6. Ramos v. Dir. of Lands

7/25/2019 6. Ramos v. Dir. of Lands

1/11

Copyright 1994-2015 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2014 1

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 13298. November 19, 1918.]

CORNELIO RAMOS, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF

LANDS,objector-appellee.

Basilio Aromin,for appellant.

Solicitor-General Paredes,for appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. PROPERTY; LAND; POSSESSION. Actual possession of land

consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party

would naturally exercise over his own property.

2. ID.; ID.; CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION. The possession and

cultivation of a portion of a tract of land, under claim of ownership of all, is aconstructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the adverse possession of

another.

3. ID.; ID.; ID. One who has color of title, has acted in good faith, and

has had open, peaceable, and notorious possession of a portion of the property

sufficient to apprise the community an the world that the land was for his enjoyment,

Held; To be entitled to a title to the entire tract of land for which he asks registration.

4. ID.; CLASSES. The Philippine Bill in Sections 13 to 18 recognizes

three classes of land. The first is " Public Land," the second is "Mineral Land" and thethird is "Timber Land."

5. ID.; "AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC LAND;" DEFINED. The phrase

"agricultural public lands acquired from Spain which are not timber or mineral lands."

(Mapa vs. Insular Government [1908], Phil., 175.) The idea would appear to be to

determine, by exclusion, if the land is forestal or mineral in nature, and if not so found


2/11


to consider it to be agricultural land.

6. ID.; "FOREST," DEFINED BY LEXICOGRAPHIES. Lexicographers

define "forest" as "a large tract of land covered with a natural a growth of trees and

underbrush; a large wood.

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; BY LEGAL AUTHORITIES. The authorities say that the

word "forest" has a significant, not an insignificant meaning and that it does not

embrace land only partly woodland. It is a tract of land covered with trees, usually of

considerable extent.

8. ID.; ID.; ID.; BY FORESTERS. The foresters say that no legal

definition of "forest" is practicable or useful.

9. ID.; ID.; POLICY OF BUREAU OF FORESTRY. The policy of the

Bureau of Forestry of the Philippine Islands is set out in the opinion.

10 ID.; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES. There should

be conservation of the natural resources of the Philippines. The idea should be "the

control of nature's powers by man for his own good."

11. ID.; PUBLIC POLICY. On the other hand, the presumption should be,

in lieu of contrary proof, that land is agricultural in nature. One very apparent reason

is that it is for the good of the Philippine Islands to have the large public domain come

under private ownership.

12. ID.; REMEDIES OF GOVERNMENT AS AGAINST PRIVATE

CLAIMANTS. When the claim of the citizen and the claim of the Government as

to a particular piece of property collide, if the Government desires to demonstrate that

the land is in reality a forest, the Director of Forestry should submit to the court

convincing proof that the land is not more valuable for agricultural than for forest

purposes. Great consideration, it may be stated, should and undoubtedly will be, paid

by the courts to the opinion of the technical expert who speaks with authority on

forestry matters.

D E C I S I O N


3/11


MALCOLM,J p:

This is an appeal by the applicant and appellant from a Judgment of the Court

of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, denying the registration of the larger portion ofparcel No. 1 (Exhibit A of the petitioner), marked by the letters A, B, and C on the

plan, Exhibit 1, of the Government.

One Restituto Romero y Ponce apparently gained possession of a considerable

tract of land located in the municipality of San Jose, Province of Nueva Ecija, in the

year 1882. He took advantage of the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, to obtain a

possessory information title to the land, registered as such on February 8, 1896. Parcel

No. 1, included within the limits of the possessory information title of Restituto

Romero, was sold in February, 1907, to Cornelio Ramos, the instant petitioner, and

his wife Ambrosia Salamanca.

Ramos instituted appropriate proceedings to have his title registered.

Opposition was entered by the Director of Lands on the ground that Ramos had not

acquired a good title from the Spanish government and by the Director of Forestry on

the ground that the first parcel was forest land. The trial court agreed with the

objectors and excluded parcel No. 1 from registration. So much for the facts.

As to the law, the principal argument of the Solicitor-General is based on the

provisions of the Spanish Mortgage Law and of the Royal Decree of February 13,

1894, commonly known as the Maura Law. The Solicitor-General would emphasizethat for land to come under the protective aegis of the Maura Law, it must have been

shown that the land was cultivated for six years previously, and that it was not land

which pertained to the "zonas forestales." As proof that the land was, even as long ago

as the years 1894 to 1896, forestal and not agricultural in nature is the fact that there

are yet found thereon trees from 50 to 80 years of age.

We do not stop to decide this contention, although it might be possible,

following the doctrine laid down by the United States Supreme Court with reference

to Mexican and Spanish grants within the United States, where some recital is claimed

to be false, to say that the possessory information, apparently having taken cognizanceof the requisites for title, should not now be disturbed. (Hancock vs. McKinney

[1851], 7 Tex., 192; Hornsby and Roland vs. United States [1869], 10 Wall., 224.) It

is sufficient, as will later appear, merely to notice that the predecessor in interest to

the petitioner at least held this tract of land under color of title.

Subsection 6 of Section 54, of Act No. 926, entitled The Public Land Law, as


4/11


amended by Act No. 1908, reads as follows:

"6. All persons who by themselves or their predecessors in interest

have been in the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and

occupation of agricultural public lands, as defined by said Act of Congress ofJuly first, nineteen hundred and two, under a bona fide claim of ownership

except as against the Government, for a period of ten years next preceding the

twenty-sixth day of July, nineteen hundred and four, except when prevented by

war or force majeure, shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the

conditions essential to a government grant and to have received the same, and

shall be entitled to a certificate of title to such land under the provisions of this

chapter."

There are two parts to the above quoted subsection which must be discussed.

The first relates to the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and

occupation of what, for present purposes, can be conceded to be agricultural publicland, under a bona fide claim of ownership.

Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion

over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his own property.

Relative to actuality of possession, it is admitted that the petitioner has cultivated only

about one fourth of the entire tract. This is graphically portrayed by Exhibit 1 of the

Government, following:


5/11


Sketch of Private land claimed by Cornelio Ramos showing the general

characteristics of the ground cover. Scale, 1-5,000 Inspected March 21 & 22. 1917 he

question at once arises: Is the actual occupancy of a part of the land described in the

instrument giving color of title sufficient to give title to the entire tract of land?

The doctrine of constructive possession indicates the answer. The general rule

is that the possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract under claim of ownership

of all is a constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the adverse

possession of another. (Barr vs. Gratz's Heirs [1819], 4 Wheat., 213; Ellicott vs. Pearl

[1836], 10 Pet., 412; Smith vs. Gale [1892], 144 U.S., 509.) Of course, there are a

number of qualifications to the rule, one particularly relating to the size of the tract in

controversy with reference to the portion actually in possession of the claimant. It is

here only necessary to apply the general rule.

The claimant has color of title; he acted in good faith; and he has had open,

peaceable, and notorious possession of a portion of the property, sufficient to apprise

the community and the world that the land was for his enjoyment. (See Arts. 446, 448,

Civil Code.) Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have

his feet on every square meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession.


6/11


Ramos and his predecessor in interest fulfilled the requirements of the law on the

supposition that the premises consisted of agricultural public land.

The second division of the law requires consideration of the term "agricultural

public land." The law affirms that the phrase is defined by the Act of Congress of July1st, 1902, known as the Philippine Bill. Turning to the Philippine Bill, we find in

Sections 13 to 18 thereof that three classes of land are mentioned. The first is

variously denominated "public land" or "public domain," the second "mineral land,"

and the third "timber land." Section 18 of the Act of Congress comes nearest to a

precise definition, when it makes the determination of whether the land is more

valuable for agricultural or for forest uses the test of its character.

Although these sections of the Philippine Bill have come before the courts on

numerous occasions, what was said In the case of Jones vs. Insular Government

([1906], 6 Phil., 122), is still true, namely: "The meaning of these sections is not clearand it is difficult to give to them a construction that will be entirely free from

objection. In the case which gave most serious consideration to the subject (Mapa vs.

Insular Government [1908], 10 Phil., 1753, it was found that there does exist in the

Act of Congress a definition of the phrase "agricultural public lands." It was said that

the phrase "agricultural public lands" as used in Act No. 926 means "those public

lands acquired from Spain which are not timber or mineral lands."

The idea would appear to be to determine, by exclusion, if the land is forestal

or mineral in nature and, if not so found, to consider it to be agricultural land. Here,

again, Philippine law is not very helpful. For instance Section 1820 of theAdministrative Code of 1917 provides: "For the purposes of this chapter, 'public

forest' includes, except as otherwise specially indicated, all unreserved public land,

including nipa and mangrove swamps, and all forest reserves of whatever character."

This definition of "Public forest," it will be noted, is merely "for the purposes of this

chapter." A little further on, Section 1827 provides: "Lands in public forests, not

including forest reserves, upon the certification of the Director of Forestry that said

lands are better adapted and more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes

and not required by the public interests to be kept under forest, shall be declared by

the Department Head to be agricultural lands." With reference to the last section, thereis no certification of the Director of Forestry in the record, as to whether this land is

better adapted and more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes.

The lexicographers define "forest" as "a large tract of land covered with a

natural growth of trees and underbrush; a large wood." The authorities say that the

word "forest" has a significant, not an insignificant meaning, and that it does not


7/11


embrace land only partly woodland. It is a tract of land covered with trees, usually of

consider able extent. (Higgins vs. Long Island R. Co. [1908], 114 N.Y. Supp., 262;

People vs. Long Island R. Co. [1908], 110 Supp., 512.)

The foresters say that no legal definition of "forest" is practicable or useful.B.H. Baden-Powell, in his work on Forest Law of India, states as follows:

"Every definition of a forest that can be framed for legal purposes will be

found either to exclude some cases to which the law ought to apply, or on the

other hand, to include some with which the law ought not to interfere. It may be

necessary, for example, to take under the law a tract of perfectly barren land

which at present has neither trees brushwood, nor grass on it, but which in the

course of time it is hoped will be 'reboise;' but any definition wide enough to

take in all such lands, would also take in much that was not wanted. On the

other hand, the definition, if framed with reference to tree-growth, might (and

indeed would be almost sure to) include a garden, shrubbery orchard, or

vineyard, which it was not designed to deal with."

B. E. Fernow, in his work on the Economics of Forestry states as follows:

"A forest in the sense in which we use the term, as an economic factor, is

by no means a mere collection of trees but an organic whole in which all parts,

although apparently heterogeneous, jumbled together by accident as it were and

apparently unrelated, bear a close relation to each other and are as

interdependent as any other beings and conditions in nature."

The Director of Forestry of the Philippine Islands has said:

"During the time of the passage of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902,

this question of forest and agricultural lands was beginning to receive some

attention and it is clearly shown in Section 18 of the above mentioned Act it

leaves to the Bureau of Forestry the certification as to what lands are for

agricultural or forest uses. Although the Act states timber lands, the Bureau has

in its administration since the passage of this act construed this term to mean

forest lands in the sense of what was necessary to protect, for the public good;

waste lands without a tree have been declared more suitable for forestry in many

instances in the past. The term 'timber' as used in England and in the UnitedStates in the past has been applied to wood suitable for construction purposes

but with the increase in civilization and the application of new methods every

plant producing wood has some useful purpose and the term timber lands is

generally thought of as synonymous with forest lands or lands producing wood,

or able to produce wood, if agricultural crops on the same land will not bring the

financial return that timber will or if the same land is needed for protection


8/11


purposes.

xxx xxx xxx

"The laws in the United States recognize the necessity of technical

advice of duly appointed boards and leave it in the hands of these boards to

decide what lands are more valuable for forestry purposes or for agricultural

purposes.

"In the Philippine Islands this policy is followed to as great an extent as

allowable under the law. In many cases, in the opinion of the Bureau of

Forestry, lands without a single tree on them are considered as true forest land.

For instance, mountain sides which are too steep for cultivation under ordinary

practice and which, if cultivated, under ordinary practice would destroy the big

natural resource of the soil, by washing, is considered by this Bureau as forest

land and in time would be reforested. Ofcourse, examples exist in the MountainProvince where steep hillsides have been terraced and intensive cultivation

practiced but even then the mountain people are very careful not to destroy

forests or other vegetative cover which they from experience have found protect

their water supply. Certain chiefs have lodged protests with the Government

against other tribes on the opposite side of the mountain cultivated by them, in

order to prevent other tribes from cutting timber or destroy cover guarding their

source of water for irrigation.

"Dr. M.S. Shaler, formerly Dean of the Lawrence Scientific School,

remarked that if mankind could not devise and enforce ways dealing with the

earth, which will preserve this source of life 'we must look forward to the timeremote it may be, yet equally discernible, when our kin having wasted its great

inheritance will fade from the earth because of the ruin it has accomplished.'

"The method employed by the Bureau of Forestry in making inspection

of lands, in order to determine whether they are more adapted for agricultural or

forest purposes by a technical and duly trained personnel on the different phases

of the conservation of natural resources, is based upon a previously prepared set

of questions in which the different characters of the land under inspection are

discussed, namely:

"Slope of land: Level; moderate; steep; very steep.

"Exposure: North; South; East; West.

"Soil: Clay; sandy loam; sand; rocky; very rocky.

"Character of soil cover: Cultivated, grass land, brush land, brush land


9/11


and timber mixed, dense forest.

"If cultivated, state crops being grown and approximate number of

hectares under cultivation. (Indicate on sketch.)

"For growth of what agricultural products is this land suitable ?

"State what portion of the tract is wooded, name of important timber

species and estimate of stand in cubic meters per hectare, diameter and

percentage of each species.

"If the land is covered with timber, state whether there is public land

suitable for agriculture in vicinity, which is not covered with timber.

"Is this land more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes?

(State reasons in full.)

"Is this land included or adjoining any proposed or established forest

reserve or communal forest? Description and ownership of improvements.

"If the land is claimed under private ownership, give the name of the

claimant, his place of residence, and state briefly (if necessary on a separate

sheet) the grounds upon which he bases his claim.

"When the inspection is made on a parcel of public land which has been

applied for, the corresponding certificate is forwarded to the Director of Lands;

if it is made on a privately claimed parcel for which the issuance of a title is

requested from the Court of Land Registration, and the inspection shows the

land to be more adapted for forest purposes, then the Director of Forestry

requests the Attorney-General to file an opposition, sending him all data

collected during the inspection and offering him the forest officer as a witness.

"It should be kept in mind that the lack of personnel of this Bureau, the

limited time intervening between the notice for the trial of anexpedienteof land

and the day of the trial, and the difficulties in communications as well as the

distance of the land in question greatly hinder the handling of this work.

"In the case of lands claimed as private property, the Director ofForestry, by means of his delegate the examining officer, submits before the

court all evidence referring to the present forest condition of the land, so that the

court may compare them with the alleged right by the claimant. Undoubtedly,

when the claimant presents a title issued by the proper authority or evidence of

his right to the land showing that he complied with the requirements of the law,

the forest certificate does not affect him in the least as such land should not be


10/11


considered as a part of the public domain; but when the alleged right is merely

that of possession, then the public or private character of the parcel is open to

discussion and this character should be established not simply on the alleged

right of the claimant but on the sylvical condition and soil characteristics of the

land, and by comparison between this area, or different previously occupiedareas, and those areas which still preserve their primitive character."

Either way we look at this question we encounter difficulty. Indubitably, there

should be conservation of the natural resources of the Philippines. The prodigality of

the spendthrift who squanders his substance for the pleasure of the fleeting moment

must be restrained for the less spectacular but surer policy which protects Nature's

wealth for future generations. Such is the wise stand of our Government as

represented by the Director of Forestry who, with the Forester for the Government of

the United States, believes in "the control of nature's powers by man for his own

good." On the other hand, the presumption should be, in lieu of contrary proof, thatland is agricultural in nature. One very apparent reason is that it is for the good of the

Philippine Islands to have the large public domain come under private ownership.

Such is the natural attitude of the sagacious citizen.

If in this instance, we give judicial sanction to a private claim, let it be noted

that the Government, in the long run of cases, has its remedy. Forest reserves of public

land can be established as provided by law. When the claim of the citizen and the

claim of the Government as to a particular piece of property collide, if the

Government desires to demonstrate that the land is in reality a forest, the Director of

Forestry should submit to the court convincing proof that the land is not morevaluable for agricultural than for forest purposes. Great consideration, it may be

stated, should, and undoubtedly will be, paid by the courts to the opinion of the

technical expert who speaks with authority on forestry matters. But a mere formal

opposition on the part of the Attorney-General for the Director of Forestry,

unsupported by satisfactory evidence will not stop the courts from giving title to the

claimant.

We hold that the petitioner and appellant has proved a title to the entire tract of

land for which he asked registration, under the provisions of subsection 6, of Section

54, of Act No. 926, as amended by Act No. 1908, with reference to the Philippine Billand the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, and his possessory information.

Judgment is reversed and the lower court shall register in the name of the

applicant the entire tract in parcel No. 1, as described in plan Exhibit A, without

special finding as to costs. So ordered.


11/11


Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Streetand Fisher, JJ.,concur.

Documents

6. Ramos v. Dir. of Lands