8/10/2019 Director of Lands v Meralco

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/director-of-lands-v-meralco 1/2

G.R. No. L-57461 September 11, 1987

THE DIRECTOR OF LNDS, petitioner,

vs.

!NIL ELECTRIC CO!"N# $%& HON. RI'LIN (ONIFCIO )ER, $*

"re*+&+% &e, Cort o/ F+r*t I%*t$%0e o/ R+$2, "$*+, (r$%03

III, respondents.

 

CORTES, J.:

This is an appeal by certiorari of a decision of the respondent Judge in Land

Registration Case No. N-101! LRC Record No. N-"#$0 entitled %&n Re'

 (pplication for Registration of Title, )anila *lectric Co+pany, applicant,% dated

)ay , 1$1.

The facts are not disputed. )anila *lectric Co+pany filed an a+ended

application for registration of a parcel of land located in Taguig, )etro )anila on

ece+ber #, 1!. /n (ugust 1!, 1!, applicant acuired the land applied for 

registration by purchase fro+ Ricardo Natividad 2*3hibit *4 5ho in turn acuired

the sa+e fro+ his father 6regorio Natividad as evidenced by a eed of /riginal

 (bsolute 7ale e3ecuted on ece+ber $, 1!0 2*3hibit *4. (pplicant8s

predecessors-in-interest have possessed the property under the concept of an

o5ner for +ore than 0 years. The property 5as declared for ta3ation purposes

under the na+e of the applicant 2*3hibit 14 and the ta3es due thereon have been

paid 2*3hibits J and J-14.

/n )ay , 1$1 respondent Judge rendered a decision ordering the registration

of the property in the na+e of the private respondent. The irector of Landsinterposed this petition raising the issue of 5hether or not a corporation +ay

apply for registration of title to land. (fter co++ents 5ere filed by the

respondents, the Court gave the petition due course. The legal issue raised by

the petitioner irector of Lands has been suarely dealt 5ith in t5o recent cases

2The irector of Lands v. &nter+ediate (ppellate Court and (c+e 9ly5ood :

;eneer Co., &nc., etc., No. L-!00 2ece+ber , 1$4, 1# 7CR( "0. The

irector of Lands v. <on. =eng>on and yna+arine Corporation, etc., No. "#0#"

2July $, 1$!4?, and resolved in the affir+ative. There can be no different ans5er 

in the case at bar.

&n the Acme  decision, this Court upheld the doctrine that open, e3clusive and

undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period prescribed by la5

creates the legal fiction 5hereby the land, upon co+pletion of the reuisite

period ipso jure and 5ithout the need of @udicial or other sanction, ceases to be

public land and beco+es private property.

 (s the Court said in that case'

Nothing can +ore clearly de+onstrate the logical inevitability of considering

possession of public land 5hich is of the character and duration prescribed by

statute as the euivalent of an e3press grant fro+ the 7tate than the dictu+ of 

the statute itself that the possessor2s4 %... shall be conclusively presu+ed to have

perfor+ed all the conditions essential to a 6overn+ent grant and shall be entitled

to a certificate of title .... % No proof being ad+issible to overco+e a conclusive

presu+ption, confir+ation proceedings 5ould in truth be little +ore than a

for+ality, at the +ost li+ited to ascertaining 5hether the possession clai+ed is of 

the reuired character and length of ti+eA and registration thereunder 5ould not

confer title, but si+ply recogni>e a title already vested. The proceedings 5ould

not originally  convert the land fro+ public to private land, but only confir+ such aconversion already affected 2sic4 fro+ the +o+ent the reuired period of 

possession beca+e co+plete.

Co+ing to the case at bar, if the land 5as already  private at the ti+e )eralco

bought it fro+ Natividad, then the prohibition in the 1! Constitution against

corporations holding alienable lands of the public do+ain e3cept by lease 21!

Const., (rt. B&;, 7ee. 114 does not apply.

9etitioner, ho5ever, contends that a corporation is not a+ong those that +ay

apply for confir+ation of title under 7ection #$ of Co++on5ealth (ct No. 1#1,

the 9ublic Land (ct.

 (s ruled in the Acme case, the fact that the confir+ation proceedings 5ere

instituted by a corporation is si+ply another accidental circu+stance, %productive

of a defect hardly +ore than procedural and in no5ise affecting the substance

and +erits of the right of o5nership sought to be confir+ed in said proceedings.%

Considering that it is not disputed that the Natividads could have had their title

confir+ed, only a rigid subservience to the letter of the la5 5ould deny private

respondent the right to register its property 5hich 5as validly acuired.

<*R*D/R*, the petition is *N&*. The uestioned decision of the

respondent Judge is (DD&R)*.

8/10/2019 Director of Lands v Meralco

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/director-of-lands-v-meralco 2/2

7/ /R*R*.