cation stated that the propert&
had .een declared aliena.le and disposa.le onl& on 6arch 15, 192', Dela9co@s
possession prior to 6arch 15, 192' could not .e tacked for purposes of co-puting
6ala.anan@s period of possession.
#ue to 6ala.anan@s intervening de-ise during the appeal in the C$, his heirs elevated
the C$@s decision of 4e.ruar& ';, '((7 to this Court through a petition for revie
oncertiorari.
The petitioners assert that the ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Cora(on
)a%uit 5 $)a%uit& re-ains the controlling doctrine especiall& if the propert& involved is
agricultural land. 7n this regard, )a%uit ruled that an& possession of agricultural land
prior to its declaration as aliena.le and disposa.le could .e counted in the reckoning of
the period of possession to perfect title under the Public Land Act /Co--onealth $ct
+o. 1410 and the Propert Re%istration Decree. The& point out that the ruling in'erbieto,
to the eHect that the declaration of the land su.8ect of the application for registration as
aliena.le and disposa.le should also date .ack to %une 1', 1945 or earlier, as a
-ere obiter dictum considering that the land registration proceedings therein ere in
fact found and declared void ab initio for lack of pu.lication of the notice of initial
hearing. $acC7T
The petitioners also rel& on the ruling in Republic v. *.A.). Properties+ Inc. 6 to support
their argu-ent that the propert& had .een ipso #ure converted into private propert& .&
reason of the open, continuous, e"clusive and notorious possession .& their
predecessors)in)interest of an aliena.le land of the pu.lic do-ain for -ore than ;(
&ears. $ccording to the-, hat as essential as that the propert& had .een
GconvertedG into private propert& through prescription at the ti-e of the application
ithout regard to hether the propert& sought to .e registered as previousl& classi<ed
as agricultural land of the pu.lic do-ain.
$s earlier stated, e denied the petition for revie on certiorari .ecause 6ala.anan
failed to esta.lish .& su,cient evidence possession and occupation of the propert& on
his part and on the part of his predecessors)in interest since %une 1', 1945, or earlier.
P%)/)/0n%'(1 "0)/0n 20' R%.0n(/d%'a)/0n
7n their -otion for reconsideration, the petitioners su.-it that the -ere classi<cation of
the land as aliena.le or disposa.le should .e dee-ed su,cient to convert it into
patri-onial propert& of the !tate. Rel&ing on the rulings in ,pouses de -campo v.
Arlos, 7 .en%uito v. Republic 8 and Republic v. *.A.). Properties+ Inc., the& argue that
the reclassi<cation of the land as aliena.le or disposa.le opened it to ac?uisitive
prescription under the Civil CodeF that 6ala.anan had purchased the propert& fro-
Aduardo Dela9co .elieving in good faith that Dela9co and his predecessors)in)interest had
.een the real oners of the land ith the right to validl& trans-it title and onership
thereofF that conse?uentl&, the ten)&ear period prescri.ed .& $rticle 11;4 of the Civil
9
Code, in relation to !ection 14 /'0 of the Propert Re%istration Decree, applied in their
favorF and that hen 6ala.anan <led the application for registration on 4e.ruar& '(,
1992, he had alread& .een in possession of the land for al-ost 15 &ears reckoned fro-
192', the ti-e hen the land as declared aliena.le and disposa.le .& the
!tate. $!TcaA
T3% R%&4*,/.1( "0)/0n 20' Pa')/a, R%.0n(/d%'a)/0n
The Repu.lic seeks the partial reconsideration in order to o.tain a clari<cation ith
reference to the application of the rulings in )a%uit and 'erbieto.
ChieL& citing the dissents, the Repu.lic contends that the decision has enlarged, .&
i-plication, the interpretation of !ection 14 /10 of the Propert Re%istration
Decreethrough 8udicial legislation. 7t reiterates its vie that an applicant is entitled to
registration onl& hen the land su.8ect of the application had .een declared aliena.le
and disposa.le since %une 1', 1945 or earlier.
R4,/n5
Ie den& the -otions for reconsideration.
7n revieing the assailed decision, e consider to .e i-perative to discuss the diHerent
classi<cations of land in relation to the e"isting applica.le land registration las of the
Philippines.
C,a((/6.a)/0n( 02 ,and a..0'd/n5 )0
07n%'(3/&
>and, hich is an i--ova.le propert&, 1! -a& .e classi<ed as either of pu.lic do-inion
or of private onership. 11 >and is considered of pu.lic do-inion if it either: $a& is
intended for pu.lic useF or $b& .elongs to the !tate, ithout .eing for pu.lic use, and is
intended for so-e pu.lic service or for the develop-ent of the national ealth. 12 >and
.elonging to the !tate that is not of such character, or although of such character .ut no
longer intended for pu.lic use or for pu.lic service for-s part of the patri-onial propert&
of the !tate. 13 >and that is other than part of the patri-onial propert& of the !tate,
provinces, cities and -unicipalities is of private onership if it .elongs to a private
individual.
Pursuant to the Regalian #octrine $Jura Re%alia&, a legal concept <rst introduced into the
countr& fro- the Iest .& !pain through the >as of the 7ndies and the Roal
Cedulas,14 all lands of the pu.lic do-ain .elong to the !tate. 15 This -eans that the
!tate is the source of an& asserted right to onership of land, and is charged ith the
conservation of such patri-on&. 16 $ll lands not appearing to .e clearl& under private
onership are presu-ed to .elong to the !tate. $lso, pu.lic lands re-ain part of the
inaliena.le land of the pu.lic do-ain unless the !tate is shon to have reclassi<ed or
alienated the- to private persons. 17 CCAc$a
1(
C,a((/6.a)/0n( 02 &4*,/. ,and(
a..0'd/n5 )0 a,/%na*/,/)+
Ihether or not land of the pu.lic do-ain is aliena.le and disposa.le pri-aril& rests on
the classi<cation of pu.lic lands -ade under the Constitution. =nder the 19;5
Constitution, 18 lands of the pu.lic do-ain ere classi<ed into three, na-el&,
agricultural, ti-.er and -ineral. 1 !ection 1(, $rticle M7D of the 197;
Constitution classi<ed lands of the pu.lic do-ain into seven, speci<call&, agricultural,
industrial or co--ercial, residential, resettle-ent, -ineral, ti-.er or forest, and gra9ing
land, ith the reservation that the la -ight provide other classi<cations. The 1927
Constitution adopted the classi<cation under the 19;5 Constitution into agricultural,
forest or ti-.er, and -ineral, .ut added national parks. 2! $gricultural lands -a& .e
further classi<ed .& la according to the uses to hich the& -a& .e devoted. 21 The
identi<cation of lands according to their legal classi<cation is done e"clusivel& .& and
through a positive act of the A"ecutive #epart-ent. 22
1ased on the foregoing, the Constitution places a li-it on the t&pe of pu.lic land that
-a& .e alienated. =nder !ection ', $rticle M77 of the 1927 Constitution, onl& agricultural
lands of the pu.lic do-ain -a& .e alienatedF all other natural resources -a& not .e.
$liena.le and disposa.le lands of the !tate fall into to categories, to it: $a& patri-onial
lands of the !tate, or those classi<ed as lands of private onership under $rticle 4'5 of
the Civil Code, 23 ithout li-itationF and $b& lands of the pu.lic do-ain, or the pu.lic
lands as provided .& the Constitution, .ut ith the li-itation that the lands -ust onl& .e
agricultural. Conse?uentl&, lands classi<ed as forest or ti-.er, -ineral, or national parks
are not suscepti.le of alienation or disposition unless the& are reclassi<ed as
agricultural. 24 $ positive act of the *overn-ent is necessar& to ena.le such
reclassi<cation, 25 and the e"clusive prerogative to classif& pu.lic lands under e"isting
las is vested in the A"ecutive #epart-ent, not in the courts. 26 7f, hoever, pu.lic land
ill .e classi<ed as neither agricultural, forest or ti-.er, -ineral or national park, or
hen pu.lic land is no longer intended for pu.lic service or for the develop-ent of the
national ealth, there.& eHectivel& re-oving the land fro- the a-.it of pu.lic do-inion,
a declaration of such conversion -ust .e -ade in the for- of a la dul& enacted .&
Congress or .& a Presidential procla-ation in cases here the President is dul&
authori9ed .& la to that eHect. 27 Thus, until the A"ecutive #epart-ent e"ercises its
prerogative to classif& or reclassif& lands, or until Congress or the President declares that
the !tate no longer intends the land to .e used for pu.lic service or for the develop-ent
of national ealth, the Regalian #octrine is applica.le. cAa$C#
D/(&0(/)/0n 02 a,/%na*,% &4*,/. ,and(
!ection 11 of the Public Land Act /C$ +o. 1410 provides the -anner .& hich aliena.le
and disposa.le lands of the pu.lic do-ain, i.e., agricultural lands, can .e disposed of, to
it:
11
!ection 11.Pu.lic lands suita.le for agricultural purposes .an *% d/(&0(%d
02 0n,+ a( 20,,07(# and n0) 0)3%'7/(%:
/104or ho-estead settle-entF
/'01& saleF
/;01& leaseF and
/40 1& con<r-ation of i-perfect or inco-plete titles:
/a01& 8udicial legali9ationF or
/.01& ad-inistrative legali9ation /free patent0.
The core of the controvers& herein lies in the proper interpretation of !ection 11 /40, in
relation to !ection 42 /.0 of the Public Land Act+ hich e"pressl& re?uires possession .& a
4ilipino citi9en of the land since %une 1', 1945, or earlier, vi(.:
!ection 42.The folloing)descri.ed citi9ens of the Philippines, occup&ing
lands of the pu.lic do-ain or clai-ing to on an& such lands or an interest
therein, .ut hose titles have not .een perfected or co-pleted, -a& appl&
to the Court of 4irst 7nstance of the province here the land is located for
con<r-ation of their clai-s and the issuance of a certi<cate of title
thereafter, under the >and Registration $ct, to it:
""" """ """
/.0Those ho .& the-selves or through their predecessors)in)interest have
.een in open, continuous, e"clusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of aliena.le and disposa.le lands of the pu.lic do-ain, under
a bona fde clai- of ac?uisition of onership, (/n.% 84n% 12# 145# 0'
%a',/%', i--ediatel& preceding the <ling of the applications for
con<r-ation of title, e"cept hen prevented .& ar or force ma#eure.
These shall .e conclusivel& presu-ed to have perfor-ed all the conditions
essential to a *overn-ent grant and shall .e entitled to a certi<cate of title
under the provisions of this chapter. /1old e-phasis supplied0 c#CA7$
+ote that !ection 42 /.0 of the Pu.lic >and $ct used the ords /lands of the public
domain/ or /alienable and disposable lands of the public domain/ to clearl& signif& that
lands otherise classi<ed, i.e., -ineral, forest or ti-.er, or national parks, and lands of
patri-onial or private onership, are outside the coverage of the Public Land Act. Ihat
the la does not include, it e"cludes. The use of the descriptive phrase /alienable and
disposable/ further li-its the coverage of !ection 42 /.0 to onl& the agricultural lands of
the pu.lic do-ain as set forth in $rticle M77, !ection ' of the 1927 Constitution. 1earing in
-ind such li-itations under the Public Land Act+ the applicant -ust satisf& the folloing
re?uire-ents in order for his application to co-e under !ection 14 /10 of the Propert
Re%istration Decree, 28 to it:
1'
1.The applicant, .& hi-self or through his predecessor)in)interest, has .een
in possession and occupation of the propert& su.8ect of the
applicationF
'.The possession and occupation -ust .e open, continuous, e"clusive, and
notoriousF
;.The possession and occupation -ust .e under a bona fde clai- of
ac?uisition of onershipF
4.The possession and occupation -ust have taken place since %une 1',
1945, or earlierF and
5.The propert& su.8ect of the application -ust .e an agricultural land of the
pu.lic do-ain.
Taking into consideration that the A"ecutive #epart-ent is vested ith the authorit& to
classif& lands of the pu.lic do-ain, !ection 42 /.0 of the Public Land Act+ in relation to
!ection 14 /10 of thePropert Re%istration Decree, presupposes that the land su.8ect of
the application for registration -ust have .een alread& classi<ed as agricultural land of
the pu.lic do-ain in order for the provision to appl&. Thus, a.sent proof that the land is
alread& classi<ed as agricultural land of the pu.lic do-ain, the Regalian #octrine applies,
and overco-es the presu-ption that the land is aliena.le and disposa.le as laid don in
!ection 42 /.0 of the Public Land Act. Coever, e-phasis is placed on the re?uire-ent
that the classi<cation re?uired .& !ection 42 /.0 of the Public Land Act is classi<cation or
reclassi<cation of a pu.lic land as agricultural. Cca$TA
The dissent stresses that the classi<cation or reclassi<cation of the land as aliena.le and
disposa.le agricultural land should likeise have .een -ade on %une 1', 1945 or earlier,
.ecause an& possession of the land prior to such classi<cation or reclassi<cation
produced no legal eHects. 7t o.serves that the <"ed date of %une 1', 1945 could not .e
-ini-i9ed or glossed over .& -ere 8udicial interpretation or .& 8udicial social polic&
concerns, and insisted that the full legislative intent .e respected.
Ie <nd, hoever, that the choice of %une 1', 1945 as the reckoning point of the re?uisite
possession and occupation as the sole prerogative of Congress, the deter-ination of
hich should .est .e left to the isdo- of the la-akers. A"cept that said date ?uali<ed
the period of possession and occupation, no other legislative intent appears to .e
associated ith the <"ing of the date of %une 1', 1945. $ccordingl&, the Court should
interpret onl& the plain and literal -eaning of the la as ritten .& the legislators.
6oreover, an e"a-ination of !ection 42 /.0 of the Public Land Act indicates that
Congress prescri.ed no re?uire-ent that the land su.8ect of the registration should have
.een classi<ed as agricultural since %une 1', 1945, or earlier. $s such, the applicant@s
i-perfect or inco-plete title is derived onl& fro- possession and occupation since %une
1', 1945, or earlier. This -eans that the character of the propert& su.8ect of the
1;
application as aliena.le and disposa.le agricultural land of the pu.lic do-ain deter-ines
its eligi.ilit& for land registration, not the onership or title over it. $liena.le pu.lic land
held .& a possessor, either personall& or through his predecessors)in)interest, openl&,
continuousl& and e"clusivel& during the prescri.ed statutor& period is converted to
private propert& .& the -ere lapse or co-pletion of the period. 2 7n fact, .& virtue of
this doctrine, corporations -a& no ac?uire lands of the pu.lic do-ain for as long as the
lands ere alread& converted to private onership, .& operation of la, as a result of
satisf&ing the re?uisite period of possession prescri.ed .& the Public Land Act. 3! 7t is for
this reason that the propert& su.8ect of the application of 6ala.anan need not .e
classi<ed as aliena.le and disposa.le agricultural land of the pu.lic do-ain for the entire
duration of the re?uisite period of possession. CaT#$A
To .e clear, then, the re?uire-ent that the land should have .een classi<ed as aliena.le
and disposa.le agricultural land at the ti-e of the application for registration is
necessar& onl& to dispute the presu-ption that the land is inaliena.le.
The declaration that land is aliena.le and disposa.le also serves to deter-ine the point
at hich prescription -a& run against the !tate. The i-perfect or inco-plete title .eing
con<r-ed under !ection 42 /.0 of the Public Land Act is title that is ac?uired .& reason of
the applicant@s possession and occupation of the aliena.le and disposa.le agricultural
land of the pu.lic do-ain. Ihere all the necessar& re?uire-ents for a grant .& the
*overn-ent are co-plied ith through actual ph&sical, open, continuous, e"clusive and
pu.lic possession of an aliena.le and disposa.le land of the pu.lic do-ain, the
possessor is dee-ed to have ac?uired .& operation of la not onl& a right to a grant, .ut
a grant .& the *overn-ent, .ecause it is not necessar& that a certi<cate of title .e
issued in order that such a grant .e sanctioned .& the courts. 31
7f one follos the dissent, the clear o.8ective of the Public Land Act to ad8udicate and
?uiet titles to unregistered lands in favor of ?uali<ed 4ilipino citi9ens .& reason of their
occupation and cultivation thereof for the nu-.er of &ears prescri.ed .& la 32 ill .e
defeated. 7ndeed, e should ala&s .ear in -ind that such o.8ective still prevails, as a
fairl& recent legislative develop-ent .ears out, hen Congress enacted legislation
/Repu.lic $ct +o. 1((';0 33 in order to li.erali9e stringent re?uire-ents and procedures
in the ad8udication of aliena.le pu.lic land to ?uali<ed applicants, particularl& residential
lands, su.8ect to area li-itations. 34
:n the other hand, if a pu.lic land is classi<ed as no longer intended for pu.lic use or for
the develop-ent of national ealth .& declaration of Congress or the President, there.&
converting such land into patri-onial or private land of the !tate, the applica.le
provision concerning disposition and registration is no longer !ection 42 /.0 of thePublic
Land Act .ut the Civil Code, in con8unction ith !ection 14 /'0 of the Propert
Re%istration Decree. 35 $s such, prescription can no run against the !tate.
14
To su- up, e no o.serve the folloing rules relative to the disposition of pu.lic land or
lands of the pu.lic do-ain, na-el&: Aa7#$T
/10$s a general rule and pursuant to the Regalian #octrine, all lands of the pu.lic
do-ain .elong to the !tate and are inaliena.le. >ands that are not clearl&
under private onership are also presu-ed to .elong to the !tate and,
therefore, -a& not .e alienated or disposedF
/'0The folloing are e"cepted fro- the general rule, to it:
$a&$gricultural lands of the pu.lic do-ain are rendered aliena.le and disposa.le
through an& of the e"clusive -odes enu-erated under !ection 11 of
the Public Land Act. 7f the -ode is 8udicial con<r-ation of i-perfect title
under !ection 42 /.0 of the Public Land Act+ the agricultural land su.8ect of
the application needs onl& to .e classi<ed as aliena.le and disposa.le as of
the ti-e of the application, provided the applicant@s possession and
occupation of the land dated .ack to %une 1', 1945, or earlier. There.&, a
conclusive presu-ption that the applicant has perfor-ed all the conditions
essential to a govern-ent grant arises, 36 and the applicant .eco-es the
oner of the land .& virtue of an i-perfect or inco-plete title. 1& legal
<ction, the land has alread& ceased to .e part of the pu.lic do-ain and has
.eco-e private propert&. 37
$b&>ands of the pu.lic do-ain su.se?uentl& classi<ed or declared as no longer
intended for pu.lic use or for the develop-ent of national ealth are
re-oved fro- the sphere of pu.lic do-inion and are considered converted
into patri-onial lands or lands of private onership that -a& .e alienated
or disposed through an& of the -odes of ac?uiring onership under
the Civil Code. 7f the -ode of ac?uisition is prescription, hether ordinar&
or e"traordinar&, proof that the land has .een alread& converted to private
onership prior to the re?uisite ac?uisitive prescriptive period is a
condition sine 0ua non in o.servance of the la /$rticle 111;, Civil Code0
that propert& of the !tate not patri-onial in character shall not .e the
o.8ect of prescription. Ca!Ac$
To reiterate, then, the petitioners failed to present su,cient evidence to esta.lish that
the& and their predecessors)in)interest had .een in possession of the land since %une 1',
1945. Iithout satisf&ing the re?uisite character and period of possession N possession
and occupation that is open, continuous, e"clusive, and notorious since %une 1', 1945, or
earlier N the land cannot .e considered ipso #ure converted to private propert& even upon
the su.se?uent declaration of it as aliena.le and disposa.le. Prescription never .egan to
run against the !tate, such that the land has re-ained ineligi.le for registration under
!ection 14 /10 of the Propert Re%istration Decree. >ikeise, the land continues to .e
ineligi.le for land registration under !ection 14 /'0 of the Propert Re%istration
15
Decree unless Congress enacts a la or the President issues a procla-ation declaring
the land as no longer intended for pu.lic service or for the develop-ent of the national
ealth.
9HEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petitioners@ 6otion for Reconsideration and the
respondent@s Partial 6otion for Reconsideration for their lack of -erit.
SO ORDERED.
SPOUSES IGNACIO PALO"O and TRINIDAD
PASCUAL# and CAR"EN PALO"O :DA. DE
BUENA:ENTURA, petitioners, vs. THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS# THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES# FAUSTINO 8.
PERFECTO# RAFF; SANTILLAN# BO; ARIADO#
LORENZO BROCALES# SAL:ADOR DOE# and
0)3%' DOES, respondents.
1allos Law -2ce for petitioners.
S;LLABUS
1.C7D7> >$IF >$I :+ +$T=R$> RA!:=RCA!F 6:#A! :4 $CB=7!7T7:+ :4 >$+#! #=R7+*
TCA !P$+7!C RA*76A. E The Philippines passed to the !panish Cron .& discover& and
con?uest in the 15th centur&. 1efore the Treat& of Paris in $pril 11, 1299, our lands,
hether agricultural, -ineral or forest ere under the e"clusive patri-on& and do-inion
of the !panish Cron. Cence, private onership of land could onl& .e ac?uired through
ro&al concessions hich ere docu-ented in various for-s, such as /10 Titulo Real or
Ro&al *rant, /'0 Concesion Aspecial or !pecial *rant, /;0 Titulo de Co-pra or Title .&
Purchase and /40 7nfor-acion Posesoria or Possessor& 7nfor-ation title o.tained under
the !panish 6ortgage >a or under the Ro&al #ecree of %anuar& '5, 1229. =nfortunatel&,
no proof as presented that the petitioners@ predecessors in interest derived title fro-
an old !panish grant.
'.RA6A#7$> >$IF C7D7> $CT7:+!F >$CCA!F 4$7>=RA 4:R 2; OA$R! T: $!!$7> 7+C>=!7:+
:4 C>$76A# PR:PART7A! T: 4:RA!T RA!ARD$T7:+. E 6oreover, despite clai-s .& the
petitioners that their predecessors in interest ere in open, adverse and continuous
possession of the lands for '( to 5( &ears prior to their registration in 1915) 1917, the
lands ere surve&ed onl& in #ece-.er 191;, the ver& sa-e &ear the& ere ac?uired .&
#iego Palo-o. Curiousl& in 4e.ruar& 191; or 1( -onths .efore the lands ere surve&ed
for #iego Palo-o, the govern-ent had alread& surve&ed the area in preparation for its
reservation for provincial park purposes. 7f the petitioners@ predecessors in interest ere
15
indeed in possession of the lands for a nu-.er of &ears prior to their registration in
1915)1917, the& ould have undou.tedl& knon a.out the inclusion of these properties
in the reservation in 191;. 7t certainl& is a triLe late at this point to argue that the
govern-ent had no right to include these properties in the reservation hen the
?uestion should have .een raised 2; &ears ago.
;.7#.F 7#.F A!T:PPA>F #:A! +:T :PAR$TA $*$7+!T TCA *:DAR+6A+T 4:R $CT :4 7T!
$*A+T!. E $s regards the petitioners@ contention that inas-uch as the& o.tained the
titles ithout govern-ent opposition, the govern-ent is no estopped fro- ?uestioning
the validit& of the certi<cates of title hich ere granted. $s correctl& pointed out .& the
respondent Court of $ppeals, the principle of estoppel does not operate against the
*overn-ent for the act of its agents.
4.C7D7> >$IF >$I :+ +$T=R$> RA!:=RCA!F 4:RA!T >$+#, +:T RA*7!TR$1>A. E
$ssu-ing that the decrees of the Court of 4irst 7nstance ere reall& issued, the lands are
still not capa.le of appropriation. The adverse possession hich -a& .e the .asis of a
grant of title in con<r-ation of i-perfect title cases applies onl& to aliena.le lands of the
pu.lic do-ain.
5.RA6A#7$> >$IF AD7#A+CAF T$M #AC>$R$T7:+!F +:T C:+C>=!7DA PR::4 :4
:I+AR!C7P. E There is no ?uestion that the lands in the case at .ar ere not aliena.le
lands of the pu.lic do-ain. $s testi<ed .& the #istrict 4orester, records in the 1ureau of
4orestr& sho that the su.8ect lands ere never declared as aliena.le and disposa.le
and su.8ect to private alienation prior to 191; up to the present. 6oreover, as part of the
reservation for provincial park purposes, the& for- part of the forest 9one. 7t is
ele-entar& in the la governing natural resources that forest land cannot .e oned .&
private persons. 7t is not registra.le and possession thereof, no -atter ho length&,
cannot convert it into private propert&, unless such lands are reclassi<ed and considered
disposa.le and aliena.le. +either do the ta" receipts hich ere presented in evidence
prove onership of the parcels of land inas-uch as the eight of authorit& is that ta"
declarations are not conclusive proof of onership in land registration cases.
5.7#.F C7D7> $CT7:+!F $++=>6A+T :4 T7T>AF T7T>A !C:=># 1A $++=>>A# :+>O I7TC
RA!PACT T: $RA$ 4$>>7+* I7TC7+ TCA 4:RA!T RA!ARD$T7:+. E !ince 1,975 s?uare
-eters of the ;,;24 s?uare -eters covered .& TCT ;91; fall ithin the reservation, TCT
;91; should .e annulled onl& ith respect to the aforesaid area.
7.7#.F 7#.F 7+%=+CT7:+ I7TC #$6$*A!F $1!A+CA :4 >7$17>7TO 4:R #$6$*A! ICARA
1$61::! C=T 1O TCA A6P>:OAA! :4 TCA 1=RA$= :4 4:RA!T #ADA>:P6A+T IARA
I7TC7+ TCA PAR76ATAR :4 TCA +$T7:+$> P$R3. E Caving disposed of the issue of
onership, e no co-e to the -atter regarding the forfeiture of i-prove-ents
introduced on the su.8ect lands. 7t .ears e-phasis that A"ecutive :rder +o. 4( as
alread& in force at the ti-e the lands in ?uestion ere surve&ed for #iego Palo-o.
Petitioners also apparentl& kne that the su.8ect lands ere covered under the
17
reservation hen the& <led a petition for reconstitution of the lost original certi<cates of
title inas-uch as the .lueprint of !urve& Iork :rder +u-.er '1721 of Plan 77)9'99
approved .& the Chief of the >and Registration :,ce Anri?ue $ltavas in 195; as a true
and correct cop& for the :riginal Plan +o. 77)9'99 <led in the 1ureau of >ands dated
!epte-.er 11, 1942 contains the folloing note, Gin conLict ith provincial reservation.G
7n an& case, petitioners are presu-ed to kno the la and the failure of the govern-ent
to oppose the registration of lands in ?uestion is no 8usti<cation for the petitioners to
plead good faith in introducing i-prove-ents on the lots. 7nas-uch as the .a-.oo
groves leveled in TCT ;91; and su.8ect of Civil Case T)14;, ere ithin the peri-eter of
the national park, no pronounce-ent as to da-ages is in order.
D E C I S I O N
RO"ERO, J p:
The issue in the case at .ar pertains to onership of 15 parcels of land in Tii, $l.a&
hich for- part of the GTii Cot !pring +ational Park.G The facts of the case are as
follos.
:n %une 1;, 191;, then *overnor *eneral of the Philippine 7slands, Iillia- Ca-eron
4or.es issued A"ecutive :rder +o. 4( hich reserved for provincial park purposes so-e
44(,5;( s?uare -eters of land situated in 1arrio +aga, 6unicipalit& of Tii, Province of
$l.a& pursuant to the provisions of $ct 542 of the Philippine Co--ission. 1
!u.se?uentl&, the then Court of 4irst 7nstance of $l.a&, 15th %udicial #istrict, =nited
!tates of $-erica, ordered the registration of 15 parcels of land covered .& A"ecutive
:rder +o. 4( in the na-e of #iego Palo-o on #ece-.er 9, 1915F 2 #ece-.er '2,
1915F 3 and %anuar& 17, 1917. 4 #iego Palo-o donated these parcels of land consisting
of 74,27' s?uare -eters hich ere allegedl& covered .& :riginal Certi<cates of Title
+os. 51;, 159, 175 and 17; 5 to his heirs, herein petitioners, 7gnacio and Car-en Palo-o
to -onths .efore his death in $pril 19;7. 6
Clai-ing that the aforesaid original certi<cates of title ere lost during the %apanese
occupation, 7gnacio Palo-o <led a petition for reconstitution ith the Court of 4irst
7nstance of $l.a& on 6a& ;(, 195(. 7 The Register of #eeds of $l.a& issued Transfer
Certi<cates of Title +os. ;911, ;91', ;91; and ;914 so-eti-e in :cto.er 195;. 8
:n %ul& 1(, 1954 President Ra-on 6agsa&sa& issued Procla-ation +o. 47 converting the
area e-.raced .& A"ecutive :rder +o. 4( into the GTii Cot !pring +ational Park,G under
the control, -anage-ent, protection and ad-inistration of the defunct Co--ission of
Parks and Iildlife, no a division of the 1ureau of 4orest #evelop-ent. The area as
never released as aliena.le and disposa.le portion of the pu.lic do-ain and, therefore,
12
is neither suscepti.le to disposition under the provisions of the Pu.lic >and >a /C$ 1410
nor registra.le under the >and Registration $ct /$ct +o. 4950.
The Palo-os, hoever, continued in possession of the propert&, paid real estate ta"es
thereon and introduced i-prove-ents .& planting rice, .ananas, pandan and
coconuts. :n $pril 2, 1971, petitioner Car-en vda. de 1uenaventura and spouses 7gnacio
Palo-o and Trinidad Pascual -ortgaged the parcels of land covered .& TCT ;911, ;91',
;91; and ;914 to guarantee a loan of P'((,((( fro- the 1ank of the Philippine 7slands.
7n 6a& 7, 1974 petitioner Car-en vda. de 1uenaventura and spouses 7gnacio Palo-o and
Trinidad Pascual <led Civil Case +o. T)14; .efore the then Court of 4irst 7nstance of $l.a&
for 7n8unction ith da-ages against private respondents 4austino %. Perfecto, RaH&
!antillan, 1o& $riado, >oren9o 1rocales, !alvador #oe and other #oes ho are all
e-plo&ees of the 1ureau of 4orest #evelop-ent ho entered the land covered .& TCT
+o. ;91; andKor TCT ;914 and cut don .a-.oos thereat, totall& leveling no less than 4
groves orth not less than P',(((.((.
:n :cto.er 11, 1974, the Repu.lic of the Philippines <led Civil Case +o. T)175 for
annul-ent and cancellation of Certi<cates of Title involving the 15 parcels of land
registered in the na-e of the petitioners and su.8ect of Civil Case T)14;. 7-pleaded ith
the petitioners as defendants ere the 1ank of the Philippine 7slands, >ega9pi 1ranch
and the Register of #eeds of $l.a&.
The case against the 1ank of Philippine 7slands as dis-issed .ecause the loan of
P'((,((( ith the 1ank as alread& paid and the -ortgage in its favor cancelled.
$ 8oint trial of Civil Case T)14; and T)175 as conducted upon agree-ent of the parties
and on %ul& ;1, 1925, the trial court rendered the folloing decision:
GICARA4:RA, pre-ises considered, 8udg-ent is here.& rendered:
7+ C7D7> C$!A +o. T)14;, in favor of the defendants and against the
plaintiHs, dis-issing the co-plaint for in8unction and da-ages, as it is
here.& #7!67!!A#.
Costs against the plaintiHs.
7n C7D7> C$!A +o. T)175, in favor of the plaintiHs and against the
defendants:
/10#eclaring null and void and no force and eHect the :rder dated
!epte-.er 14, 195;, as ell as the :riginal Certi<cate of Titles +os.
15;, 1! 159, 17; and 175 and Transfer Certi<cates of Titles +os. ;911, T)
;91', T);91;, and T);914, all of the Register of #eeds of $l.a& and all
transactions .ased on said titles.

19
/'04orfeiting in favor of the plaintiH *overn-ent an& and all i-prove-ents
on the lands in ?uestion that are found therein and introduced .& the
defendantsF
/;0#eclaring >ot +os. 1, ', ;, 4, 5, 5, 7, 2, 9, 1(, 11 and 1', Plan 77)9'99 and
>ots 1, '1, 11 ; and 4 of Plan 77)9'(5 as part of the Tii Cot !pring +ational
ParkF
/40and 4inall&, the Register of #eeds of $l.a& is here.& ordered to cancel
the alleged :riginal Certi<cates of Titles +os. 51;, 159, 17; and 175,
Transfer Certi<cates of Title +os. T);911, T);91', T);91; and T);914.
Costs against the defendants.
!o :rdered.G 12
The court a 0uo in ruling for the Repu.lic found no su,cient proof that the Palo-os have
esta.lished propert& rights over the parcels of land in ?uestion .efore the Treat& of Paris
hich ended the !panish)$-erican Iar at the end of the centur&. The court further
stated that assu-ing that the decrees of the Court of 4irst 7nstance of $l.a& ere reall&
issued, the Palo-os o.tained no right at all over the properties .ecause these ere
issued onl& hen A"ecutive :rder +o. 4( as alread& in force. $t this point, e take note
that although the *eodetic Angineer of the 1ureau of >ands appointed as one of the
Co--issioners in the relocation surve& of the properties stated in his rea-ended report
that of the ;,;24 s?uare -eters covered .& >ot ', Plan 77)9'(5, onl& 1,975 s?uare -eters
fall ithin the reservation area, 13 the RTC ordered TCT ;91; covering the entire >ot '1
/sic0 Plan 77)9'(5 cancelled.
The petitioners appealed to the Court of $ppeals hich a,r-ed in toto the <ndings of
the loer CourtF hence this petition raising the folloing issues:
1.The respondent Court of $ppeals co--itted grave a.use of discretion in
a,r-ing in toto the decision of the loer court.
'.The declaration of nullit& of the original certi<cates of title and
su.se?uent transfer certi<cates of titles of the petitioners over the
properties in ?uestion is contrar& to la and 8urisprudence on the -atter.
;.The forfeiture of all i-prove-ents introduced .& the petitioners in the
pre-ises in favor of the govern-ent is against our e"isting la and
8urisprudence.
The issues raised essentiall& .oil don to hether or not the alleged original certi<cate
of titles issued pursuant to the order of the Court of 4irst 7nstance in 1915)1917 and the
su.se?uent TCTs issued in 195; pursuant to the petition for reconstitution are valid.
Petitioners contend that the Treat& of Paris hich ended the !panish)$-erican Iar at the
end of the 19th centur& recogni9ed the propert& rights of !panish and 4ilipino citi9ens
'(
and the $-erican govern-ent had no inherent poer to con<scate properties of private
citi9ens and declare the- part of an& kind of govern-ent reservation. The& allege that
their predecessors in interest have .een in open, adverse and continuous possession of
the su.8ect lands for '()5( &ears prior to their registration in 1915)1917. Cence, the
reservation of the lands for provincial purposes in 191; .& then *overnor)general 4or.es
as tanta-ount to deprivation of private propert& ithout due process of la.
7n support of their clai-, the petitioners presented copies of a nu-.er of decisions of the
Court of 4irst 7nstance of $l.a&, 15th %udicial #istrict of the =nited !tates of $-erica
hich state that the predecessors in interest of the petitioners@ father #iego Palo-o,
ere in continuous, open and adverse possession of the lands fro- '( to 5( &ears at the
ti-e of their registration in 1915.
Ie are not convinced.
The Philippines passed to the !panish Cron .& discover& and con?uest in the 15th
centur&. 1efore the Treat& of Paris in $pril 11, 1299, our lands, hether agricultural,
-ineral or forest ere under the e"clusive patri-on& and do-inion of the !panish
Cron. Cence, private onership of land could onl& .e ac?uired through ro&al
concessions hich ere docu-ented in various for-s, such as /10 Titulo Real or Ro&al
*rant,G /'0 Concession Aspecial or !pecial *rant, /;0 Titulo de Co-pra or Title .&
Purchase and /40 7nfor-acion Posesoria or Possessor& 7nfor-ation title o.tained under
the !panish 6ortgage >a or under the Ro&al #ecree of %anuar& '5, 1229.
=nfortunatel&, no proof as presented that the petitioners@ predecessors in interest
derived title fro- an old !panish grant. Petitioners placed -uch reliance upon the
declarations in A"pediente +o. 5, *.>.R.:. Record #ecision +o. 92'(, dated %anuar& 17,
1917F A"pediente +o. 5, *.>.R.:. Record +o. 92'1, dated #ece-.er '2, 1915F
A"pediente +o. 7, *.>.R.:. Record +o. 92'', dated #ece-.er 9, 1915F A"pediente +o. 2,
*.>.R.:. Record +o. 92';, dated #ece-.er '2, 1915 and A"pediente +o. 1(, *.>.R.:.
Record +o. 9252, dated #ece-.er 9, 1915 of the Court of 4irst 7nstance of $l.a&, 15th
%udicial #istrict of the =nited !tates of $-erica presided .& %udge 7sidro Paredes that
their predecessors in interest ere in open, adverse and continuous possession of the
su.8ect lands for '()5( &ears. 14 The aforesaid GdecisionsG of the Court of 4irst 7nstance,
hoever, ere not signed .& the 8udge .ut ere -erel& certi<ed copies of noti<cation to
#iego Palo-o .earing the signature of the clerk of court.
6oreover, despite clai-s .& the petitioners that their predecessors in interest ere in
open , adverse and continuous possession of the lands for '( to 5( &ears prior to their
registration in 1915)1917, the lands ere surve&ed onl& in #ece-.er 191;, the ver&
sa-e &ear the& ere ac?uired .& #iego Palo-o. Curiousl&, in 4e.ruar& 191; or 1(
-onths .efore the lands ere surve&ed for #iego Palo-o, the govern-ent had alread&
surve&ed the area in preparation for its reservation for provincial park purposes. 7f the
petitioners@ predecessors in interest ere indeed in possession of the lands for a nu-.er
'1
of &ears prior to their registration in 1915)1917, the& ould have undou.tedl& knon
a.out the inclusion of these properties in the reservation in 191;. 7t certainl& is a triLe
late at this point to argue that the govern-ent had no right to include these properties in
the reservation hen the ?uestion should have .een raised 2; &ears ago.
$s regards the petitioners@ contention that inas-uch as the& o.tained the titles ithout
govern-ent opposition, the govern-ent is no estopped fro- ?uestioning the validit& of
the certi<cates of title hich ere granted. $s correctl& pointed out .& the respondent
Court of $ppeals, the principle of estoppel does not operate against the *overn-ent for
the act of its agents. 15
$ssu-ing that the decrees of the Court of 4irst 7nstance ere reall& issued, the lands are
still not capa.le of appropriation. The adverse possession hich -a& .e the .asis of a
grant of title in con<r-ation of i-perfect title cases applies onl& to aliena.le lands of the
pu.lic do-ain.
There is no ?uestion that the lands in the case at .ar ere not aliena.le lands of the
pu.lic do-ain. $s testi<ed .& the #istrict 4orester, records in the 1ureau of 4orestr&
sho that the su.8ect lands ere never declared as aliena.le and disposa.le and su.8ect
to private alienation prior to 191; up to the present. 16 6oreover, as part of the
reservation for provincial park purposes, the& for- part of the forest 9one.
7t is ele-entar& in the la governing natural resources that forest land cannot .e oned
.& private persons. 7t is not registra.le and possession thereof, no -atter ho length&,
cannot convert it into private propert&, 17 unless such lands are reclassi<ed and
considered disposa.le and aliena.le. cdt
+either do the ta" receipts hich ere presented in evidence prove onership of the
parcels of land inas-uch as the eight of authorit& is that ta" declarations are not
conclusive proof of onership in land registration cases. 18
Caving disposed of the issue of onership, e no co-e to the -atter regarding the
forfeiture of i-prove-ents introduced on the su.8ect lands. 7t .ears e-phasis that
A"ecutive :rder +o. 4( as alread& in force at the ti-e the lands in ?uestion ere
surve&ed for #iego Palo-o. Petitioners also apparentl& kne that the su.8ect lands ere
covered under the reservation hen the& <led a petition for reconstitution of the lost
original certi<cates of title inas-uch as the .lueprint of !urve& Iork :rder +u-.er
'1721 of Plan 77)9'99 approved .& the Chief of the >and Registration :,ce Anri?ue
$ltavas in 195; as a true and correct cop& of the :riginal Plan +o. 77)9'99 <led in the
1ureau of >ands dated !epte-.er 11, 1942 1 contains the folloing note, Gin conLict
ith provincial reservation.G 2! 7n an& case, petitioners are presu-ed to kno the la
and the failure of the govern-ent to oppose the registration of the lands in ?uestion is
no 8usti<cation for the petitioners to plead good faith in introducing i-prove-ents on the
lots.
''
4inall&, since 1,975 s?uare -eters of the ;,;24 s?uare -eters covered .& TCT ;91; fall
ithin the reservation, TCT ;91; should .e annulled onl& ith respect to the aforesaid
area. 7nas-uch as the .a-.oo groves leveled in TCT ;91; and su.8ect of Civil Case T)
14;, 21 ere ithin the peri-eter of the national park, 22 no pronounce-ent as to
da-ages is in order.
ICARA4:RA, the decision of the Court of $ppeals is here.& $447R6A# ith the
-odi<cation that TCT ;91; .e annulled ith respect to the 1,975 s?uare -eter area
falling ithin the reservation 9one.
!: :R#ARA#
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES# $'%&'%(%n)%d
*+ O&0, Na)/0na, S%.0nda'+ T%.3n/.a,
S.300,-, petitioner, vs. NICANOR DOLDOL, resp
ondent.
*he ,olicitor 3eneral for petitioner.
Amado 4. .abula for respondent.
S;NOPSIS
+icanor #oldol occupied a portion of land in 1arrio Pantacan, 6unicipalit& of :pol,
6isa-is :riental in 1959. Ce <led an application for saltork purposes for the said area
ith the 1ureau of 4orest #evelop-ent on :cto.er ';, 195;, .ut it as re8ected on $pril
1, 1952. Coever, in 1955, the Provincial 1oard of 6isa-is :riental passed a resolution
reserving lot 49;', Cad)';7 :pol Cadastre hich included the area occupied .& #oldol
as a school site. $ccordingl&, in 197(, the :pol Cigh !chool, no called as :pol +ational
!econdar& Technical !chool, transferred to the said area. $nd on +ove-.er ', 1927,
President Cora9on $?uino issued Procla-ation +o. 12( reserving the said area for the
said school. The school, then, -ade several de-ands to #oldol to vacate the portion
occupied .& hi- .ut he refused to do so. $s a conse?uence, an accion possessoria as
<led .& the school against hi-, and the Regional Trial Court of Caga&an de :ro ruled in
the school@s favor and ordered hi- to vacate the land. cdasia
:n appeal, the Court of $ppeals reversed the decision of the court a 0uo. Cence, this
petition.
The petition is -eritorious.
The original !ection 42 /.0 of C.$. +o. 141 provided for possession and occupation of
lands of the pu.lic do-ain since %ul& 15, 1294. This as superseded .& R.$. +o. 194',
hich provided for a si-ple thirt& &ear prescriptive period of occupation .& an applicant
';
for 8udicial con<r-ation of i-perfect title. The sa-e, hoever, has alread& .een
a-ended .& Presidential #ecree +o. 1(7;, approved on %anuar& '5, 1977. $a7#C!
The parties, hoever, stipulated during the pre)trial hearing that #oldol had .een
occup&ing the portion reserved for the school site onl& since 1959. The la, as presentl&
phrased, re?uires that possession of lands of the pu.lic do-ain -ust .e fro- %une 1',
1945 or earlier, for the sa-e to .e ac?uired through 8udicial con<r-ation of i-perfect
title.
Conse?uentl&, #oldol could not have ac?uired an i-perfect title to the disputed lot since
his occupation of the sa-e started onl& in 1959, -uch later than %une 1', 1945. +ot
having co-plied ith the conditions set .& la, #oldol cannot .e said to have ac?uired a
right to the land in ?uestion as to segregate the sa-e fro- the pu.lic do-ain. #oldol
cannot, therefore, assert a right superior to the school. 7n su-, :pol +ational !chool has
the .etter right of possession over the land in dispute. aCA!CT
S;LLABUS
1.C7D7> >$IF P=1>7C >$+# $CTF PRA!7#A+T7$> #ACRAA +:. 1(7; 7! +:I TCA
PRAD$7>7+* >$I. E The original !ection 42 /.0 of C.$. +o. 141 provided for possession
and occupation of lands of the pu.lic do-ain since %ul& '5, 1294. This as superseded
.& R.$. +o. 194', hich provided for a si-ple thirt& &ear prescriptive period of
occupation .& an applicant for 8udicial con<r-ation of i-perfect title. The sa-e,
hoever, has alread& .een a-ended .& Presidential #ecree +o. 1(7;, approved on
%anuar& '5, 1977.
'.7#.F 7#.F *:DAR+6A+T *R$+T :4 P=1>7C #:6$7+F RAB=7!7TA!. E Ie stated that
Pu.lic >and $ct re?uires that the applicant -ust prove /a0 that the land is aliena.le
pu.lic land and /.0 that his open, continuous, e"clusive and notorious possession and
occupation of the sa-e -ust either .e since ti-e i--e-orial or for the period
prescri.ed in the Pu.lic >and $ct. Ihen the conditions set .& la are co-plied ith, the
possessor of the land, .& operation of la, ac?uires a right to a grant, a govern-ent
grant, ithout the necessit& of a certi<cate of title .eing issued.
;.7#.F 7#.F 7#.F 7#.F P:!!A!!7:+F 6=!T 1A 4R:6 %=+A 1', 1945 :R A$R>7AR. E The la,
as presentl& phrased, re?uires that possession of lands of the pu.lic do-ain -ust .e
fro- %une 1', 1945 or earlier, for the sa-e to .e ac?uired through 8udicial con<r-ation
of i-perfect title. #C7T!c
D E C I S I O N
RO"ERO, J p:
'4
1efore us is a petition for revie of the decision of the Court of $ppeals dated :cto.er
'7, 1997, reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court and dis-issing herein
petitioner@s co-plaint, as ell as its resolution of 6arch 5, 1992, den&ing petitioner@s
-otion for reconsideration. prcd
The facts are as follos:
!o-eti-e in 1959, respondent +icanor #oldol occupied a portion of land in 1arrio
Pontacan, 6unicipalit& of :pol, 6isa-is :riental. :n :cto.er ';, 195;, he <led an
application for saltork purposes for the said area ith the 1ureau of 4orest
#evelop-ent. The #irector of 4orestr&, hoever, re8ected the sa-e on $pril 1, 1952.
6eanhile, the Provincial 1oard of 6isa-is :riental passed a resolution in 1955
reserving >ot 49;', Cad)';7, :pol Cadastre as a school site. This reserved lot
unfortunatel& included the area occupied .& #oldol.
7n accordance ith said resolution, the :pol Cigh !chool transferred to the site in 197(.
!eventeen &ears later, on +ove-.er ', 1927, then President Cora9on $?uino
issuedProcla-ation +o. 12( reserving the area, including the portion in dispute, for the
:pol Cigh !chool, no rena-ed the :pol +ational !econdar& Technical !chool /hereafter
:pol +ational !chool0. +eeding the area occupied .& #oldol for its intended pro8ects, the
school -ade several de-ands for hi- to vacate said portion, .ut he refused to -ove.
7n vie of #oldol@s refusal to vacate, :pol +ational !chool <led in 1991 a co-plaint
for accion possessoria ith the Regional Trial Court of Caga&an de :ro. The trial court
ruled in the school@s favor and ordered #oldol to vacate the land. :n appeal, the Court of
$ppeals reversed the decision of the court a 0uo, ruling that #oldol as entitled to the
portion he occupied, he having possessed the sa-e for thirt&)to &ears, fro- 1959 up to
the ti-e of the <ling of the co-plaint in 1991.
:pol +ational !chool@s -otion for reconsideration of said decision having .een denied .&
the Court of $ppeals in its resolution of 6arch 5, 1992, :pol +ational !chool elevated its
case to this Court, clai-ing that the Court of $ppeals erred on a ?uestion of la hen it
held, contrar& to the evidence on record, that respondent had .een in open, continuous,
notorious and e"clusive possession of the land in dispute for thirt&)to &ears. Cdpr
The petition is -eritorious.
7n ruling in #oldol@s favor, the Court of $ppeals grounded its decision on !ection 42
of Co--onealth $ct +o. 141 /otherise knon as the Pu.lic >and $ct0. !aid provision,
as a-ended .& Repu.lic $ct +o. 194', provides ac follos:
G!ection 42.The folloing descri.ed citi9ens of the Philippines, occup&ing
lands of the pu.lic do-ain or clai-ing interest therein, .ut hose titles
have not .een perfected or co-pleted, -a& appl& to the Court of 4irst
7nstance /no Regional Trial Court0 of the province here the land is
'5
located for con<r-ation of their clai-s and the issuance of a certi<cation of
title therefor under the >and Registration $ct, to it:
""" """ """
.0Those ho .& the-selves or through their predecessors)in)interest have
.een in open, continuous, e"clusive and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the pu.lic do-ain, under a bona
fde clai- of ac?uisition or onership for at least thirt ears immediatel
precedin% the flin% of the application for confrmation of title, e"cept hen
prevented .& ars or force ma#eure. Those shall .e conclusivel& presu-ed
to have perfor-ed all the conditions essential to a *overn-ent grant and
shall .e entitled to a certi<cate of title under the provisions of this chapter.G
/A-phasis ours0
7n accordance ith the a.ove provision, the appellate court averred that a citi9en of the
Philippines -a& ac?uire aliena.le land of the pu.lic do-ain if he has possessed the
sa-e for thirt& &ears. 4inding #oldol to have occupied the disputed lot for thirt&)to
&ears, it ruled that the for-er had ac?uired onership of the sa-e, there.& negating
:pol +ational !chool@s clai- over the ?uestioned area.
To further .olster its argu-ent, the appellate court cited Republic vs. CA 1 here this
Court, citing Director of Lands vs. I%lesia ni Cristo, '(( !CR$ 5(5 /19910 declared
that: cdasia
GThe eight of authorit& is that open, e"clusive and undisputed possession
of aliena.le pu.lic land for the period prescri.ed .& la creates the legal
<ction here.& the land, upon co-pletion of the re?uisite period ipso
#ure and ithout the need of 8udicial or other sanction, ceases to .e pu.lic
land and .eco-es private properl&.G
""" """ """
. . . ith the latter@s proven occupation and cultivation for -ore than ;(
&ears since 1914, .& hi-self and .& his predecessors)in)interest, title over
the land has vested on petitioner so as to se%re%ate the land from the
mass of public land.
""" """ """
$s interpreted in several cases, hen the conditions as speci<ed in the
foregoing provision are co-plied ith, the possessor is dee-ed to have
ac?uired, b operation of law+ a right to a grant, a govern-ent grant,
ithout the necessit& of a certi<cate of title .eing issued. The land,
therefore, ceases to .e of the pu.lic do-ain and .e&ond the authorit& of
the #irector of >ands to dispose of. *he application for confrmation is mere
formalit+ the lac5 of which does not a6ect the le%al su2cienc of the title
'5
as would be evidenced b the patent and the *orrens title to be issued
upon the stren%th of said patent. cdtai
The appellate court has resolved the ?uestion as to ho .eteen the parties had a
.etter right to possess the lot through the erroneous application of an outdated version
of !ection 42 of the Pu.lic >and $ct. >ikeise, !olicitor Renan A. Ra-os of the :,ce of
the !olicitor *eneral erred in assu-ing that the thirt&)&ear proviso in the afore-entioned
section as still good la. The original !ection 42/.0 of C.$. +o. 141 provided for
possession and occupation of lands of the pu.lic do-ain since %ul& '5, 1294. This as
superseded .& R.$. +o. 194', 2 hich provided for a si-ple thirt& &ear prescriptive
period of occupation .& an applicant for 8udicial con<r-ation of i-perfect title. The
sa-e, hoever, has alread& .een a-ended .& Presidential #ecree +o. 1(7;, approved
on %anuar& '5, 1977. $s a-ended, !ection 42/.0 no reads:

G/.0Those ho .& the-selves or through their predecessors)in)interest
have .een in open, continuous, e"clusive and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the pu.lic do-ain, under a bona
fde clai- of ac?uisition or onership, since June 78+ 79:;+ or earlier+
immediatel precedin% the flin% of the application for confrmation of title,
e"cept hen prevented .& ars or force ma#eure. Those shall .e
conclusivel& presu-ed to have perfor-ed all the conditions essential to a
*overn-ent grant and shall .e entitled to a certi<cate of title under the
provisions of this chapter.G /A-phasis ours0
Thus, in the aforecited Republic vs. CA case, e stated that the Pu.lic >and $ct re?uires
that the applicant -ust prove /a0 that the land is aliena.le pu.lic land and /.0 that his
open, continuous, e"clusive and notorious possession and occupation of the sa-e -ust
either .e since ti-e i--e-orial or for the period prescri.ed in the Pu.lic >and $ct.
Ihen the conditions set .& la are co-plied ith, the possessor of the land, .&
operation of la, ac?uires a right to a grant, a govern-ent grant, ithout the necessit&
of a certi<cate of title .eing issued. >>phil
The evidence presented shos that the land in dispute is aliena.le and disposa.le, in
accordance ith the #istrict 4orester@s Certi<cation dated !epte-.er '(, 1972, that the
su.8ect area is ithin Pro8ect 2, an aliena.le and disposa.le tract of pu.lic land, as
appearing in 1ureau of 4orest >and Classi<cation 6ap +o. 525. #oldol, thus, -eets the
<rst re?uire-ent.
The parties, hoever, stipulated during the pre)trial hearing that #oldol had .een
occup&ing the portion reserved for the school site onl& since 1959. The la, as presentl&
phrased, re?uires that possession of lands of the pu.lic do-ain -ust .e fro- %une 1',
1945 or earlier, for the sa-e to .e ac?uired through 8udicial con<r-ation of i-perfect
title.
'7
Conse?uentl&, #oldol could not have ac?uired an i-perfect title to the disputed lot since
his occupation of the sa-e started onl& in 1959, -uch later than %une 1', 1945. +ot
having co-plied ith the conditions set .& la, #oldol cannot .e said to have ac?uired a
right to the land in ?uestion as to segregate the sa-e fro- the pu.lic do-ain. #oldol
cannot, therefore, assert a right superior to the school, given that then President Cora9on
$?uino had reserved the lot for :pol +ational !chool. $s correctl& pointed out .& the
!olicitor *eneral: >i.>e"
G/T0he privilege of occup&ing pu.lic lands ith a vie of pree-ption confers
no contractual or vested right in the lands occupied and the authorit& of the
President to ithdra such lands for sale or ac?uisition .& the pu.lic, or to
reserve the- for pu.lic use, prior to the divesting .& the govern-ent of
title thereof stands, even though this -a& defeat the i-perfect right of a
settler. >ands covered .& reservation are not su.8ect to entr&, and no laful
settle-ent on the- can .e ac?uired.G 3
7n su-, :pol +ational !chool has the .etter right of possession over the land in dispute.
ICARA4:RA, pre-ises considered, the decision of the Court of $ppeals dated :cto.er
'7, 1997, and Resolution dated 6arch '7, 1992, are here.& $++=>>A# and !AT $!7#A
and the #ecision of the Regional Trial Court dated $ugust '5, 199', is here.&
RA7+!T$TA#.
!: :R#ARA#
OFFICE OF THE CIT; "A;OR OF PARA<A=UE
CIT;# OFFICE OF THE CIT; AD"INISTRATOR
OF PARA<A=UE CIT;# OFFICE OF THE CIT;
ENGINEER OF PARA<A=UE CIT;# OFFICE OF
THE CIT; PLANNING AND DE:ELOP"ENT
COORDINATOR# OFFICE OF THE BARANGA;
CAPTAIN AND SANGGUNIANG PA"BARANGA;
OF BARANGA; :ITALEZ# PARA<A=UE CIT;#
TERESITA A. GATCHALIAN# ENRICO R.
ESGUERRA# ERNESTO T. PRACALE# 8R.#
"ANUEL ". ARGOTE# CONRADO ". CANLAS#
8OSEPHINE S. DAUIGO;# ALLAN L. GONZALES#
ESTER C. ASEHAN# "ANUEL A. FUENTES# and
";RNA P. ROSALES,petitioners, vs. "ARIO D.
EBIO AND HIS CHILDREN>HEIRS na?%,+#
ARTURO :. EBIO# EDUARDO :. EBIO# RENATO
:. EBIO# LOURDES E. "AGTANGOB# "ILA :.
EBIO# and ARNEL :. EBIO, respondents.
'2
DECISION
:ILLARA"A# 8R.# J p:
1efore us is a petition for revie on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as a-ended, assailing the %anuar& ;1, '((7 #ecision 1 and %une 2, '((7
Resolution 2 of the Court of $ppeals /C$0 in C$)*.R. !P +o. 91;5( allegedl& for .eing
contrar& to la and 8urisprudence. The C$ had reversed the :rder 3 of the Regional Trial
Court /RTC0 of ParaPa?ue Cit&, 1ranch 195, issued on $pril '9, '((5 in Civil Case +o. (5)
(155.
1elo are the facts.
Respondents clai- that the& are the a.solute oners of a parcel of land consisting of
4(5 s?uare -eters, -ore or less, located at 9721 Ditale9 Co-pound in 1aranga& Ditale9,
ParaPa?ue Cit& and covered .& Ta" #eclaration +os. (1('7 and (147' in the na-e of
respondent 6ario #. A.io. !aid land as an accretion of Cut)cut creek. Respondents
assert that the original occupant and possessor of the said parcel of land as their great
grandfather, %ose Ditale9. !o-eti-e in 19;(, %ose gave the land to his son, Pedro Ditale9.
4ro- then on, Pedro continuousl& and e"clusivel& occupied and possessed the said lot. 7n
1955, after e"ecuting an a,davit declaring possession and occupanc&, 4Pedro as a.le
to o.tain a ta" declaration over the said propert& in his na-e. 5 !ince then, respondents
have .een religiousl& pa&ing real propert& ta"es for the said propert&.6
6eanhile, in 1951, respondent 6ario A.io -arried Pedro@s daughter, Qenaida. =pon
Pedro@s advice, the couple esta.lished their ho-e on the said lot. 7n $pril 1954 and in
:cto.er 1971, 6ario A.io secured .uilding per-its fro- the ParaPa?ue -unicipal o,ce
for the construction of their house ithin the said co-pound. 7 :n $pril '1, 1927, Pedro
e"ecuted a notari9ed Transfer of Rights 8 ceding his clai- over the entire parcel of land
in favor of 6ario A.io. !u.se?uentl&, the ta" declarations under Pedro@s na-e ere
cancelled and ne ones ere issued in 6ario A.io@s na-e.
:n 6arch ;(, 1999, the :,ce of the ,an%%unian% "aran%a of Ditale9 passed Resolution
+o. (2, series of 1999 1! seeking assistance fro- the Cit& *overn-ent of ParaPa?ue for
the construction of an access road along Cut)cut Creek located in the said .aranga&. The
proposed road, pro8ected to .e eight /20 -eters ide and si"t& /5(0 -eters long, ill run
fro- =r-a #rive to the -ain road of Ditale9 Co-pound 11 traversing the lot occupied .&
the respondents. Ihen the cit& govern-ent advised all the aHected residents to vacate
the said area, respondents i--ediatel& registered their opposition thereto. $s a result,
the road pro8ect as te-poraril& suspended. 12 aT$ACc
7n %anuar& '((;, hoever, respondents ere surprised hen several o,cials fro- the
.aranga& and the cit& planning o,ce proceeded to cut eight /20 coconut trees planted
on the said lot. Respondents <led letter)co-plaints .efore the Regional #irector of the
'9
1ureau of >ands, the #epart-ent of 7nterior and >ocal *overn-ent and the :,ce of the
Dice 6a&or. 13 :n %une '9, '((;, the ,an%%unian% "aran%a of Ditale9 held a -eeting to
discuss the construction of the proposed road. 7n the said -eeting, respondents asserted
their opposition to the proposed pro8ect and their clai- of onership over the aHected
propert&. 14 :n +ove-.er 14, '((;, respondents attended another -eeting ith
o,cials fro- the cit& govern-ent, .ut no de<nite agree-ent as reached .& and a-ong
the parties. 15
:n 6arch '2, '((5, Cit& $d-inistrator +oli $ldip sent a letter to the respondents
ordering the- to vacate the area ithin the ne"t thirt& /;(0 da&s, or .e ph&sicall&
evicted fro- the said propert&. 16 Respondents sent a letter to the :,ce of the Cit&
$d-inistrator asserting, in su-, their clai- over the su.8ect propert& and e"pressing
intent for a further dialogue. 17 The re?uest re-ained unheeded.
Threatened of .eing evicted, respondents ent to the RTC of ParaPa?ue Cit& on $pril '1,
'((5 and applied for a rit of preli-inar& in8unction against petitioners. 18 7n the course
of the proceedings, respondents ad-itted .efore the trial court that the& have a pending
application for the issuance of a sales patent .efore the #epart-ent of Anviron-ent and
+atural Resources /#A+R0. 1
:n $pril '9, '((5, the RTC issued an :rder 2! den&ing the petition for lack of -erit. The
trial court reasoned that respondents ere not a.le to prove successfull& that the& have
an esta.lished right to the propert& since the& have not instituted an action for
con<r-ation of title and their application for sales patent has not &et .een granted.
$dditionall&, the& failed to i-plead the Repu.lic of the Philippines, hich is an
indispensa.le part&.
Respondents -oved for reconsideration, .ut the sa-e as denied. 21
$ggrieved, respondents elevated the -atter to the Court of $ppeals. :n %anuar& ;1,
'((7, the Court of $ppeals issued its #ecision in favor of the respondents. $ccording to
the Court of $ppeals N
The issue ulti-atel& .oils don to the ?uestion of onership of the lands
ad8oining Cutcut Creek particularl& Road >ot +o. 2 /hereinafter R> 20 and the
accreted portion .eside R> 2.
The evidentiar& records of the instant case, shos that R> 2 containing an area
of '91 s?uare -eters is oned .& *uaranteed Co-es, 7nc. covered .& TCT +o.
!)5'175. The sa-e R> 2 appears to have .een donated .& the *uaranteed
Co-es to the Cit& *overn-ent of ParaPa?ue on '' 6arch 1955 and hich as
accepted .& the then 6a&or 4>:RA+C7: 1AR+$1A on 5 $pril 1955. There is no
evidence hoever, hen R> 2 has .een intended as a road lot.
:n the other hand, the evidentiar& records reveal that PA#R: D7T$>AQ
possessed the accreted propert& since 19;( per his $,davit dated '1 6arch
;(
1955 for the purpose of declaring the said propert& for ta"ation purposes. The
propert& then .eca-e the su.8ect of Ta" #eclaration +o. '(1;4 .eginning the
&ear 1957 and the real propert& ta"es therefor had .een paid for the &ears 1955,
1957, 1952, 1959, 197(, 197', 197;, 1974, 1972, 192(, 1995, 1995, 1997,
1992, 1999, '(((, '((1, '((', '((;, and '((4. !o-eti-e in 1954 and 1971,
construction per-its ere issued in favor of $ppellant 6$R7: A17: for the
su.8ect propert&. :n '1 $pril 1927, PA#R: D7T$>AQ transferred his rights in the
accreted propert& to 6$R7: A17: and his successors)in)interest.
$ppl&ing R$rticle 457 of the Civil Code consideringS the foregoing docu-entar&
evidence, it could .e concluded that *uaranteed Co-es is the oner of the
accreted propert& considering its onership of the ad8oining R> 2 to hich the
accretion attached. Coever, this is ithout the application of the provisions of
the Civil Code on ac?uisitive prescription hich is likeise applica.le in the
instant case. #$AaT!
""" """ """
The su.8ect of ac?uisitive prescription in the instant case is the accreted portion
hich RasS d4,+ &'0@%n .& the $ppellants. 7t is clear that since 19;(,
$ppellants together ith their predecessor)in)interest, PA#R: D7T$>AQR,S have
.een in e"clusive possession of the su.8ect propert& and starting 1954 had
introduced i-prove-ents thereon as evidenced .& their construction per-its.
Thus, even .& e"traordinar& ac?uisitive prescriptionR,S $ppellants have ac?uired
onership of the propert& in ?uestion since 19;( even if the ad8oining R> 2 as
su.se?uentl& registered in the na-e of *uaranteed Co-es. . . . .
""" """ """
4urther, it as onl& in 1972 that *uaranteed Co-es as a.le to have R> 2
registered in its na-e, hich is al-ost <ft& &ears fro- the ti-e PA#R: D7T$>AQ
occupied the ad8oining accreted propert& in 19;(. . . . .
""" """ """
Ie likeise note the continuous pa&-ent of real propert& ta"es of $ppellants
hich .olster their right over the su.8ect propert&. . . . .
""" """ """
7n su-, Ie are full& convinced and so hold that the $ppellants RhaveS a-pl&
proven their right over the propert& in ?uestion.
ICARA4:RA, pre-ises considered, the instant appeal is here.& GRANTED. The
challenged :rder of the court a ?uo is RE:ERSED and SET ASIDE.
!: :R#ARA#. 22
;1
:n %une 2, '((7, the appellate court denied petitioners@ -otion for reconsideration.
Cence, this petition raising the folloing assign-ent of errors:
7.ICATCAR :R +:T TCA #AC7!7:+ $+# RA!:>=T7:+ :4 TCA C:+:R$1>A
C:=RT :4 $PPA$>! TC$T RA!P:+#A+T! C$DA $ R7*CT 7+ A!!A 7! 7+
$CC:R# I7TC TCA >$I $+# A!T$1>7!CA# %=R7!PR=#A+CARFS
77.ICATCAR :R +:T TCA #AC7!7:+ $+# RA!:>=T7:+ :4 TCA C:+:R$1>A
C:=RT :4 $PPA$>! TC$T TCA !=1%ACT >:T 7! $D$7>$1>A 4:R
$CB=7!7T7DA PRA!CR7PT7:+ 7! 7+ $CC:R# I7TC TCA >$I $+#
A!T$1>7!CA# %=R7!PR=#A+CARFS $+#
777.ICATCAR :R +:T TCA !T$TA 7! $+ 7+#7!PA+!$1>A P$RTO T: TCA
C:6P>$7+T . . . 47>A# 1O RA!P:+#A+T! 7+ TCA >:IAR C:=RT. 23
The issues -a& .e narroed don into to /'0: procedurall&, hether the !tate is an
indispensa.le part& to respondents@ action for prohi.itor& in8unctionF and su.stantivel&,
hether the character of respondents@ possession and occupation of the su.8ect propert&
entitles the- to avail of the relief of prohi.itor& in8unction.
The petition is ithout -erit. A$CT!C
$n action for in8unction is .rought speci<call& to restrain or co--and the perfor-ance of
an act. 24 7t is distinct fro- the ancillar& re-ed& of preli-inar& in8unction, hich cannot
e"ist e"cept onl& as part or as an incident to an independent action or proceeding.
6oreover, in an action for in8unction, the au"iliar& re-ed& of a preli-inar& prohi.itor& or
-andator& in8unction -a& issue. 25
7n the case at .ar, respondents <led an action for in8unction to prevent the local
govern-ent of ParaPa?ue Cit& fro- proceeding ith the construction of an access road
that ill traverse through a parcel of land hich the& clai- is oned .& the- .& virtue of
ac?uisitive prescription.
Petitioners, hoever, argue that since the creek, .eing a tri.utar& of the river, is
classi<ed as part of the pu.lic do-ain, an& land that -a& have for-ed along its .anks
through ti-e should also .e considered as part of the pu.lic do-ain. $nd respondents
should have included the !tate as it is an indispensa.le part& to the action.
Ie do not agree.
7t is an uncontested fact that the su.8ect land as for-ed fro- the alluvial deposits that
have graduall& settled along the .anks of Cut)cut creek. This .eing the case, the la that
governs onership over the accreted portion is $rticle 24 of the !panish >a of Iaters of
1255, hich re-ains in eHect, 26 in relation to $rticle 457 of the Civil Code.
$rticle 24 of the !panish >a of Iaters of 1255 speci<call& covers onership over
alluvial deposits along the .anks of a creek. 7t reads:
;'
$RT. 24.$ccretions deposited graduall& upon lands contiguous to creeks,
strea-s, rivers, and lakes, .& accessions or sedi-ents fro- the aters
thereof, .elong to the oners of such lands. 27
7nterestingl&, $rticle 457 of the Civil Code states:
$rt. 457.To the oners of lands ad8oining the .anks of rivers .elong the
accretion hich the& graduall& receive fro- the eHects of the current of the
aters.
7t is therefore e"plicit fro- the foregoing provisions that alluvial deposits along the .anks
of a creek do not for- part of the pu.lic do-ain as the alluvial propert& auto-aticall&
.elongs to the oner of the estate to hich it -a& have .een added. The onl& restriction
provided for .& la is that the oner of the ad8oining propert& -ust register the sa-e
under the Torrens s&ste-F otherise, the alluvial propert& -a& .e su.8ect to ac?uisition
through prescription .& third persons. 28
7n contrast, properties of pu.lic do-inion cannot .e ac?uired .& prescription. +o -atter
ho long the possession of the properties has .een, there can .e no prescription against
the !tate regarding propert& of pu.lic do-ain. 2 Aven a cit& or -unicipalit& cannot
ac?uire the- .& prescription as against the !tate. 3!
Cence, hile it is true that a creek is a propert& of pu.lic do-inion, 31 the land hich is
for-ed .& the gradual and i-percepti.le accu-ulation of sedi-ents along its .anks
does not for- part of the pu.lic do-ain .& clear provision of la.
6oreover, an indispensa.le part& is one hose interest in the controvers& is such that a
<nal decree ould necessaril& aHect hisKher right, so that the court cannot proceed
ithout their presence. 32 7n contrast, a necessar& part& is one hose presence in the
proceedings is necessar& to ad8udicate the hole controvers& .ut hose interest is
separa.le such that a <nal decree can .e -ade in their a.sence ithout aHecting
the-. 33 aTc7AC
7n the instant case, the action for prohi.ition seeks to en8oin the cit& govern-ent of
ParaPa?ue fro- proceeding ith its i-ple-entation of the road construction pro8ect. The
!tate is neither a necessar& nor an indispensa.le part& to an action here no positive
act shall .e re?uired fro- it or here no o.ligation shall .e i-posed upon it, such as in
the case at .ar. +either ould it .e an indispensa.le part& if none of its properties shall
.e divested nor an& of its rights infringed.
Ie also <nd that the character of possession and onership .& the respondents over the
contested land entitles the- to the avails of the action.
$ right in esse -eans a clear and un-istaka.le right. 34 $ part& seeking to avail of an
in8unctive relief -ust prove that he or she possesses a right in esse or one that is actual
or e"isting. 35 7t should not .e contingent, a.stract, or future rights, or one hich -a&
never arise. 36
;;
7n the case at .ar, respondents assert that their predecessor)in)interest, Pedro Ditale9,
had occupied and possessed the su.8ect lot as earl& as 19;(. 7n 1954, respondent 6ario
A.io secured a per-it fro- the local govern-ent of ParaPa?ue for the construction of
their fa-il& delling on the said lot. 7n 1955, Pedro e"ecuted an a,davit of possession
and occupanc& alloing hi- to declare the propert& in his na-e for ta"ation purposes.
Curiousl&, it as also in 1955 hen *uaranteed Co-es, 7nc., the registered oner of
Road >ot +o. 2 /R> 20 hich ad8oins the land occupied .& the respondents, donated R> 2
to the local govern-ent of ParaPa?ue.
4ro- these <ndings of fact .& .oth the trial court and the Court of $ppeals, onl& one
conclusion can .e -ade: that for -ore than thirt& /;(0 &ears, neither *uaranteed
Co-es, 7nc. nor the local govern-ent of ParaPa?ue in its corporate or private capacit&
sought to register the accreted portion. =ndou.tedl&, respondents are dee-ed to have
ac?uired onership over the su.8ect propert& through prescription. Respondents can
assert such right despite the fact that the& have &et to register their title over the said
lot. 7t -ust .e re-e-.ered that the purpose of land registration is not the ac?uisition of
lands, .ut onl& the registration of title hich the applicant alread& possessed over the
land. Registration as never intended as a -eans of ac?uiring onership. 37 $ decree of
registration -erel& con<r-s, .ut does not confer, onership. 38
#id the <ling of a sales patent application .& the respondents, hich re-ains pending
.efore the #A+R, estop the- fro- <ling an in8unction suitJ
Ie anser in the negative.
Con<r-ation of an i-perfect title over a parcel of land -a& .e done either through
8udicial proceedings or through ad-inistrative process. 7n the instant case, respondents
ad-itted that the& opted to con<r- their title over the propert& ad-inistrativel& .& <ling
an application for sales patent.
Respondents@ application for sales patent, hoever, should not .e used to pre8udice or
derogate hat -a& .e dee-ed as their vested right over the su.8ect propert&. The sales
patent application should instead .e considered as a -ere superLuit& particularl& since
onership over the land, hich the& seek to .u& fro- the !tate, is alread& vested upon
the- .& virtue of ac?uisitive prescription. 6oreover, the !tate does not have an&
authorit& to conve& a propert& through the issuance of a grant or a patent if the land is
no longer a pu.lic land. 3 cC#aA7
)emo dat 0uod dat non habet. +o one can give hat he does not have. !uch principle is
e?uall& applica.le even against a sovereign entit& that is the !tate.
9HEREFORE# the petition is DENIED for lack of -erit. The %anuar& ;1, '((7 #ecision,
as ell as the %ul& 2, '((7 Resolution, of the Court of $ppeals in C$)*.R. !P +o. 91;5(
are here.& AFFIR"ED.
Iith costs against petitioners.
;4
SO ORDERED.
ERNESTO :.
RON=UILLO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS AND ANTONIO P.
SO, respondents.
3loria A. <ortun for petitioner.
Roselino Rees Isler for respondents.
S;LLABUS
1.RA6A#7$> >$IF C7D7> PR:CA#=RAF !PAC7$> C7D7> $CT7:+F 6:T7:+ 4:R
RAC:+!7#AR$T7:+F PR:PR7ATO :4 47>7+* :4 PAT7T7:+ 4:R CART7:R$R7 #=R7+*
PA+#A+CO :4 6:T7:+ 4:R RAC:+!7#AR$T7:+. E $nent the <rst issue raised, su,ce it
to state that hile as a general rule, a -otion for reconsideration should precede
recourse to certiorari in order to give the trial court an opportunit& to correct the error
that it -a& have co--itted, the said rule is not a.solute, /Dda. de !a&-an vs. Court of
$ppeals, 1)'1 !CR$ 55(0 and -a& .e dispensed ith in instances here <ling of a
-otion for reconsideration ould serve no useful purpose, such as hen the -otion for
reconsideration ould raise the sa-e point stated in the -otion, /4ortich)Celdran, et al
vs. Celdran, et al, 19 !CR$. 5('0 or here the error is patent for the order is void, /7ligan
Alectric >ight Co. vs. Pu.lic !ervice Co--ission, 1( !CR$ 45F 6atute vs. Court of
$ppeals, '5 !CR$ 752F >ocsin vs. >i-aco, '5 !CR$ 2150 or where the relief is e!tremel
ur%ent+ as in cases where e!ecution had alread been ordered, /!uco vs. Dda. de >ear&,
1' !CR$ ;'50 here the issue raised is one purel& of la /Central 1ank of the
Philippines vs. Clori.el, 44 !CR$ ;(70 7n the case at .ar, the records sho that not onl&
as a rit of e"ecution issued .ut petitioner@s properties ere alread& scheduled to .e
sold at pu.lic auction on $pril ', 192( at 1(:(( a.-. The records likeise sho that
petitioner@s -otion for reconsideration of the ?uestioned :rder of A"ecution as <led on
6arch 17, 192( and as set for hearing on 6arch '5, 192( at 2:;( a.-., .ut upon
-otion of private respondent the hearing as reset to $pril ', 192( at 2:;( a.-., the
ver& sa-e da& hen petitioner@s properties ere to .e sold at pu.lic auction. +eedless
to state that under the circu-stances, petitioner as faced ith i--inent danger of his
properties .eing i--ediatel& sold the -o-ent his -otion for reconsideration is denied.
Plainl&, urgenc& pro-pted recourse to the Court of $ppeals and the ade?uate and
speed& re-ed& for petitioner under the situation as to <le a petition for certiorari ith
pra&er for restraining order to stop the sale. 4or hi- to ait until after the hearing of the
;5
-otion for reconsideration on $pril ', 192( .efore taking recourse to the appellate court
-a& alread& .e too late since ithout a restraining order, the pu.lic sale can proceed at
1(:(( that -orning.
'.C7D7> >$IF :1>7*$T7:+! $+# C:+TR$CTF +$T=RA :4 >7$17>7TOF 6A$+7+* :4
7+#7D7#=$>>O $+# %:7+T>O.G E Clearl& then, .& the e"press ter- of the co-pro-ise
agree-ent and the decision .ased upon it, the defendants o.ligated the-selves to pa&
their o.ligation Gindividuall& and 8ointl&.G The ter- Gindividuall&G has the sa-e -eaning
as collectivel&, G Gseparatel&,G Gdistinctivel&,G respectivel& or Gseverall&.G $n agree-ent
to .e Gindividuall liableG undou.tedl& creates a several o.ligation, /'1 Iords T
Phrases,. Per-anent Ad., p. 1940 and a Gseveral o.ligationG is one .& hich one
individual .inds hi-self to perfor- the hole o.ligation /;9 Iords T Phrases, Per-anent
Ad., p. 7'0. 7n the case of Parot vs. *e-ora, /7 Phil. 94, 970, Ie therein., ruled that Gthe
phrase #untos or separadamente used in the pro-issor& note is an e"press state-ent
-aking each of the persons ho signed it individuall liable for the pa&-ent of the full
a-ount of the o.ligation contained therein.G >ikeise in =n Pak >eung vs. +egorra, /9
Phil. ;210, Ie held that Gin the a.sence of a <nding of facts that the defendants -ade
the-selves individuall& lia.le for the de.t incurred the& are each lia.le onl& for one)half
of said a-ountG. The o.ligation in the case at .ar .eing descri.ed as Gindividuall& and
8ointl&G, the sa-e is therefore enforcea.le against one of the nu-erous o.ligors.
D E C I S I O N
CUE:AS, J p:
This is a petition to revie the Resolution dated %une ;(, 192( of the then Court of
$ppeals /no the 7nter-ediate $ppellate Court0 in C$)*.R. +o. !P)1(57;, entitled
GArnesto D. Ron?uillo versus the Con. 4lorellana Castro)1artolo-e, etc.G and the :rder of
said court dated $ugust '(, 192(, den&ing petitioner@s -otion for reconsideration of the
a.ove resolution.
Petitioner Arnesto D. Ron?uillo as one of four /40 defendants in Civil Case +o. ;;952 of
the then Court of 4irst 7nstance of Ri9al /no the Regional Trial Court0, 1ranch MD <led .&
private respondent $ntonio P. !o, on %ul& ';, 1979, for the collection of the su- of
P117,492.92 plus attorne&@s fees and costs. The other defendants ere :Hshore
Catertrade, 7nc., %ohnn& Tan and Pilar Tan. The a-ount of P117,492.92 sought to .e
collected represents the value of the checks issued .& said defendants in pa&-ent for
foodstuHs delivered to and received .& the-. The said checks ere dishonored .& the
draee .ank.
:n #ece-.er 1;, 1979, the loer court rendered its #ecision 1 .ased on the
co-pro-ise agree-ent su.-itted .& the parties, the pertinent portion of hich reads as
follos:
;5
G1.PlaintiH agrees to reduce its total clai- of P117,492.95 to onl&
P11(,(((.(( and defendants agree to acknoledge the validit& of such
clai- and further .ind the-selves to initiall& pa& out of the total
inde.tedness of P11(,(((.(( the a-ount of P55,(((.(( on or before
December 8:+ 79=9+ the .alance of P55,(((.((, defendants individuall
and #ointl agree to pa& ithin a period of si" -onths fro- %anuar& 192(, or
.efore %une ;(, 192(F /A-phasis supplied0
""" """ """
4.That .oth parties agree that failure on the part of either part& to co-pl&
ith the foregoing ter-s and conditions, the innocent part& ill .e entitled
to an e"ecution of the decision .ased on this co-pro-ise agree-ent and
the defaulting part& agrees and hold the-selves to rei-.urse the innocent
part& for attorne&@s fees, e"ecution fees and other fees related ith the
e"ecution.
""" """ """G
:n #ece-.er '5, 1979, herein private respondent /then plaintiH0 <led a 6otion for
A"ecution on the ground that defendants failed to -ake the initial pa&-ent of
P55,(((.(( on or .efore #ece-.er '4, 1979 as provided in the #ecision. !aid -otion for
e"ecution as opposed .& herein petitioner /as one of the defendants0 contending that
his ina.ilit& to -ake the pa&-ent as due to private respondent@s on act of -aking
hi-self scarce and inaccessi.le on #ece-.er '4, 1979. Petitioner then pra&ed that
private respondent .e ordered to accept his pa&-ent in the a-ount of P1;,75(.((. 2
#uring the hearing of the 6otion for A"ecution and the :pposition thereto on %anuar& 15,
192(, petitioner, as one of the four defendants, tendered the a-ount of P1;,75(.((, as
his pro rata share in the P55,(((.(( initial pa&-ent. $nother defendant, Pilar P. Tan,
oHered to pa& the sa-e a-ount. 1ecause private respondent refused to accept their
pa&-ents, de-anding fro- the- the full initial install-ent of P55,(((.((, petitioner and
Pilar Tan instead deposited the said a-ount ith the Clerk of Court. The a-ount
deposited as su.se?uentl& ithdran .& private respondent. 3
:n the sa-e da&, %anuar& 15, 192(, the loer court ordered the issuance of a rit of
e"ecution for the .alance of the initial a-ount pa&a.le, against the other to
defendants, :Hshore Catertrade, 7nc. and %ohnn& Tan, 4 ho did not pa& their shares.
:n %anuar& '', 192(, private respondent -oved for the reconsideration andKor
-odi<cation of the aforesaid :rder of e"ecution and pra&ed instead for the Ge"ecution of
the decision in its entiret& against all defendants, 8ointl& and severall&.G 5 Petitioner
opposed the said -otion arguing that under the decision of the loer court .eing
e"ecuted hich has alread& .eco-e <nal, the lia.ilit& of the four /40 defendants as not
e"pressl& declared to .e solidar&, conse?uentl& each defendant is o.liged to pa& onl& his
on pro)rata or 1K4 of the a-ount due and pa&a.le.
;7
:n 6arch 17, 192(, the loer court issued an :rder reading as follos:
G: R # A R
Regardless of hatever the co-pro-ise agree-ent has intended the
pa&-ent hether 8ointl& or individuall&, or 8ointl& and severall&, the fact is
that onl& P'7,5((.(( has .een paid. There appears to .e a non)pa&-ent in
accordance ith the co-pro-ise agree-ent of the a-ount of P'7,5((.((
on or .efore #ece-.er '4, 1979. The parties are re-inded that the
pa&-ent is condition sine ?ua non to the lifting of the preli-inar&
attach-ent and the e"ecution of an a,davit of desistance.
ICARA4:RA, let rit of e"ecution issue as pra&ed for.G
:n 6arch 17, 192(, petitioner -oved for the reconsideration of the a.ove order, and the
sa-e as set for hearing on 6arch '5, 192(.
6eanhile, or -ore speci<call& on 6arch 19, 192(, a rit of e"ecution as issued for the
satisfaction of the su- of P2',5((.(( as against the properties of the defendants
/including petitioner0, Gsingl& or 8ointl& lia.le.G 6
:n 6arch '(, 192(, !pecial !heriH Aulogio C. %uanson of Ri9al, issued a notice of sheriH@s
sale, for the sale of certain furnitures and appliances found in petitioner@s residence to
satisf& the su- of P2',5((.((. The pu.lic sale as scheduled for $pril ', 192( at 1(:((
a.-. 7
Petitioner@s -otion for reconsideration of the :rder of A"ecution dated 6arch 17, 192(
hich as set for hearing on 6arch '5, 192(, as upon -otion of private respondent
reset to $pril ', 192( at 2:;( a.-. Reali9ing the actual threat to his propert& rights
poised .& the re)setting of the hearing of his -otion for reconsideration for $pril ', 192(
at 2:;( a.-. such that if his -otion for reconsideration ould .e denied he ould have
no -ore ti-e to o.tain a rit fro- the appellate court to stop the scheduled pu.lic sale
of his personal properties at 1(:(( a.-. of the sa-e da&, $pril ', 192(, petitioner <led on
6arch '5, 192( a petition for certiorari and prohi.ition ith the then Court of $ppeals
/C$)*.R. +o. !P)1(57;0, pra&ing at the sa-e ti-e for the issuance of a restraining order
to stop the pu.lic sale. Ce raised the ?uestion of the validit& of the order of e"ecution,
the rit of e"ecution and the notice of pu.lic sale of his properties to satisf& full& the
entire unpaid o.ligation pa&a.le .& all of the four /40 defendants, hen the loer court@s
decision .ased on the co-pro-ise agree-ent did not speci<call& state the lia.ilit& of the
four /40 defendants to .e solidar&.

:n $pril ', 192(, the loer court denied petitioner@s -otion for reconsideration .ut the
scheduled pu.lic sale in that sa-e da& did not proceed in vie of the pendenc& of a
certiorari proceeding .efore the then Court of $ppeals.
;2
:n %une ;(, 192(, the said court issued a Resolution, the pertinent portion of hich reads
as follos:
GThis Court, hoever, <nds the present petition to have .een <led
pre-aturel&. The rule is that .efore a petition for certiorari can .e .rought
against an order of a loer court, all re-edies availa.le in that court -ust
<rst .e e"hausted. 7n the case at .ar, herein petitioner <led a petition
ithout aiting for a resolution of the Court on the -otion for
reconsideration, hich could have .een favora.le to the petitioner. The fact
that the hearing of the -otion for reconsideration had .een reset on the
sa-e da& the pu.lic sale as to take place is of no -o-ent since the
-otion for reconsideration of the :rder of 6arch 17, 192( having .een
seasona.l& <led, the scheduled pu.lic sale should .e suspended. 6oreover,
hen the defendants, including herein petitioner, defaulted in their
o.ligation .ased on the co-pro-ise agree-ent, private respondent had
.eco-e entitled to -ove for an e"ecution of the decision .ased on the said
agree-ent.
ICARA4:RA, the instant petition for certiorari and prohi.ition ith
preli-inar& in8unction is here.& denied due course. The restraining order
issued in our resolution dated $pril 9, 192( is here.& lifted ithout
pronounce-ent as to costs.
!: :R#ARA#.G
Petitioner -oved to reconsider the aforesaid Resolution alleging that on $pril ', 192(,
the loer court had alread& denied the -otion referred to and conse?uentl&, the legal
issues .eing raised in the petition ere alread& GripeG for deter-ination. 8 The said
-otion as hoever denied .& the Court of $ppeals in its Resolution dated $ugust '(,
192(.
Cence, this petition for revie, petitioner contending that the Court of $ppeals erred in
E
/a0declaring as pre-ature, and in den&ing due course to the petition to restrain
i-ple-entation of a rit of e"ecution issued at variance ith the <nal decision of the
loer court <led .arel& four /40 da&s .efore the scheduled pu.lic sale of the attached
-ova.le propertiesF
/.0den&ing reconsideration of the Resolution of %une ;(, 192(, hich declared as
pre-ature the <ling of the petition, although there is proof on record that as of $pril ',
192(, the -otion referred to as alread& denied .& the loer court and there as no
-ore -otion pending thereinF
/c0failing to resolve the legal issues raised in the petition and in not declaring the
lia.ilities of the defendants, under the <nal decision of the loer court, to .e onl& 8ointF
;9
/d0not holding the loer court@s order of e"ecution dated 6arch 17, 192(, the rit of
e"ecution and the notice of sheriH@s sale, e"ecuting the loer court@s decision against Gall
defendants, singl& and 8ointl&G, to .e at variance ith the loer court@s <nal decision
hich did not provide for solidar& o.ligationF and
/e0not declaring as invalid and unlaful the threatened e"ecution, as against the
properties of petitioner ho had paid his pro)rata share of the ad8udged o.ligation, of the
total unpaid a-ount pa&a.le .& his 8oint co)defendants.
The foregoing assigned errors -a&.e s&nthesi9ed into the -ore i-portant issues of E
1.Ias the <ling of a petition for certiorari .efore the then Court of $ppeals against the
:rder of A"ecution issued .& the loer court, dated 6arch 17, 192(, proper, despite the
pendenc& of a -otion for reconsideration of the sa-e ?uestioned :rderJ
'.Ihat is the nature of the lia.ilit& of the defendants /including petitioner0, as it -erel&
8oint, or as it several or solidar&J
$nent the <rst issue raised, su,ce it to state that hile as a general rule, a -otion for
reconsideration should precede recourse to certiorari in order to give the trial court an
opportunit& to correct the error that it -a& have co--itted, the said rule is not
a.solute and -a& .e dispensed ith in instances here the <ling of a -otion for
reconsideration ould serve no useful purpose, such as hen the -otion for
reconsideration ould raise the sa-e point stated in the -otion 1! or here the error is
patent for the order is void 11 or where the relief is e!tremel ur%ent+ as in cases where
e!ecution had alread been ordered 12 here the issue raised is one purel& of la. 13
7n the case at .ar, the records sho that not onl& as a rit of e"ecution issued .ut
petitioner@s properties ere alread& scheduled to .e sold at pu.lic auction on $pril ',
192( at 1(:(( a.-. The records likeise sho that petitioner@s -otion for reconsideration
of the ?uestioned :rder of A"ecution as <led on 6arch 17, 192( and as set for
hearing on 6arch '5, 192( at 2:;( a.-., .ut upon -otion of private respondent, the
hearing as reset to $pril ', 192( at 2:;( a.-., the ver& sa-e da& hen petitioner@s
properties ere to .e sold at pu.lic auction. +eedless to state that under the
circu-stances, petitioner as faced ith i--inent danger of his properties .eing
i--ediatel& sold the -o-ent his -otion for reconsideration is denied. Plainl&, urgenc&
pro-pted recourse to the Court of $ppeals and the ade?uate and speed& re-ed& for
petitioner under the situation as to <le a petition for certiorari ith pra&er for
restraining order to stop the sale. 4or hi- to ait until after the hearing of the -otion for
reconsideration on $pril ', 192( .efore taking recourse to the appellate court -a&
alread& .e too late since ithout a restraining order, the pu.lic sale can proceed at
1(:(( that -orning. 7n fact, the said -otion as alread& denied .& the loer court in its
order dated $pril ', 192( and ere it not for the pendenc& of the petition ith the Court
of $ppeals and the restraining order issued thereafter, the pu.lic sale scheduled that
ver& sa-e -orning could have proceeded.
4(
The other issue raised refers to the nature of the lia.ilit& of petitioner, as one of the
defendants in Civil Case +o. ;;952, that is hether or not he is lia.le 8ointl& or
solidaril&. pr>>
7n this regard, $rticle 1'(7 and 1'(2 of the Civil Code provides E
G$rt. 1'(7.The concurrence of to or -ore de.tors in one and the sa-e
o.ligation does not i-pl& that each one of the for-er has a right to
de-and, or that each one of the latter is .ound to render, entire
co-pliance ith the prestation. There is a solidar& lia.ilit& onl& hen the
o.ligation e"pressl& so states, or hen the la or the nature of the
o.ligation re?uires solidarit&.
$rt. 1'(2.7f fro- the la, or the nature or the ording of the o.ligation to
hich the preceding article refers the contrar& does not appear, the credit
or de.t shall .e presu-ed to .e divided into as -an& e?ual shares as there
are creditors and de.tors, the credits or de.ts .eing considered distinct
fro- one another, su.8ect to the Rules of Court governing the -ultiplicit& of
suits.G
The decision of the loer court .ased on the parties@ co-pro-ise agree-ent, provides:
G1.PlaintiH agrees to reduce its total clai- of P117,492.95 to onl&
P11(,(((.(( and defendants agree to acknoledge the validit& of such
clai- and further .ind the-selves to initiall& pa& out of the total
inde.tedness of P11(,(((.((, the a-ount of P55,(((.(( on or .efore
#ece-.er '4, 1979, the .alance of P55,(((.((, defendants individuall
and #ointl agree to pa& ithin a period of si" -onths fro- %anuar& 192( or
.efore %une ;(, 192(.G /A-phasis supplied0
Clearl& then, .& the e"press ter- of the co-pro-ise agree-ent and the decision .ased
upon it, the defendants o.ligated the-selves to pa& their o.ligation Gindividuall& and
8ointl&G
The ter- Gindividuall&G has the sa-e -eaning as Gcollectivel&G, Gseparatel&G,
Gdistinctivel&G, respectivel& or Gseverall&G. $n agree-ent to .e Gindividuall liableG
undou.tedl& creates a several o.ligation, 14 and a Gseveral o.ligationG is one .& hich
one individual .inds hi-self to perfor- the hole o.ligation. 15
7n the case of Parot vs. *e-ora 16 Ie therein ruled that Gthe phrase #untos or
separadamente used in the pro-issor& note is an e"press state-ent -aking each of the
persons ho signed it individuall liable for the pa&-ent of the full a-ount of the
o.ligation contained therein.G >ikeise in =n Pak >eung vs. +egorra 17 Ie held that Gin
the a.sence of a <nding of facts that the defendants -ade the-selves individuall& lia.le
for the de.t incurred the& are each lia.le onl& for one)half of said a-ount.G
41
The o.ligation in the case at .ar .eing descri.ed as Gindividuall& and 8ointl&G, the sa-e
is therefore enforcea.le against one of the nu-erous o.ligors.
7+ D7AI :4 TCA 4:RA*:7+* C:+!7#AR$T7:+!, the instant petition is here.& #7!67!!A#.
Cost against petitioner.
!: :R#ARA#
HEIRS OF "ANUEL A. ROAAS and TRINIDAD
DE LEON :DA. DE ROAAS $/n (4*()/)4)/0n 02
0'/5/na, &%)/)/0n%'-, petitioners, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS and "AGUESUN "ANAGE"ENT B
DE:ELOP"ENT CORPORATION, respondents.
An%ara Abello Concepcion "e%an > Cru( for petitioners.
"riccio P. Contreras for private respondents.
S;LLABUS
1.C7D7> >$IF >$+# RA*7!TR$T7:+F PRA!7#A+T7$> #ACRAA +:. 15'9F RA:PA+7+* $+#
RAD7AI :4 TCA #ACRAA :4 RA*7!TR$T7:+F RAB=7RA6A+T!. E Registration of untitled
land under the Torrens !&ste- is done pursuant to Presidential #ecree +o. 15'9, the
Propert& Registration #ecree hich a-ended and codi<ed las relative to registration of
propert&. $d8udication of land in a registration /or cadastral0 case does not .eco-e <nal
and incontroverti.le until the e"piration of one &ear after the entr& of the <nal decree.
1efore such ti-e, the decision re-ains under the control and sound discretion of the
court rendering the decree, hich court after hearing, -a& set aside the decision or
decree and ad8udicate the land to another part&. $.sence, -inorit& or other disa.ilit& of
an& person aHected, or an& proceeding in court for reversing 8udg-ents, are not
considered grounds to reopen or revise said decree. Coever, the right of a person
deprived of land or of an& estate or interest therein .& ad8udication or con<r-ation of
title o.tained .& actual fraud is recogni9ed .& la /!ection ;' of Presidential #ecree +o.
15'90 as a valid and legal .asis for reopening and revising a decree of registration. 7t is
further re?uired that a petition for reopening and revie of the decree of registration .e
<led ithin one &ear fro- the date of entr& of said decree, that the petitioner has a real
and do-inical right and the propert& has not &et .een transferred to an innocent
purchaser.
'.7#.F 7#.F 7#.F 7#.F $CT=$> $+# C:+!TR=CT7DA 4R$=#F #7!T7+*=7!CA#. E 4raud is of
to kinds: actual or constructive. $ctual or positive fraud proceeds fro- an intentional
deception practiced .& -eans of the -isrepresentation or conceal-ent of a -aterial
fact. Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud .ecause of its detri-ental eHect upon
4'
pu.lic interests and pu.lic or private con<dence, even though the act is not done or
co--itted ith an actual design to co--it positive fraud or in8ur& upon other persons.
;.7#.F 7#.F 7#.F 7#.F AMTR7+!7C $+# 7+TR7+!7C 4R$=#F #7!T7+*=7!CA#. E 4raud -a& also
.e either e"trinsic or intrinsic. 4raud is regarded as intrinsic here the fraudulent acts
pertain to an issue involved in the original action, or here the acts constituting the
fraud ere or could have .een litigated therein, and is regarded as e"trinsic here it
prevents a part& fro- having a trial or fro- presenting his entire case to the court, or
here it operates upon -atters pertaining not to the 8udg-ent itself .ut to the -anner
in hich it is procured, so that there is not a fair su.-ission of the controvers&. A"trinsic
fraud is also actual fraud, .ut collateral to the transaction sued upon.
4.7#.F 7#.F 7#.F 7#.F $CT=$> 4R$=# $+# AMTR7+!7C 4R$=#F TCA :+>O $CCAPTA#
*R:=+#! TCARA:4. E The distinctions are signi<cant .ecause onl& actual fraud or
e"trinsic fraud has .een accepted as grounds for a 8udg-ent to .e annulled or, as in this
case, a decree of registration reopened and revieed. 7n the oft)cited .acabin%5il
v.People?s 'omesite and 'ousin% Corporation case, the Court dre fro- $-erican
8urisprudence stating that Grelief has .een granted on the ground that, .& so-e fraud
practiced directl& upon the part& seeking relief against the 8udg-ent or decree, /and0
that part& has .een prevented fro- presenting all of his case to the court.G The GfraudG
conte-plated .& the la in this case /!ection ;', P.#. +o. 15'90 is actual and e"trinsic,
hich includes, an intentional o-ission of fact re?uired .& la. 4or fraud to 8ustif& a
revie of a decree, it -ust .e e"trinsic or collateral, and the facts upon hich it is .ased
have not .een controverted or resolved in the case here the 8udg-ent sought to .e
annulled as rendered. Persons ho ere fraudulentl& deprived of their opportunit& to
.e heard in the original registration case are entitled to a revie of a decree of
registration.
5.7#.F 7#.F 7#.F +:T7CA :4 7+7T7$> CA$R7+*F P=1>7C$T7:+ 7+ $ +AI!P$PAR :4 *A+AR$>
C7RC=>$T7:+F $+ 7+#7!PA+!$1>A PR:CA#=R$> RAB=7RA6A+T. E The Court of $ppeals
held that pursuant to !ection '; of Presidential #ecree +o. 15'9, pu.lication in the
:,cial *a9ette is su,cient to confer 8urisdiction. !aid provision of la e"pressl& states
that Gthe Co--issioner of >and Registration shall cause a notice of initial hearin% to be
published once in the -2cial 3a(ette and once in a newspaper of %eneral circulation in
the Philippines. Provided, hoever, that the pu.lication in the :,cial *a9ette shall .e
su,cient to confer 8urisdiction upon the court. . . .G Ihile pu.lication of the notice in the
:,cial *a9ette is su,cient to confer 8urisdiction upon the court, pu.lication in a
nespaper of general circulation re-ains an indispensa.le procedural re?uire-ent.
Couched in -andator& ter-s, it is a co-ponent of procedural due process and ai-ed at
giving Gas ide pu.licit& as possi.leG so that all persons having an adverse)interest in
the land su.8ect of the registration proceedings -a& .e noti<ed thereof. $lthough
8urisdiction of the court is not aHected, the fact that pu.lication as not -ade in a
4;
nespaper of general circulation is -aterial and relevant in assessing the applicant@s
right or title to the land.
D E C I S I O N
RO"ERO, J p:
Trinidad de >eon Dda. de Ro"as, su.stituted .& her heirs, 1 instituted this petition for
revie of the Court of $ppeals decision dated #ece-.er 2, 1994 in GTrinidad de >eon
Dda. de Ro"as v. 6aguesun 6anage-ent and #evelop-ent Corporation,G /C$ *.R. CD
+o. ;2;'20, alleging reversi.le error co--itted .& respondent appellate court hen it
a,r-ed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite. The issue presented .efore us
is hether or not private respondent 6aguesun Corporation co--itted actual fraud in
o.taining a decree of registration over to unregistered parcels of land in Taga&ta& Cit&,
actual fraud .eing the onl& ground to reopen or revie a decree of registration.
The facts of the case are narrated .elo:
:n %ul& ', 199(, herein private respondent 6aguesun 6anage-ent and #evelop-ent
Corporation /6aguesun Corporation0 <led an $pplication for Registration of to parcels of
unregistered land located in 1aranga& !unga&, Taga&ta& Cit& />ot +os. 7';1 and 7';9,
Cad);55, Taga&ta& Cadastre0 ith an area of ;,541 and 1(,574 s?uare -eters
respectivel&. The original registration case as docketed as Case +o. T*);7; .efore the
Regional Trial Court of Cavite, 1ranch 12, presided over .& %udge %ulieto Ta.iolo. 7n
support of its application for registration, 6aguesun Corporation presented a #eed of
$.solute !ale dated %une 1(, 199(, e"ecuted .& Qenaida 6elli9a as vendor and indicating
the purchase price to .e P17(,(((.((. Qenaida 6elli9a in turn, .ought the propert& fro-
the original petitioner herein, Trinidad de >eon vda. de Ro"as for P'((,(((.(( to and a
half -onths earlier, as evidenced .& a #eed of !ale dated 6arch '5, 199( and an
$,davit of !elf)$d8udication dated 6arch '4, 199(.
+otices of the initial hearing ere sent .& the >and Registration $uthorit& /the +ational
>and Titles and #eeds Registration $uthorit& or +$>T#R$0 to Cilario >una, %ose *il and
>eon >una on the .asis of 6aguesun Corporation@s application for registration. !ince
Trinidad de >eon vda. de Ro"as as not na-ed as an ad8oining oner, occupant or
adverse clai-ant, she as not sent a notice of the proceedings. Pu.lication as -ade in
the :,cial *a9ette and the Record +eseekl&. 2 $fter an :rder of general default as
issued, the trial court proceeded to hear the land registration case. :n :cto.er 4, 199(,
the >and Registration $uthorit& reported, a-ong other things, that the su.8ect parcels of
land had previousl& .een applied for registration in >and Registration Case +o. 5((,
*>R: Record +o. 55(7' at the Court of 4irst 7nstance of Cavite .& 6anuel $. Ro"as and
Trinidad de >eon .ut no decision has .een rendered thereon. 3 Aventuall&, on 4e.ruar&
1;, 1991 the Regional Trial Court granted 6aguesun Corporation@s application for
44
registration />and Registration Case +o. T*);7;0 in a three)page decision ith the
folloing dispositive portion: 4
GICARA4:RA, this Court gives i-pri-atur to the application for registration
of said lands descri.ed in plan $s)(4)(((1(2, >ot +os. 7';1 and 7';9, one
ith an area of ;,541 and the other ith an area of 1(,574 s?uare -eters,
as supported and shon .& the corresponding technical descriptions no
for-ing part of the records, in the na-e of 6aguesun 6anage-ent and
#evelop-ent Corporation, ith o,ce address at 5'1 Adsa, Bue9on Cit&,
free fro- all liens and encu-.rances and fro- an& other adverse clai-s of
an& kind and nature.
=pon <nalit& of this #ecision, the sa-e ipso facto .eco-es e"ecutor&, upon
hich eventualit& the corresponding decree of registration -a& thus .e
issued.
!: :R#ARA#.G
Conse?uentl&, the Regional Trial Court issued the :rder for 7ssuance of the #ecree on
6arch 14, 1991, after the afore)-entioned #ecision in >RC +o. T*);7; .eca-e <nal 5.ut
not .efore it ordered, on 4e.ruar& 14, 1991, >and Registration Case +o. 5(( /*>R:
Record +o. 55(7'0 applied for .& 6anuel $ Ro"as and Trinidad de >eon, dis-issed.
7t as onl& hen the caretaker of the propert& as .eing asked to vacate the land that
petitioner Trinidad de >eon Dda. de Ro"as learned of its sale and the registration of the
lots in 6aguesun Corporation@s na-e.
Cence, on $pril '1, 1991, petitioner <led a petition for revie .efore the Regional Trial
Court, docketed as Civil Case +o. T*)112; to set aside the decree of registration on the
ground that 6aguesun Corporation co--itted actual fraud. !he alleged that the lots
ere a-ong the properties she inherited fro- her hus.and, for-er President 6anuel $.
Ro"as, ho died on $pril 15, 1945 and that her fa-il& had .een in open, continuous,
adverse and uninterrupted possession of the su.8ect propert& in the concept of oner for
-ore than thirt& &ears .efore the& applied for its registration under the Torrens !&ste-
of land titling. Petitioner further denied that she sold the lots to Qenaida 6elli9a ho-
she had never -et .efore and that her signature as forged in .oth the #eed of !ale
and the $,davit of !elf)$d8udication. 7n support of her clai-s, she also listed a nu-.er
of irregularities in the docu-ents to prove actual fraud. 7n addition, and perhaps -ore
signi<cantl&, she clai-ed that 6aguesun Corporation intentionall& o-itted her na-e as
an adverse clai-ant, occupant or ad8oining oner in the application for registration
su.-itted to the >and Registration $uthorit& such that the latter could not send her a
+otice of 7nitial Cearing. $s result, an order of general default as issued and 6aguesun
Corporation@s application for registration as granted. !he charged 6aguesun
Corporation ith knoledge or authorship of the fraud oing to the fact that 6aguesun
Corporation@s president, .anolita 3uevarra ,unta after ho- the corporation as
45
na-ed, as her niece. 6anolita !unta& is the daughter of >ourdes *uevarra !unta&, a
deceased cousin of petitioner Dda. de Ro"as ho used to help ith the latter@s .usiness
aHairs. 6anolita !unta& used to take care of the registration and insurance of the latter@s
cars. 6

The sole issue of the case, as laid don .& the trial court after the pre)trial, as hether
or not Dda. de Ro"as@ signatures on the #eed of $.solute !ale and the $,davit of !elf)
$d8udication in favor of Qenaida 6elli9a ere forged. 7 Petitioner, ho as then alread&
9' &ears of age, testi<ed in open court on 4e.ruar& 11, 199' that she has never -et
Qenaida 6elli9a, that she did not sell the su.8ect lots and that her signatures on the
#eed of !ale and $,davit of !elf)$d8udication ere forged. 8 $ docu-ent e"a-iner fro-
the Philippine +ational Police /P+P0 concluded that there as no forger&. =pon
petitioner@s -otion, the signatures ere re)e"a-ined .& another e"pert fro- the
+ational 1ureau of 7nvestigation. The latter testi<ed that the signatures on the
?uestioned and sa-ple docu-ents ere not ritten .& the sa-e person. 1! #espite the
foregoing testi-onies and pronounce-ents, the trial court dis-issed the petition for
revie of decree of registration on $pril 15, 199'. 11 Placing greater eight on the
<ndings and testi-on& of the P+P docu-ent e"a-iner, it concluded that the ?uestioned
docu-ents ere not forged and if the& ere, it as Qenaida 6elli9a, and not 6aguesun
Corporation, ho as responsi.le. $ccordingl&, 6aguesun Corporation did not co--it
actual fraud. The court further noted that petitioner 6rs. Trinidad Ro"as had not .een
pa&ing ta"es for several &ears, hich fact Ge"hi.ited hat appeared to .e un-istaka.le
signs of not actuall& oning /the lots0 an& -ore,G and that her application for registration
as Gpreviousl& dis-issed and a.andoned,G thus indicating that Gpetitioner herself is
aare that she had alread& lost . . . interest, if not actuall& her rights, over the propert&
in ?uestion.G 12
7n a decision dated #ece-.er 2, 1994, 13 respondent court denied the petition for
revie and a,r-ed the <ndings of the trial court. The Court of $ppeals held that
petitioner failed to de-onstrate that there as actual or e"trinsic fraud, not -erel&
constructive or intrinsic fraud, a prere?uisite for purposes of annulling a 8udg-ent or
revieing a decree of registration. $dditionall&, respondent court stated that the
discrepancies or irregularities in the #eed of !ale and $,davit of !elf)$d8udication
pointed out .& petitioner are not patent or o.vious, involve -atters that are too trivial,
re?uiring knoledge of the intricacies of the la and are Gnot necessaril& and e"clusivel&
indicia of e"trinsic fraud andKor .ad faith E especiall& hen considered in the light of
circu-stances hereinafter discussed.G The records also sho, according to the appellate
court, that 6aguesun Corporation had not concealed fro- the court either the e"istence
of petitioner or an& interest she -a& have had in the registration proceedings. 4inall&,
the Court of $ppeals ruled that pu.lication of the initial hearing in the :,cial *a9ette is
su,cient to confer 8urisdiction upon the court. 14
45
Cence, the instant petition for revie here it is alleged that the Court of $ppeals erred
in ruling that 6aguesun Corporation did not co--it actual fraud arranting the setting
aside of the registration decree and in resolving the appeal on the .asis of 6aguesun
Corporation@s good faith. Petitioners pra& that the registration of the su.8ect lots in the
na-e of 6aguesun Corporation .e cancelled, that said propert& .e ad8udicated in favor
of petitioners and that respondent corporation pa& -oral da-ages not less than
P1((,(((.((, e"e-plar& da-ages not less than P;5,(((.(( and attorne&@s fees of
P5(,(((.((.
Ie <nd the petition for revie i-pressed ith -erit.
1.Registration of untitled land under the Torrens !&ste- is done pursuant to Presidential
#ecree +o. 15'9, the Propert& Registration #ecree hich a-ended and codi<ed las
relative to registration of propert&. 15 $d8udication of land in a registration /or cadastral0
case does not .eco-e <nal and incontroverti.le until the e"piration of one &ear after the
entr& of the <nal decree. 1efore such ti-e, the decision re-ains under the control and
sound discretion of the court rendering the decree, hich court after hearing, -a& set
aside the decision or decree and ad8udicate the land to another part&. 16 $.sence,
-inorit& or other disa.ilit& of an& person aHected, or an& proceeding in court for
reversing 8udg-ents, are not considered grounds to reopen or revise said decree.
Coever, the right of a person deprived of land or of an& estate or interest therein .&
ad8udication or con<r-ation of title o.tained .& actual fraud is recogni9ed .& la
/!ection ;' of Presidential #ecree +o. 15'90 as a valid and legal .asis for reopening and
revising a decree of registration. 17 7t is further re?uired that a petition for reopening
and revie of the decree of registration .e <led ithin one &ear fro- the date of entr& of
said decree, that the petitioner has a real and do-inical right and the propert& has not
&et .een transferred to an innocent purchaser. 18
4raud is of to kinds: actual or constructive. $ctual or positive fraud proceeds fro- an
intentional deception practiced .& -eans of the -isrepresentation or conceal-ent of a
-aterial fact. 1 Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud .ecause of its detri-ental
eHect upon pu.lic interests and pu.lic or private con<dence, even though the act is not
done or co--itted ith an actual design to co--it positive fraud or in8ur& upon other
persons. 2!
4raud -a& also .e either e"trinsic or intrinsic. 4raud is regarded as intrinsic here the
fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved in the original action, or here the acts
constituting the fraud ere or could have .een litigated therein, and is regarded as
e"trinsic here it prevents a part& fro- having a trial or fro- presenting his entire case
to the court, or here it operates upon -atters pertaining not to the 8udg-ent itself .ut
to the -anner in hich it is procured, so that there is not a fair su.-ission of the
controvers&. 21 A"trinsic fraud is also actual fraud, .ut collateral to the transaction sued
upon. 22
47
The distinctions are signi<cant .ecause onl& actual fraud or e"trinsic fraud has .een
accepted as grounds for a 8udg-ent to .e annulled or, as in this case, a decree of
registration reopened and revieed. 23 7n the oft)cited .acabin%5il v. People?s 'omesite
and 'ousin% Corporation case, the Court dre fro- $-erican 8urisprudence stating that
Grelief has .een granted on the ground that, .& so-e fraud practiced directl& upon the
part& seeking relief against the 8udg-ent or decree, /and0 that part& has .een prevented
fro- presenting all of his case to the court.G 24 The GfraudG conte-plated .& the la in
this case /!ection ;', P.#. +o. 15'90 is actual and e"trinsic, hich includes, an
intentional o-ission of fact re?uired .& la. 25 4or fraud to 8ustif& a revie of a decree, it
-ust .e e"trinsic or collateral, and the facts upon hich it is .ased have not .een
controverted or resolved in the case here the 8udg-ent sought to .e annulled as
rendered. 26 Persons ho ere fraudulentl& deprived of their opportunit& to .e heard in
the original registration case are entitled to a revie of a decree of registration.
7n Ramire( v. CA, 27 this Court adopted the Court of $ppeals@ ruling that the suppression
of the fact that the applicant spouses possessed the su.8ect rice<eld -erel& as
antichretic creditors and the fraudulent conceal-ent and -isrepresentation in the
application that no other persons had an& clai- or interest in the said land, constitute
speci<c allegations of e"trinsic fraud supported .& co-petent proof. 4ailure and
intentional o-ission of the applicants to disclose the fact of actual ph&sical possession
.& another person constitutes an allegation of actual fraud. 28 >ikeise, it is fraud to
knoingl& o-it or conceal a fact, upon hich .ene<t is o.tained to the pre8udice of a
third person. 2
The Court here <nds that respondent 6aguesun Corporation co--itted actual fraud in
o.taining the decree of registration sought to .e revieed .& petitioner.
Petitioner Dda. de Ro"as contended that 6aguesun Corporation intentionall& o-itted
their na-e, or that of the Ro"as fa-il&, as having a clai- to or as an occupant of the
su.8ect propert&. 7n the corporation@s application for registration <led ith the trial court
in >RC +o. T*);7;, the folloing declaration appears:
G5.That the na-es in full and addresses, as far as knon to the
undersigned, of the oners of all ad8oining propertiesF of the persons
-entioned in paragraphs ; and 5 /-ortgagors, encu-.rancers, and
occupants0 and of the person shon on the plan as clai-ants are as
follos:
Cilario >una, %ose *il, >eon >una, Provincial Road
all at *a%ata Cit $no house )o.&G 3!
The highlighted ords are t&ped in ith a diHerent t&periter, ith the <rst <ve
letters of the ord GprovincialG t&ped over correction Luid. 6agesun Corporation,
hoever, anne"ed a diHerentl&)orded application for the petition to revie case
/Civil Case +o. T*)112;, GTrinidad de >eon Dda. de Ro"as v. 6aguesun 6anage-ent
42
and #evelop-ent Corporation, et al.G0. 7n the cop& su.-itted to the trial court, the
anser to the sa-e nu-.er is as follos:
Cilario >una, %ose *il, >eon >una, Ro"as 31
The discrepanc& hich is une"plained appears intentional. 7f the ord GRo"asG ere
indeed erased and replaced ith GProvincial Road all at Taga&ta& Cit& /no house +o.0G
in the original application su.-itted in >RC +o. T*);7; .ut the cop& ith the ord
GRo"asG as su.-itted to the trial court in Civil Case +o. T*)112;, it is reasona.le to
assu-e that the reason is to -islead the court into thinking that GRo"asG as placed
in the original application as an ad8oining oner, encu-.rancer, occupant or
clai-ant, the sa-e application hich for-ed the .asis for the >and Registration
$uthorit& in sending out notices of initial hearing. !ection 15 of Presidential #ecree +o
15'9 also re?uires the applicant for registration to state the full na-es and addresses
of all occupants of the land and those of ad8oining oners, if knon and if not knon,
the e"tent of the search -ade to <nd the-. Respondent corporation likeise failed to
co-pl& ith this re?uire-ent of la. cdasia

The truth is that the Ro"as fa-il& had .een in possession of the propert& uninterruptedl&
through their caretaker, %ose Ra-ire9. 32 Respondent 6aguesun Corporation also
declared in nu-.er 5 of the sa-e application that the su.8ect land as unoccupied hen
in truth and in fact, the Ro"as fa-il& caretaker resided in the su.8ect propert&.
Respondent corporation is likeise charged ith the knoledge of such possession and
occupanc&, for its President, ho signed the #eed of !ale over the propert&, kne full&
ell that her grandaunt Trinidad de >eon vda. de Ro"as oned the propert&. 7t is
reasona.le to e"pect her as a .u&er to have inspected the propert& prior to the sale such
that the ascertain-ent of the current possessors or occupants could have .een -ade
facilel&. Respondent corporation@s intentional conceal-ent and representation of
petitioner@s interest in the su.8ect lots as possessor, occupant and clai-ant constitutes
actual fraud 8ustif&ing the reopening and revie of the decree of registration. Through
such -isfeasance, the Ro"as fa-il& as kept ignorant of the registration proceedings
involving their propert&, thus eHectivel& depriving the- of their da& in court.
'.Respondent Court of $ppeals held that 6aguesun Corporation had not concealed fro-
the court either the e"istence of Trinidad de >eon Dda. de Ro"as or an& interest she -a&
have in the registration proceedings for the records are replete ith references .&
6aguesun Corporation itself to petitioner. 33 6ention of the late President@s na-e as
ell as that of petitioner as -ade principall& in the 4or-al :Her of A"hi.its for
respondent corporation, in a Cop& of Plan of >ots 7';1 and 7';9, ta" declarations and as
predecessor)in)interest. Coever, this is not su,cient co-pliance ith hat the la
re?uires to .e stated in the application for registration. #isclosure of petitioner@s adverse
interest, occupation and possession should .e -ade at the appropriate ti-e, i.e., at the
ti-e of the application for registration, otherise, the persons concerned ill not .e sent
49
notices of the initial hearing and ill, therefore, -iss the opportunit& to present their
opposition or clai-s.
;.Pu.lication of the +otice of 7nitial Cearing as -ade in the :,cial *a9ette and in the
Record +eseekl&, ad-ittedl& not a nespaper of general circulation. The Court of
$ppeals held that pursuant to !ection '; of Presidential #ecree +o. 15'9, pu.lication in
the :,cial *a9ette is su,cient to confer 8urisdiction. !aid provision of la e"pressl&
states that Gthe Co--issioner of >and Registration shall cause a notice of initial hearin%
to be published once in the -2cial 3a(ette and once in a newspaper of %eneral
circulation in the Philippines. Provided, hoever, that the pu.lication in the :,cial
*a9ette shall .e su,cient to confer 8urisdiction upon the court. . . .G
Ihile pu.lication of the notice in the :,cial *a9ette is su,cient to confer 8urisdiction
upon the court, pu.lication in a nespaper of general circulation re-ains an
indispensa.le procedural re?uire-ent. Couched in -andator& ter-s, it is a co-ponent of
procedural due process and ai-ed at giving Gas ide pu.licit& as possi.leG so that all
persons having an adverse)interest in the land su.8ect of the registration proceedings
-a& .e noti<ed thereof. 34 $lthough 8urisdiction of the court is not aHected, the fact that
pu.lication as not -ade in a nespaper of general circulation is -aterial and relevant
in assessing the applicant@s right or title to the land.
4.The allegations of forger& and the discrepancies in the docu-entar&, as ell as in the
testi-onial evidence regarding this issue hich are all crucial to this case, co-pelled the
Court to undertake a careful revie of the facts of the case. 35 $ close scrutin& of the
evidence on record leads the Court to the irresisti.le conclusion that forger& as indeed
attendant in the case at .ar. $lthough there is no proof of respondent 6aguesun
Corporation@s direct participation in the e"ecution and preparation of the forged
instru-ents, there are su,cient indicia hich proves that 6aguesun Corporation is not
the Ginnocent purchaser for valueG ho -erits the protection of the la.
7n response to the ?uestions <elded .& the trial counsel and .& counsel for petitioner,
P+P #ocu-ent A"a-iner Qacarias !e-acio sought to e"plain all the diHerences pointed
out in the ?uestioned signatures and in the sa-ple signatures as having .een caused
-erel& .& Gnatural variation.G 36 Ce concluded that the ?uestioned signatures ere not
forged. 7n contrast, Chief of the Buestioned #ocu-ents #ivision of the +ational 1ureau of
7nvestigation, $rcadio Ra-os testi<ed ith -ore speci<cit& as .e<ts an e"pert that the
?uestioned and sa-ple signatures ere not ritten .& one and the sa-e person
.ecause of G/t0he -anner of e"ecution of strokesF the personali9ed proportional
characteristics of lettersF the linkingKconnecting .eteen lettersF the structural pattern of
letters and other -inute details . . ..G 37 6oreover, petitioner Trinidad de >eon vda. de
Ro"as categoricall& declared that she has never -et Qenaida 6elli9a and did not sell the
su.8ect propert&. 38 Petitioner, then over ninet& &ears old, has no -otive to attest to a
falsehood. Petitioner and her fa-il& also on several other pieces of propert&, so-e of
hich are leased out as restaurants, e.g. >eo@s Restaurant and 6a 6on >uk
5(
Restaurant. 3 This is an indication that petitioner is not unaare of the value of her
properties. Cence, it is unlikel& that she ould sell over thirteen thousand s?uare -eters
of pri-e propert& in Taga&ta& Cit& to a stranger for a -easl& P'((,(((.((. 4inall&, even
to a la&-an@s e&e, the docu-ents, as ell as the enlarged photographic e"hi.it of the
signatures, reveal forger&. The ?uestioned signatures taken fro- the #eed of !ale and
$,davit of !elf)$d8udication are starkl& diHerent fro- the sa-ple signatures in several
docu-ents e"ecuted .& petitioner. The ?uestioned signatures are s-ooth and rounded,
and have none of the 8agged and shak& character of petitioner@s signatures,
characteristic of the pen-anship of elderl& persons.
There are also added considerations reLective of the du.ious character of the $,davit of
!elf)$d8udication purportedl& e"ecuted .& petitioner. 4! 7n it she declares that she is a
resident of '' 2th !treet, +e 6anila, Bue9on Cit&, hen she actuall& lives in ' Park
Road, +orth 4or.es Park, 6akati. !he also states that she is the Gsole heir of the late
6anuel De Ro!as ho died so-eti-e on the &ear 1944 at 6anila.G Petitioner@s hus.and
is President 6anuel $. Ro"as and she refers to herself as Trinidad de >eon vda. de Ro!as.
President Ro"as as survived .& petitioner and their to children, 6a. Rosario Ro"as and
*erardo Ro"as /ho predeceased petitioner0. The fact that petitioner as not the sole
heir as knon to the general pu.lic, as ell as the de-ise of the late President on $pril
15, 1945 hile delivering a speech at Clark 4ield, Pa-panga. The afore-entioned
irregularities are too glaring to have .een ignored. 7f petitioner did in fact e"ecute said
$,davit, there is no reason h& she should state facts other than the unadulterated
truth concerning herself and her fa-il&.
$dditionall&, Qenaida 6elli9a@s non)appearance raises dou.t as to her e"istence. Cer
given address as 6atina, #avao Cit&. Co as she related to petitioner and hat led
her to purchase the su.8ect propert&J Respondent corporation could ver& ell have
presented her to prove the legiti-ac& of their transaction. 7f petitioner ere selling said
propert&, ould she not have oHered the- <rst to interested relatives such as 6anolita
*. !unta&J Iould an ordinar& person sell -ore than thirteen thousand s?uare -eters of
pri-e propert& for P17(,(((.(( hen it as earlier purchased for P'((,(((.((J These
?uestions highlight several i-plausi.ilities in the alleged sale of the su.8ect propert& .&
herein petitioner. $s 6aguesun Corporation@s President ho is related to petitioner,
6anolita *. !unta& should have veri<ed the sale of the su.8ect propert& .& Qenaida
6elli9a. 6anolita *. !unta&@s closeness to petitioner Dda. de Ro"as, as one ho even
registered the latter@s car, suggests ac?uaintance ith the late petitioner@s properties as
ell as the possi.ilit& that she took advantage of such knoledge.
4ro- the foregoing, it is ?uite clear that respondent corporation cannot tack its
possession to that of petitioner as predecessor)in)interest. Qenaida 6elli9a conve&ed no
title over the su.8ect parcels of land to 6aguesun Corporation as she as not the oner
thereof. 41 6aguesun Corporation is thus not entitled to the registration decree hich
the trial court granted in its decision. Palpa.l&, petitioner has not .een interrupted in her
51
-ore than thirt& &ears of open, uninterrupted, e"clusive and notorious possession in the
concept of an oner over the su.8ect lots .& the irregular transaction to Qenaida 6elli9a.
!he therefore retains title proper and su,cient for original registration over the to
parcels of land in ?uestion pursuant to !ection 14 of Presidential #ecree +o. 15'9. 42
ICARA4:RA, the instant petition is here.& *R$+TA#. The #ecision of the Court of
$ppeals in C.$. *.R. CD +o. ;2;'2 /GTrinidad de >eon Dda. de Ro"as v. 6aguesun
6anage-ent T #evelop-ent Corporation, et al.G0 pro-ulgated on #ece-.er 2, 1994 is
here.& RADAR!A# $+# !AT $!7#A. $ccordingl&, registration of title over the su.8ect
parcels of land, descri.ed in Plan $!)(4)(((1(2, >ot +os. 7';1 and 7';9, ith an area of
;,451 and 1(,574 s?uare -eters, respectivel&, as shon and supported .& the
corresponding technical descriptions no for-ing part of the Records of >RC +o. T*);7;,
is aarded to herein petitioner Trinidad de >eon vda. de Ro"as and her heirs, herein
su.stituted as petitioners. =pon <nalit& of this #ecision, the >and Registration $uthorit&
is here.& directed to 7!!=A ith reasona.le dispatch the corresponding decree of
registration and certi<cate of title pursuant to !ection ;9 of Presidential #ecree +o.
15'9.
!: :R#ARA#.
5'