G. FORM AND CONTENTS OF APPLICATION

H. CONFIRMATION OF TITLE OVER LAND PREVIOUSLY DECLARED PUBLIC LAND

Form of the Application

It must be in writing.It must be signed by the applicant or person duly authorized in his behalf.It must be sworn to before an officer authorized to administer oath for the province or city where the application was actually signed.If there is more than 1 applicant, they shall be signed and sworn to by and in behalf of each.

Contents of Application Description of the land applied for together with the buildings and improvements; the plan approved by Director of Lands and the technical descriptions must be attached

Citizenship and civil status of the applicant

If married, name of spouse, andIf the marriage has been legally dissolved, when and how the marriage relation was terminated

Assessed value of the land and the buildings and other improvements based on the last assessment for taxation purposes

Mortgage or encumbrance affecting the land or names of other persons who may have an interest therein, legal or equitable

Manner of acquisition of land

Full names and address of all occupants of the land and those of the adjoining owners, if known, and if not known, the applicant shall state the extent of the search made to find them

If the applicant describes the land as bounded by a public or private way or road, it shall state whether or not the applicant claims any portion of the land within the limits of the way or road, and whether the applicant desires to have the line of way or road determined [Sec. 20, PD 1529]The court may require the facts to be stated in the application in addition to those prescribed by the decree not inconsistent therewith and may require the filing of additional papers

If the applicant is a non-resident of the Philippines, he shall file an instrument appointing an agent residing in the Philippines and shall agree that serice of any legal process shall be of the same legal effects as if made upon the applicant within the Philippines

H. CONFIRMATION OF TITLE OVER LAND PREVIOUSLY DECLARED PUBLIC LANDDirector of Lands v. CA [GR No. L-47847, July 31, 1981]Facts:

On May 8, 1974, respondent Manuela Pastor filed with the Court of First Instance of Batangas, an application for confirmation of imperfect title over 13 lots situated in Gulod and Pallocan, Batangas City.In her application, the respondent claims that she and her predecessor-in-interest had been in continuous, uninterrupted, open, public, adverse and notorious possession of the lots under claim of ownership for more than 30 years.

The Director of lands filed an opposition to the application on the ground that the lots in questions was previous declared by the court as public land therefore, a bar to appellees applicationApplicant Manuela Pastor contends that she remained the owner and possessor of the lots in question; that her possession has been peaceful, public, open, continuous, adverse against the whole world and in the concept of owner; that she had paid the taxes thereon; and the said lots were planted to sugar cane.Issue: Whether or not res judicata barred the confirmation of title over land previously declared public land.

Ruling:The Supreme Court held that the principle ofres judicata cannot be considered in the instant case although the subject land was declared public land because it have not as yet ripen into a final decision. A judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public does not preclude even the same applicant from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land, as long as said public land remains alienable and disposable.

A judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public, does not preclude the same applicant subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land, provided he thereafter complies with the provisions of Section 48 of the Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, and as long as said public land remains alienable and disposable [now sections 3 and 4, PD No. 1073]

Mindanao vs. Director of Lands20 SCRA 641On August 4, 1960 appellants filed an application for registration of the land pursuant to the provisions of Act 496. They alleged that the land had been inherited by them from their grandfather, Pelagio Zara, who in turn acquired the same under a Spanish grant known as "Composicion de Terrenos Realengos" issued in 1888. The Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry and by Vicente V. de Villa, Jr. contends that there is already "res-adjudicata", the cause of action of the applicant is now barred by prior judgment that it was already declared public land; and that this Court has no more jurisdiction over the subject matter.

The trial court granted the motion to holding,inter alia, that "once a parcel of land is declared or adjudged public land by the court having jurisdiction x x x it cannot be the subject anymore of another land registration proceeding x x x (that) it is only the Director of Lands who can dispose of the same by sale, by lease, by free patent or by homestead."ISSUEWhether the 1949 judgment in the previous case, denying the application of Vicente S. de Villa, Sr., and declaring the 107 hectares in question to be public land, precludes a subsequent application by an alleged possessor for judicial confirmation of title on the basis of continuous possession for at least thirty years?

RULINGSPursuant to Section 48, subsection (b) of the Public Land Law, C.A. 141, as amended. This provision reads as follows:The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:x x x x x x x x x(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under abona fideclaim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this Chapter.

It should be noted that appellants' application is in the alternative: for registration of their title of ownership under Act 496 or for judicial confirmation of their "imperfect" title or claim based on adverse and continuous possession for at least thirty years. It may be that although they were not actual parties in that previous case the judgment therein is a bar to their claim as owners under the first alternative, since the proceeding wasin rem, of which they and their predecessor had constructive notice by publication. Even so this is a defense that properly pertains to the Government, in view of the fact that the judgment declared the land in question to be public land

. In any case, appellants' imperfect possessory title was not disturbed or foreclosed by such declaration, for precisely the proceeding contemplated in the aforecited provision of Commonwealth Act 141 presupposes that the land is public. The basis of the decree of judicial confirmation authorized therein is not that the land is already privately owned and hence no longer part of the public domain, but rather that by reason of the claimant's possession for thirty years he is conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant.

Ramirez vs. CA256 SCRA 217FACTS:An original application for registration was filed by spouses Marta Ygonia and Arcadio Ramirezwith the CFI. It had for its subject matter a parcel of land on the eastern side of 17, with an area of 11, 055 sqm later increased to 11,311 sqm. Which was claimed ny the applicants as an accretion to their land gradually formed by alluvial deposits.It had for its subject matter a parcel of land on the eastern side of Lot 17, with an area of 11,055 square meters (later increased to 11,311 sq. meters), which was claimed by the applicants as an accretion to their land gradually formed by alluvial deposits.

The Director of Lands opposed the application on the grounds that the applicants did not possess sufficient title to the land sought to be registered, and that the land in question is a part of the public domain.

Herein petitioner, as the buyer of Lots 17 and 19 from his parents, filed on May 17, 1989, in LRC Case No. B-526, before the Regional Trial Court of Laguna, Branch XXV, Bian, Laguna,[6]an application for registration of the same land formed by accretion.After due publication, mailing and posting of notices, the petition was called for hearing.

ISSUES:Whether a judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public,preclude even the same applicant from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land?RULINGS: A judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public,does not preclude even the same applicant from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land,provided he thereafter complies with the provisions of Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, and as long as said public lands remains alienable and disposable (now Sections 3 and 4, P.D. No. 1073).

After careful deliberation and consultation, we find ourselves in agreement with petitioners contention.Seen from the perspective offered by the aforequoted ruling, it is evident that one of the elements ofres judicatais lacking in the case at bar.Respondent Court declared that identity of causes of action between Case No. B-46 and Case No. B-526 exist since they both sought registration of the land formed by alluvial deposits, but failed to recognize that thebasisfor claiming such registration was different in each case.In Case No. B-46, applicants-spouses Arcadio Ramirez and Marta Ygonia (herein petitioners parents) claimed that their possession of the land, tacked to that of their predecessors Apolonio Diaz, et al. (allegedly from 1943 onwards), was sufficient to vest title in them by acquisitive prescription.

In other words, because of the different relevant periods of possession being referred to, the basis of the application in Case No. B-46 is actually different from that in Case No. B-526.Stated in another way, the right to relief in one case rests upon a set of facts different from that upon which the other case depended.Hence, there was nores judicatato bar the proceedings in LRC Case No. B-526.