Director of Lands v. CA 179 SCRA 522

7/28/2019 Director of Lands v. CA 179 SCRA 522

1/5

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. L-45061 November 20, 1989

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RAMON C. FERNANDEZ [ponente], ANDRES REYES,MARIANO V. AGCAOILI and DELFIN FL. BATACAN [concurring] with JUSTICERICARDO C. PUNO [dissenting] ARTURO RODRIGUEZ and GUILLERMO REYES,respondents.

Benjamin M. Reyes for private respondents.

FERNAN, C.J.:

Petitioner Director of Lands interposes the instant appeal by certiorarifrom theresolution of the Court of Appeals dated November 10, 1976 (Special Division, JusticeRamon C. Fernandez, ponente; Justices Andres Reyes, Mariano V. Agcaoili and DelfinFl. Batacan, concurring; Justice Ricardo C. Puno, dissenting) in CA-G.R. No. 42292-Rentitled "Arturo Rodriguez, et al., applicants-appellees versus the Director of Lands,oppositor-appellant" decreeing the confirmation of title of the applicants-appellees under

Republic Act No. 496 in relation to Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, over anarea identified as Lot No. 1736, Cadastral Survey of Orion, Bataan.

Said Lot No. 1736 is a large tract of agricultural land situated in Barrio Kapok, Orion,Bataan, containing 233.6883 hectares, alleged to have been occupied since 1913 bythe grandfather of applicant Arturo Rodriguez, the late Vicente Rodriguez, who, duringhis lifetime filed Lease Application No. 1206 with the Bureau of Lands, but whichapplication was rejected upon investigation and ascertainment that the land wasclassified as within the U.S. Military Reservation (Mariveles) under Executive Orderdated December 16, 1924 of the President of the United States of America, embodied inProclamation No. 10 of the Governor-General of the Philippines dated February 16,

1925.

Upon the death of Vicente Rodriguez in 1924, possession of the property was takenover by his sons, Victorino Rodriguez (the father of applicant Arturo Rodriguez) andPablo Rodriguez. Subsequently in an instrument of quitclaim, both Victorino and PabloRodriguez waived their rights as heirs of the late Vicente Rodriguez over the subjectproperty ceding all their participation, ownership and possession thereon in favor of


2/5

Arturo Rodriguez. Thereafter, Arturo Rodriguez sold two-thirds (2/3) undivided portion ofthe land to Guillermo Reyes and Francisco S. Alcantara.

In 1953, the land in question was deemed reverted to the public domain as it wasexcluded from the US-Philippine Military Bases Agreement.

On August 29, 1965, Arturo Rodriguez together with Guillermo Reyes and Francisco S.Alcantara filed a verified petition for registration of their title to Lot No. 1736 of theCadastral Survey of Orion, Bataan under Act No. 496 alleging that they, by themselvesand through their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive andadverse possession thereof in the concept of owners for more than thirty (30) yearsimmediately preceding the filing of their application. (Land Registration Case No. N-122(LRC Rec. No. N-28819) Applicant Francisco Alcantara subsequently withdrew hisapplication by motion dated March 21, 1966.

On March 8, 1967, the remaining applicants, Arturo Rodriguez and Guillermo Reyes,

filed an amended application incorporating an allegation that the heirs of VicenteRodriguez, the original possessor of Lot No. 1736, namely Victorino Rodriguez andPablo Rodriguez, had relinquished their rights and participation in Lot 1736 in favor of

Arturo Rodriguez.

Thirty-nine (39) persons headed by Rosauro Canaria filed their Opposition to thepetition for registration contending, among others, that they have been in actual,peaceful, adverse and continuous possession of portions of Lot No. 1736 for more thanthirty (30) years and have introduced improvements thereon consisting of fruit-bearingtrees; that the applicants have never been in possession of the property; and thatapplicant Arturo Rodriguez could not have inherited the land from his grandfather,

because the children of Vicente Rodriguez are still living.

The Director of Lands likewise filed his opposition alleging that neither the applicantsnor their predecessors-in-interest possess sufficient title to the land applied for, as theyhave not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupationof the land sought to be registered for at least thirty (30) years immediately precedingthe filing of the application. On July 15, 1966, oppositors Rosauro Canaria, et al., filed amotion to dismiss the petition for registration stating that the cause of action is barred bya prior judgment. Said motion was denied on August 30, 1966 for lack of merit.

On March 13, 1967, oppositor Director of Lands filed a "Motion to Dismiss or for

Reconsideration" of the Order dated August 30, 1966 alleging in substance that thepresent petition for registration was intended to reopen Cadastral Case No. 15, L.R.C.Record No. 1021, wherein a cadastral court already declared Lot 1736 as public land;that the application for registration cannot be treated as a pleading for the reopening ofthe cadastral case as provided under Republic Act No. 931 because it does not containmaterial allegations justifying the applicants' failure to file their answer during thecadastral proceedings; and that a decision in a cadastral case constitutes res judicata.


3/5

In a decision dated July 12, 1967, the lower court ruled in favor of the applicantsconfirming their title to Lot 1736 of Orion Cadastre, Bataan and ordering its registrationin the names of said applicants in the following proportion: 2/3 undivided portion to

Arturo Rodriguez and 1/3 undivided portion to Guillermo Reyes. 1

The Director of Lands and the private oppositors seasonably filed their respectivenotices of appeal and their joint record on appeal. However, private oppositors' appealwas dismissed by the appellate court in its resolution dated July 25, 1969 on the groundthat the record on appeal did not show that they filed an appeal bond.

On June 2, 1976, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision penned by JusticeRicardo C. Puno and concurred in by Justices Ramon C. Fernandez and Delfin Fl.Batacan, reversing and setting aside the decision of the lower court on the ground thatthe land in question had been decreed in 1938 to be part of the public domain by thecadastral court in proceedings commenced as early as 1927 and which had becomefinal thereby constituting a bar to the subsequent application for registration on the

principle ofres judicata.2

Such declaration according to the appellate court is bindingupon the applicants even if they did not take part in the proceedings as claimants oroppositors and therefore the trial court had no further jurisdiction to entertain the case atbar.

Applicants-appellees filed a motion for the reconsideration of the appellate court'sdecision alleging three grounds, namely: that the decision in Cadastral Proceedings No.15, Record No. 1021 does not constitute res judicata on the same land subject of thepresent application for land registration; that the application for land registration and/orconfirmation of an imperfect title is not a petition for reopening of the cadastralproceedings; and that the trial court had jurisdiction over the land registration case.

In a resolution dated November 10, 1976, 3 the Court of Appeals thru a division of fiveand by a vote of four to one reversed its decision and ruled that the prior decision of thecadastral court declaring the lot in question as public land way back in 1930 does notbar the present application for registration of title or confirmation of imperfect title under

Act 496 of the same parcel of land citing the case ofMindanao vs. Director of Lands,4and that the applicants had registrable title over the land subject of the application.

Hence this appeal by certiorariwith the following assignment of errors:

I

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PRIOR DECISION OFTHE CADASTRAL COURT IN A PROPER CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS DECLARINGTHE LOT IN QUESTION AS PUBLIC LAND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RESJUDICATA, OR OTHERWISE STATED, DOES NOT BAR THE PRESENT

APPLICATION BY SUBSEQUENT POSSESSORS FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLEAND/OR CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE UNDER ACT 496 OF THE SAMEPARCEL OF LAND.


4/5

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE APPLICANTS HADREGISTRABLE TITLE OVER THE LARGE TRACT OF PUBLIC LAND HEREIN

APPLIED FOR.

Petitioner's main contention in elevating the case to this Court is that the case ofMindanao relied upon by the appellate court in reversing its original decision is notapplicable to the case at bar the basic and fundamental distinction resting on the factthat the declaration of the land in question as public land in said case was made inordinary land registration proceedings which was a voluntary application commenced bya private party under Act 496, whereas in this case, the land in question was declaredpublic land in compulsory cadastral proceedings initiated by the government under theCadastral Act. 5Petitioner consequently cites the case ofNavarro vs. Director of Lands,6

as the more appropriate and applicable decision wherein it was ruled that where theparcels of land sought to be registered are the same lots already declared public lands

in a cadastral proceedings where the applicant and the Director of Lands were parties,and the applicant failed to show acquisition of the lands by any of the legal modes ofacquiring public lands, the decision declaring the lots part of the public domain must bedeemed res judicata.

We grant the petition but not on the principle of res judicata invoked by petitioner.Admittedly, the land in question had been declared public land in a decision rendered bythe cadastral court in Cadastral Case No. 15, Record No. 1021. Factually, however,there is no prior final judgment at all to speak of because, as we explained in the caseofDirector of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 7 a decision in a cadastral proceedingsdeclaring a lot public land is not the final decree contemplated in Sections 38 and 40 of

the Land Registration Act. Thus, a judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public,does not preclude the same applicant from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmationof his title to the same land, provided he thereafter complies with the provisions ofSection 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, and as long as said public landremains alienable and disposable.

When Cadastral Case No. 15 was instituted in 1927 and terminated in 1930, the land inquestion was still classified as within the U. S. Military Reservation per ProclamationNo. 10 of the Governor General of the Philippines dated February 16, 1925 and wasdeemed reverted to the public domain only in 1953. On this basis, the Court finds thatthe decision in the aforesaid cadastral case does not constitute res judicata upon asubsequent action for land registration considering the futility of filing any claim thenover the land in question since the same would nevertheless have been denied due tothe fact that during the pendency of the cadastral case, said land was not alienable nordisposable and this was shown by the denial of the lease application filed then byprivate respondents' predecessor-in-interest.

It would be unfair to consider the said cadastral decision as binding upon privaterespondents because there was nothing they could have done then to protect their


5/5

rights. Apparently, at that time they had no registrable right to speak of considering thatin 1927, private respondents' possession could not have met the thirty year requirementunder the law, their predecessor-in-interest having entered the land only in 1913, whichif computed up to 1927 would add up to only fourteen (14) years.

But while the cadastral proceedings in 1927 cannot be considered a bar to theregistration proceedings instituted by private respondents in 1965, the chronology ofevents in the case at bar clearly negates compliance by private respondents-applicantswith the thirty-year possession requirement. The intervening period commencing fromthe promulgation of Proclamation No. 10 of the Governor-General of the Philippines in1925 declaring the land in question as part of the U.S. Military Reservation until 1953when the land was deemed reverted back to the public domain disturbed privaterespondents- applicants, possession over the land in question because during thisinterregnum, no amount of time in whatever nature of possession could have ripen suchpossession into private ownership, the land having been segregate as part of a militaryreservation.

This circumstance considered, private respondents' claim of open, continuous,exclusive and notorious possession over the land in question should be counted onlyfrom 1953. Considering that the application for registration was filed in 1965, obviously,the thirty-year requirement had not been met at the time the action for registration wasfiled and therefore it was error on the part of the appellate court to rule that theapplicants already possessed a registrable title over the land in question.

WHEREFORE, the November 10, 1976 resolution of the Court of Appeals is herebySET ASIDE. Land Registration Case No. N-122 (LRC Rec. No. N-28819) of the thenCourt of First Instance of Bataan is DISMISSED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Documents

Director of Lands v. CA 179 SCRA 522