Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Morada
ISSUE:
Page | 1
Whether Meralco as a juridical person is allowed under the law to hold lands
of public domain and apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
RULING:
The Public Land Law provides:
SEC. 49. No person claiming title to lands of the public domain not in
possession of the qualifications specified in the last preceding section may
apply for the benefits of this chapter.
The court held that, as between the State and the Meralco, the said land
is still public land. It would cease to be public land only upon the issuance of
the certificate of title to any Filipino citizen claiming it under section 48(b).
Because it is still public land and the Meralco, as a juridical person, is
Page | 2
disqualified to apply for its registration under section 48(b), Meralco's
application cannot be given due course or has to be dismissed.
Page | 3
G.R. No. L-49623 June 29, 1982
Vs.
Respondent –appellees
Dissent:
1. This issue has been squarely resolved by this Court since the 1925
case of Susi vs. Razon (and a long line of cases, infra). It is
established doctrine as first held therein that an open, continuous,
adverse and public possession of a land of the public domain for the
period provided in the Public Land Act provision in force at the time
(from July 26, 1894 in Susi under the old law) by a private individual
personally and through his predecessors confers an effective title on
said possessor, whereby the land ceases to be land of the public
domain and becomes private property.
In Manarpaac vs. Cabanatan, 9 the Court quoted with favor the text of
the above-quoted ruling of Susi, and its ratio decidendi thus: The Director
of Lands contends that the land in question being of the public domain, the
plaintiff-appellee cannot maintain an action to recover possession thereof.
If, as above stated, that land, the possession of which is in dispute, had
already become, operation of law, private property, there is lacking only
the judicial sanction of his title, Valentin Susi has the right to bring an
action to recover the possession thereof and hold it.
Page | 6
talking about small parcels of land. The two corporations in truth
and in fact do not hold the small parcels of land at bar for their own
use or benefit but for the sole use and benefit of the public.
9. "As interpretated in several cases . . . the possessor is deemed to
have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, a government
grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. The
and, therefore, ceases to be of the public domain, and beyond the
authority of the Director of Lands to dispose of. The application for
confirmation is a mere formality, the lack of which does not affect
the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the patent
and the Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said patent."
This argument only points out that, the express provisions of Art. XIV, section
9 15 and section 14 as well as the counterpart provisions of the 1935
Constitution have always expressly permitted Filipino-owned corporations to
own private lands, and the only change effected in the 1973 Constitution is
section 11 which now prohibits even such Filipino corporations to own or hold
lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed 1,000 hectares in
area.
Page | 7