from the sea, the town of Molo being between the sea and

the said land." cra law virtua 1aw lib rary

The question is an important one because the phrase

"agricultural public lands" as defined by said act of Congress
of July 1, is found not only in section 54 above quoted but in
other parts of Act No. 926, and it seems that the same
construction must be given to the phrase wherever it occurs
in any part of that law.
FIRST DIVISION
The claim of the Attorney-General seems to be that no lands
can be called agricultural lands unless they are such by their
[G.R. No. L-3793. February 19, 1908. ]
nature. If the contention of the Attorney-General is correct,
and this land because of its nature is not agricultural land, it
CIRILO MAPA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR
is difficult to see how it could be disposed of or what the
GOVERNMENT, Respondent-Appellant.
Government could do with it if it should be decided that the
Government is the owner thereof. It could not allow the land
Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellant.
to be entered as a homestead, for Chapter I of Act No. 926
allows the entry of homesteads only upon "agricultural public
Basilio R. Mapa, for Appellee.
lands" in the Philippine Islands, as defined by the act of
Congress of July 1, 1902. It could not sell it in accordance
SYLLABUS
with the provisions of Chapter II of Act No. 926 for section 10
only authorizes the sale of "unreserved nonmineral
1. AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC LANDS DEFINED. — The phrase agricultural public land in the Philippine Islands, as defined in
"agricultural public lands" defined by the act of Congress of the act of Congress of July first, nineteen hundred and two."
July 1, 1902, which phrase is also to be found in several It could not lease it in accordance with the provisions of
sections of the Public Land Act (No. 926), means those public Chapter III of the said act, for section 22 relating to leases
lands acquired from Spain which are neither mineral nor limits them to "nonmineral public lands, as defined by section
timber lands. eighteen and twenty of the act of Congress approved July
first, nineteen hundred and two." It may be noted in passing
that there is perhaps some typographical or other error in
DECISION this reference to sections 18 and 20, because neither one of
these sections mentions agricultural lands. The Government
could not give a free patent to this land to a native settler, in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV, for that relates
WILLARD, J. : only to "agricultural public land, as defined by act of Congress
of July first, nineteen hundred and two." c ralaw virt ua1aw lib rary

This case comes from the Court of Land Registration. The In fact, by virtue of the provisions of Act No. 926, the
petitioner sought to have registered a tract of land of about Government could do nothing with this land except to lay out
16 hectares in extent, situated in the barrio of San Antonio, a town site thereon in accordance with the provisions of
in the district of Mandurriao, in the municipality of Iloilo. Chapter V, for section 36 relating to that matter, says nothing
Judgment was rendered in favor of the petitioner and the about agricultural land.
Government has appealed. A motion for a new trial was made
and denied in the court below, but no exception was taken to The question before us is not what is agricultural land, but
the order denying it, and we therefore can not review the what definition has been given to that phrase by the act of
evidence. Congress. An examination of that act will show that the only
sections thereof wherein can be found anything which could
The decision of that court was based upon Act No. 926 be called a definition of the phrase are sections 13 and 15.
section 54, paragraph 6 which follows: jg c:cha nrob les.com. ph
Those sections are as follows: jg c:chan rob les.com. ph

"All persons who by themselves or their predecessors in "SEC. 13. That the Government of the Philippine Islands,
interest have been in the open, continuous exclusive, and subject to the provisions of this act and except as herein
notorious possession and occupation of agricultural public provided, shall classify according to its agricultural character
lands, as defined by said act of Congress of July first, and productiveness, and shall immediately make rules and
nineteen hundred and two, under a bona fide claim of regulations for the lease, sale, or other disposition of the
ownership except as against the Government, for a period of public lands other than timber or mineral lands, but such
ten years next preceding the taking effect of this act, except rules and regulations shall not go into effect of have the force
when prevented by war, or force majeure, shall be of law until they have received the approval of the President,
conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions and when approved by the President they shall be submitted
essential to a Government grant and to have received the by him to Congress at the beginning of the next ensuing
same, and shall be entitled to a certificate of title to such land session thereof and unless disapproved or amended by
under the provisions of this chapter." c ralaw virt ua1aw lib rary
Congress at said session they shall at the close of such period
have the force and effect of law in the Philippine Islands:
The only question submitted to the court below or to this Provided, That a single homestead entry shall not exceed
court by the Attorney-General is the question whether the sixteen hectares in extent.
land in controversy is agricultural land within the meaning of
the section above quoted. The findings of the court below "SEC. 15. That the Government of the Philippine Islands is
upon that point are as follows: jg c:chan roble s.com.p h
hereby authorized and empowered on such terms as it may
prescribe, by general legislation, to provide for the granting
"From the evidence adduced it appears that the land in or sale and conveyance to actual occupants and settlers and
question is lowland, and has been uninterruptedly, for more other citizens of said Islands such parts and portions of the
than twenty years, in the possession of the petitioner and his public domain, other than timber and mineral lands, of the
ancestors as owners and the same has been used during the United States in said Islands as it may deem wise, not
said period, and up to the present, as fish ponds, nipa lands, exceeding sixteen hectares to any one person and for the
and salt deposits. The witnesses declare that the land is far sale and conveyance of not more than one thousand and
twenty-four hectares to any corporation or association of Mineral and timber lands are expressly excluded, but it would
persons: Provided, that the grant or sale of such lands, be difficult to say that any other particular tract of land was
whether the purchase price be paid at once or in partial not agricultural in nature. Such lands may be found within
payments shall be conditioned upon actual and continued the limits of any city. There is within the city of Manila, and
occupancy, improvement, and cultivation of the premises sold within a thickly inhabited part thereof an experimental far.
for a period of not less than five years, during which time the This land is in its nature agricultural. Adjoining the Luneta, in
purchaser or grantee can not alienate or encumber said land the same city, is a large tract of land, Camp Wallace, devoted
or the title thereto; but such restriction shall not apply to to sports. The land surrounding the city walls of Manila,
transfers of rights and title of inheritance under the laws for between them and the Malecon Drive on the west, the Luneta
the distribution of the estates of decedents." c ralaw vi rtua 1aw lib rary on the south, and Bagumbayan Drive on the south and east,
is of many hectares in extent and is in nature agricultural.
It is seen that neither one of these sections gives any express The Luneta itself could at any time be devoted to the growing
definition of the phrase "agricultural land." In fact, in section of crops.
15 the word "agricultural" does not occur.
The objection to adopting this construction on account of its
There seem to be only three possible ways of deciding this uncertainty is emphasized when we consider that whether
question. The first is to say that no definition of the phrase certain land was or was not agricultural land, as defined by
"agricultural land" can be found in the act of Congress; the the act of Congress, and therefore subject to homestead
second, that there is a definition of that phrase in the act and entry, to sale, or to lease in accordance with the provisions of
that it means land which in its nature is agricultural; and, Act No. 926, would be a question that would finally have to
third, that there is a definition in the act and that the phrase be determined by the courts, unless there is some express
means all of the public lands acquired from Spain except provision of the law authorizing the administrative officers to
those which are mineral or timber lands. The court below determine this question for themselves. Section 2 of Act No.
adopted this view, and held that the land, not being timber or 926 relating to homesteads provides that the Chief of The
mineral land, came within the definition of agricultural land, Bureau of Public Lands shall summarily determine whether
and that therefore Section 54 paragraph 6, Act No. 926 was the land described is prima facie under the law subject to
applicable thereto. homestead settlement. Section 13, relating to the sale of
public lands, provides simply that the Chief of the Bureau of
1. There are serious objections to holding that there is no Public Lands shall determine from the certificate of the Chief
definition in the act of the phrase "agricultural land." The of the Bureau of Forestry whether the land applied for is more
Commission in enacting Act No. 926 expressly declared that valuable for agricultural than for timber purposes, but it says
such a definition could be found therein. The President nothing about his decisions as to whether it is or is not
approved this act and it might be said that Congress, by agricultural land in its nature. Section 26 relating to the lease
failing to reject or amend it, tacitly approved it. Moreover, if of public lands provides that the Chief of the Bureau of Public
it should be said that there is no definition in the act of Lands shall determine from the certificate of the Chief of the
Congress of the phrase "agricultural land," we do not see how Bureau of Forestry whether the land applied for is more
any effect could be given to the provisions of Act No. 916, to valuable for agricultural than for timber purposes and further
which we have referred. If the phrase is not defined in the act summarily determine from available records whether the land
of Congress, then the lands upon which homesteads can be is or is not mineral and does not contain deposits of coal or
granted can not be determined. Nor can it be known what salts. Section 34 relating to fee patents to native settlers
land the Government has the right to sell in accordance with makes no provision for any determination by the Chief of
the provisions of Chapter II, nor what lands it can lease in Bureau of Public Lands in regard to the character of the land
accordance with the provisions of Chapter III, nor the lands applied for.
for which it can give free patents to native settlers in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV, and it would After homesteads have been entered, lands, sold, and leases
seem to follow, necessarily, that none of those chapters could made by the administrative officers on the theory that the
be put into force and that all that had up to this time been lands were agricultural lands by their nature, to leave the
done by virtue thereof would be void. matter of their true character open for subsequent action by
the courts would be to produce an evil that should if possible
2. The second way of disposing of the question is by saying be avoided.
that Congress has defined agricultural lands as those lands
which are, as the Attorney-General says, by their nature 3. We hold that there is to be found in the act of Congress a
agricultural. As has been said before, the word "agricultural" definition of the phrase "agricultural public lands," and after a
does not occur in section 15. Section 13 says that the careful consideration of the question we are satisfied that the
Government "shall classify according to its agricultural only definition which exists in said act is the definition
character and productiveness and shall immediately make adopted by the court below. Section 13 says that the
rules and regulations for the lease, sale, or other disposition Government shall "Make rules and regulations for the lease,
of the public lands other than timber or mineral land." This is sale, or other disposition of the public lands other than timber
the same thing as saying that the Government shall classify or mineral lands." To our minds, that is the only definition
the public lands other than timber or mineral lands according that can be said to be given to agricultural lands. In other
to its agricultural character and productiveness; in other words, that the phrase "agricultural land" as used in Act No.
words, that it shall classify all the public lands acquired from 926 means those public lands acquired from Spain which are
Spain, and that this classification shall be made according to not timber or mineral lands. As was said in the case of Jones
the agricultural character of the land and according to its v. The Insular Government (6 Phil Rep., 122, 133) where
productiveness. these same section of the act of Congress were under
discussion:jgc:cha nro bles. com.ph

One objection to adopting this view is that it is so vague and

indefinite that it would be very difficult to apply it in practice. "The meaning of these sections is not clear and it is difficult
What lands are agricultural in nature? The Attorney-General to give to them a construction that would be entirely free
himself in his brief in this case says: jgc:c han robles. com.ph from objection." cra law virtua 1aw li bra ry

"The most arid mountain and the poorest soil are susceptible But the construction we have adopted, to our minds, is less
of cultivation by the hand of man." c ralaw virtua1aw l ibra ry objectionable than any other one that has been suggested.

The land in question in this case, which is used as a fishery, There is nothing in this case of Jones v. The Insular
could be filled up and any kind of crops raised thereon. Government which at all conflicts with the result here arrived
at. The question as to whether the lands there involved were appropriated as, were not devoted to forestry and mining
or were not agricultural lands within the meaning of the which is consistent with the direction of section 13 of the act
sections was neither discussed nor decided. In fact, it of Congress that public lands, other than timber or mineral
appears from the decision that those lands, which were in the lands, should be classified according to their agricultural
Province of Benguet, were within the strictest definition of the character and productiveness.
phrase "agricultural lands." It appears that such lands had
been cultivated for more than twelve years. What that case In view of the restricted scope of these statutes under the
decided was, not that the lands therein involved and other decisions of the United States Supreme Court, this direction
lands referred to in the decision by way of illustration were as to the classification of all remaining lands not forest or
not agricultural lands but that the law there in question and mineral in character, "according to their agricultural nature
the other laws mentioned therein were not rules and and productiveness," may fairly be considered a definition of
regulations within the meaning of section 13. them as agricultural lands, with the result of freeing the act
of the Commission from ambiguity.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of
this instance against the Appellant. So ordered. It was apparently the intention of Congress that such
classification, in a general way, should be immediately made,
Arellano, C.J. and Torres, J., concur. but the fact that it has been delayed does not prevent the
designation of any particular parcel of land, upon being
Johnson, J., concurs in the result. granted by the Government, as coming under one of these
heads.
Separate Opinions
For these reason, I concur in the interpretation put upon this
act in the majority opinion.
TRACEY, J., with whom concurs CARSON, J., concurring: chan rob1e s virtua l 1aw libra ry

By its title as well as throughout its text Act No. 926 is

restricted to the "Public domain of the Philippine Islands" and
to "public lands" in said Islands. This act, drawn in
furtherance of an act of Congress, must be interpreted
according to the American understanding of the words Republic of the Philippines
employed and the meaning of these terms as definitely fixed SUPREME COURT
by decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Manila
"Public domain" and "public lands" are equivalent terms.
(Barker v. Harvey, 181, U.S., 481, 490. EN BANC
"The words "public lands" are habitually used in our
legislation to describe such as are subject to sale or other G.R. No. L-13298 November 19, 1918
disposal under general laws." (Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U.S.,
761)
CORNELIO RAMOS, petitioner-appellant,
"A grant of public lands applies only to lands which at the vs.
time are free from existing claims. (Bardon v. Northern THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, objector-appellee.
Pacific R. R. Co., 145 U.S., 535, 543.)

These words do not include land reserved for the use of Basilio Aromin for appellant.
certain Indian tribes, although still the property of the United
Office of the Solicitor-General Paredes for appellee.
States (Leavenworth, etc., v. United States, 92 U.S., 733),
nor lands covered and uncovered by the ebb and flow of the
tide. (Mann v. Tacoma Land Co., 153 U.S., 273.) And the
same was held of the words "unoccupied and unappropriated
public lands." (Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S., 1.)

In Wilcox v. Jackson (13 Peters, 498, 513) it was held that

whenever a tract of land has been legally appropriated to any MALCOLM, J.:
purpose, from that moment it becomes severed from the
mass of public lands and no subsequent law will be construed
to embrace it, although no express reservation is made. This is an appeal by the applicant and appellant from
There have been similar rulings in regard to reservations for a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva
military purposes, for town sites, educational purposes, and Ecija, denying the registration of the larger portion of
for mineral and forest uses. Consequently Act No. 926 applies parcel No. 1 (Exhibit A of the petitioner), marked by
only to the lands of the United States in these Islands not
already devoted to public use or subject to private right, and
the letters A, B, and C on the plan, Exhibit 1, of the
this construction necessarily excludes from its scope lands Government.
devoted to the use of municipalities, including public buildings
and such tracts as Wallace Field and the strip surrounding the
walls of the City of Manila. As the act has no application to One Restituto Romero y Ponce apparently gained
them, they are not public lands in this sense, and can not be possession of a considerable tract of land located in
included within the term "agricultural public lands." cralaw v irtua1aw l ib rary the municipality of San Jose, Province of Nueva Ecija,
in the year 1882. He took advantage of the Royal
In referring to agricultural lands as being defined in the act of
Decree of February 13, 1894, to obtain a possessory
Congress of July 1, 1902, the Philippine Commission must
have had in mind this well-settled meaning of the terms information title to the land, registered as such on
employed and have used the word "agricultural" to February 8, 1896. Parcel No. 1, included within the
distinguish and include such public lands, not otherwise limits of the possessory information title of Restituto
Romero, was sold in February, 1907, to Cornelio entitled to a certificate of title to such land
Ramos, the instant petitioner, and his wife Ambrosia under the provisions of this chapter.
Salamanca.
There are two parts to the above quoted subsection
Ramos instituted appropriate proceedings to have his which must be discussed. The first relates to the
title registered. Opposition was entered by the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
Director of Lands on the ground that Ramos had not possession and occupation of what, for present
acquired a good title from the Spanish government purposes, can be conceded to be agricultural public
and by the Director of Forestry on the ground that the land, under a bona fide claim of ownership.
first parcel was forest land. The trial court agreed with
the objectors and excluded parcel No. 1 from Actual possession of land consists in the
registration. So much for the facts. manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a
nature as a party would naturally exercise over his
As to the law, the principal argument of the Solicitor- own property. Relative to actuality of possession, it is
General is based on the provisions of the Spanish admitted that the petitioner has cultivated only about
Mortgage Law and of the Royal Decree of February one fourth of the entire tract. This is graphically
13, 1894, commonly known as the Maura Law. The portrayed by Exhibit 1 of the Government, following:
Solicitor-General would emphasize that for land to
come under the protective ægis 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 grantes within the United
States, where some recital is claimed to be false, to
say that the possessory information, apparently
having taken cognizance of 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 amended by Act No. 1908,
reads as follows:

6. All persons who by themselves or their

predecessors and interest have been in the
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of agricultural The question at once arises: Is that actual occupancy
public lands, as defined by said Act of of a part of the land described in the instrument giving
Congress of July first, nineteen hundred and color of title sufficient to give title to the entire tract of
two, under a bona fide claim of ownership land? lawphil.net

except as against the Government, for a

period of ten years next preceding the
The doctrine of constructive possession indicates the
twenty-sixth day of July, nineteen hundred
answer. The general rule is that the possession and
and four, except when prevented by war
cultivation of a portion of a tract under claim of
or force majeure, shall be conclusively
ownership of all is a constructive possession of all, if
presumed to have performed all the
the remainder is not in the adverse possession of
conditions essential to a government grant
another. (Barr vs. Gratz's Heirs [1819], 4 Wheat., 213;
and to have received the same, and shall be
Ellicott vs. Pearl [1836], 10 Pet., 412; Smith vs. Gale
[1892], 144 U. S., 509.) Of course, there are a upon the certification of the Director of Forestry that
number of qualifications to the rule, one particularly said lands are better adapted and more valuable for
relating to the size of the tract in controversy with agricultural than for forest purposes and not required
reference to the portion actually in possession of the by the public interests to be kept under forest, shall be
claimant. It is here only necessary to apply the declared by the Department Head to be agricultural
general rule. lands." With reference to the last section, there is no
certification of the Director of Forestry in the record,
The claimant has color of title; he acted in good faith; as to whether this land is better adapted and more
and he has had open, peaceable, and notorious valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes.
possession of a portion of the property, sufficient to
apprise the community and the world that the land The lexicographers define "forest" as "a large tract of
was for his enjoyment. (See arts. 446, 448, Civil land covered with a natural growth of trees and
Code.) Possession in the eyes of the law does not underbrush; a large wood." The authorities say that
mean that a man has to have his feet on every square he word "forest" has a significant, not an insignificant
meter of ground before it can be said that he is in meaning, and that it does not embrace land only
possession. Ramos and his predecessor in interest partly woodland. It is a tract of land covered with
fulfilled the requirements of the law on the supposition trees, usually of considerable extent.
that he premises consisted of agricultural public land. (Higgins vs. Long Island R. Co. [1908], 114 N. Y.
Supp., 262; People vs. Long Island R. Co. [1908], 110
The second division of the law requires consideration N. Y. Supp., 512.)
of the term "agricultural public land." The law affirms
that the phrase is denied by the Act of Congress of The foresters say that no legal definition of "forest" is
July 1st, 1902, known as the Philippine bill. Turning to practicable or useful. B. H. Baden-Powell, in his work
the Philippine Bill, we find in sections 13 to 18 thereof on Forest Law of India, states as follows:
that three classes of land are mentioned. The first is
variously denominated "public land" or "public Every definition of a forest that can be
domain," the second "mineral land," and the third framed for legal purposes will be found either
"timber land." Section 18 of the Act of Congress to exclude some cases to which the law
comes nearest to a precise definition, when it makes ought to apply, or on the other hand, to
the determination of whether the land is more include some with which the law ought not to
valuable for agricultural or for forest uses the test of interfere. It may be necessary, for example,
its character. to take under the law a tract of perfectly
barren land which at present has neither
Although these sections of the Philippine Bill have trees, brushwood, nor grass on it, but which
come before the courts on numerous occasions, what in the course f time it is hoped will be
was said in the case of Jones vs. Insular Government "reboise;" but any definition wide enough to
([1906], 6 Phil., 122), is still true, namely: "The take in all such lands, would also take in
meaning of these sections is not clear and it is difficult much that was not wanted. On the other
to give to them a construction that will be entirely free hand, the definition, if framed with reference
from objection." In the case which gave most serious to tree-growth, might (and indeed would be
consideration to the subject (Mapa vs. Insular almost sure to) include a garden, shrubbery,
Government [1908], 10 Phil., 175), it was found that orchard, or vineyard, which it was not
there does exist in the Act of Congress a definition of designed to deal with.
the phrase "agricultural public lands." It was said that
the phrase "agricultural public lands" as used in Act B. E. Fernow, in his work on the Economics of
No. 926 means "those public lands acquired from Forestry, states as follows:
Spain which are not timber or mineral lands."
A forest in the sense in which we use the
The idea would appear to be to determine, by term, as an economic factor, is by no means
exclusion, if the land is forestal or mineral in nature a mere collection of trees, but an organic
and, if not so found, to consider it to be agricultural whole in which all parts, although apparently
land. Here, again, Philippine law is not very helpful. heterogeneous, jumbled together by
For instance, section 1820 of the Administrative Code accident as it were and apparently unrelated,
of 1917 provides: "For the purposes of this chapter, bear a close relation to each other and are
'public forest' includes, except as otherwise specially as interdependent as any other beings and
indicated, all unreserved public land, including nipa conditions in nature.
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 The Director of Forestry of the Philippine Islands has
chapter." A little further on, section 1827 provides: said:
"Lands in public forests, not including forest reserves,
During the time of the passage of the Act of cutting timber or destroy cover guarding their
Congress of July 1, 1902, this question of source of water for irrigation.
forest and agricultural lands was beginning
to receive some attention and it is clearly Dr. M. S. Shaler, formerly Dean of the
shown in section 18 of the above mentioned Lawrence Scientific School, remarked that if
Act; it leaves to the Bureau of Forestry the mankind could not devise and enforce ways
certification as to what lands are for dealing with the earth, which will preserve
agricultural or forest uses. Although the Act this source of like "we must look forward to
states timber lands, the Bureau has in its the time, remote it may be, yet equally
administration since the passage of this act discernible, when out kin having wasted its
construed this term to mean forest lands in great inheritance will fade from the earth
the sense of what was necessary to protect, because of the ruin it has accomplished."
for the public good; waste lands without a
tree have been declared more suitable for
forestry in many instances in the past. The The method employed by the bureau of
term 'timber' as used in England and in the Forestry in making inspection of lands, in
United States in the past has been applied to order to determine whether they are more
wood suitable for construction purposes but adapted for agricultural or forest purposes by
with the increase in civilization and the a technical and duly trained personnel on the
application of new methods every plant different phases of the conservation of
producing wood has some useful purpose natural resources, is based upon a
and the term timber lands is generally previously prepared set of questions in which
though of as synonymous with forest lands the different characters of the land under
or lands producing wood, or able to produce inspection are discussed, namely:
wood, if agricultural crops on the same land
will not bring the financial return that timber Slope of land: Level; moderate; steep; very
will or if the same land is needed for steep.
protection purposes.
Exposure: North; South; East; West.
xxx xxx xxx
Soil: Clay; sandy loam; sand; rocky; very
The laws in the United States recognize the rocky.
necessity of technical advice of duly
appointed boards and leave it in the hands of Character of soil cover: Cultivated, grass
these boards to decide what lands are more land, brush land, brush land and timber
valuable for forestry purposes or for mixed, dense forest.
agricultural purposes.

If cultivated, state crops being grown and

In the Philippine Islands this policy is follows approximate number of hectares under
to as great an extent as allowable under the cultivation. (Indicate on sketch.)
law. In many cases, in the opinion of the
Bureau of Forestry, lands without a single
tree on them are considered as true forest For growth of what agricultural products is
land. For instance, mountain sides which are this land suitable?
too steep for cultivation under ordinary
practice and which, if cultivated, under State what portion of the tract is wooded,
ordinary practice would destroy the big name of important timber species and
natural resource of the soil, by washing, is estimate of stand in cubic meters per
considered by this bureau as forest land and hectare, diameter and percentage of each
in time would be reforested. Of course, species.
examples exist in the Mountain Province
where steep hillsides have been terraced
If the land is covered with timber, state
and intensive cultivation practiced but even
whether there is public land suitable for
then the mountain people are very careful
agriculture in vicinity, which is not covered
not to destroy forests or other vegetative
with timber.
cover which they from experience have
found protect their water supply. Certain
chiefs have lodged protests with the Is this land more valuable for agricultural
Government against other tribes on the than for forest purposes? (State reasons in
opposite side of the mountain cultivated by full.)
them, in order to prevent other tribes from
Is this land included or adjoining any Either way we look at this question we encounter
proposed or established forest reserve or difficulty. Indubitably, there should be conservation of
communal forest? Description and the natural resources of the Philippines. The
ownership of improvements. prodigality of the spendthrift who squanders his
substance for the pleasure of the fleeting moment
If the land is claimed under private must be restrained for the less spectacular but surer
ownership, give the name of the claimant, policy which protects Nature's wealth for future
his place of residence, and state briefly (if generations. Such is the wise stand of our
necessary on a separate sheet) the grounds Government as represented by the Director of
upon which he bases his claim. 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,
When the inspection is made on a parcel of the presumption should be, in lieu of contrary proof,
public land which has been applied for, the that land is agricultural in nature. One very apparent
corresponding certificate is forwarded to the reason is that it is for the good of the Philippine
Director of Lands; if it is made on a privately Islands to have the large public domain come under
claimed parcel for which the issuance of a private ownership. Such is the natural attitude of the
title is requested from the Court of Land sagacious citizen.
Registration, and the inspection shows the
land to be more adapted for forest purposes,
then the Director of Forestry requests the If in this instance, we give judicial sanction to a private
Attorney-General to file an opposition, claim, let it be noted that the Government, in the long
sending him all data collected during the run of cases, has its remedy. Forest reserves of
inspection and offering him the forest officer public land can be established as provided by law.
as a witness. 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
It should be kept in mind that the lack of the land is in reality a forest, the Director of Forestry
personnel of this Bureau, the limited time should submit to the court convincing proof that the
intervening between the notice for the trial on land is not more valuable for agricultural than for
an expediente of land and the day of the forest purposes. Great consideration, it may be
trial, and the difficulties in communications stated, should, and undoubtedly will be, paid by the
as well as the distance of the land in courts to the opinion of the technical expert who
question greatly hinder the handling of this speaks with authority on forestry matters. But a mere
work. formal opposition on the part of the Attorney-General
for the Director of Forestry, unsupported by
In the case of lands claimed as private satisfactory evidence will not stop the courts from
property, the Director of Forestry, by means giving title to the claimant.
of his delegate the examining officer,
submits before the court all evidence We hold that the petitioner and appellant has proved
referring to the present forest condition of the a title to the entire tract of land for which he asked
land, so that the court may compare them registration, under the provisions of subsection 6, of
with the alleged right by the claimant. section 54, of Act No. 926, as amended by Act No.
Undoubtedly, when the claimant presents a 1908, with reference to the Philippine Bill and the
title issued by the proper authority or Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, and his
evidence of his right to the land showing that possessory information.
he complied with the requirements of the
law, the forest certificate does not affect him
in the least as such land should not be Judgment is reversed and the lower court shall
considered as a part of the public domain; register in the name of the applicant the entire tract in
but when the alleged right is merely that of parcel No. 1, as described in plan Exhibit A, without
possession, then the public or private special finding as to costs. So ordered.
character of the parcel is open to discussion
and this character should be established not Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Street and Fisher,
simply on the alleged right of the claimant JJ., concur.
but on the sylvical condition and soil
characteristics of the land, and by Republic of the Philippines
comparison between this area, or different SUPREME COURT
previously occupied areas, and those areas Manila
which still preserve their primitive character.
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-25010 October 27, 1926 survey, of a portion of land located in the municipality
of San Jose, which included the very land claimed by
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE Maria del Rosario in the former action. She presented
ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, her opposition in the present action, claiming the very
vs. land which she claimed in the former action. The only
PAULINO ABELLA, ET AL., claimants; proof which she presented in support of her claim in
MARIA DEL ROSARIO, petitioner-appellant. the present action was the proof which she had
presented in the former action. No proof was adduced
in addition thereto, which in the slightest degree
Francisco, Lualhati and Lopez for appellant. showed that she was entitled to the registration of any
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee. other parcel of land than those which had been
conceded to her in the first action.

Upon the issue and the proof adduced in the present

case the Honorable C. Carballo, Auxiliary Judge of
JOHNSON, J.: the Sixth Judicial District, ordered registered in the
name of Maria del Rosario, under the cadastral
survey, lots 3238, 3240, 3242 and 3243, which are
This is a petition for the registration of a certain parcel the very lots which had been ordered registered in her
or tract of land located in the municipality of San Jose, name in the former action. From that judgment she
Province of Nueva Ecija, Philippine Islands. It appears appealed to this court upon the ground that the lower
from the record that on the 21st day of September, court committed an error in not registering all of the
1915, the appellant Maria del Rosario presented a land included in her opposition in her name. 1awph!l.net

petition in the Court of First Instance for the

registration under the Torrens system, of the very
land now in question by virtue of her appeal. In that In this court she presented a motion for rehearing and
case, after issue joined and after hearing the in support thereof presents some proof to show that
evidence, the Honorable Vicente Nepomuceno, judge, the northern portion of the land in question is not
denied the registration of all of the northern portion of forestry land but that much of it is agricultural land.
the land included in her petition represented by With reference to said motion for rehearing, it may be
Exhibit 1, which was the plan presented in that action, said that all of the proof which is presented in support
upon the ground that said portion was more valuable thereof existed at the time of the trial and might, with
for timber purposes than for agricultural purposes. reasonable diligence, have been presented. It cannot,
From that judgment Maria del Rosario appealed. therefore, be considered now. It is not newly
discovered evidence. And moreover if it should be
accepted it would not be sufficient to justify the
The Supreme Court after a consideration of the granting of a new trial.
evidence affirmed the decision of the lower court. In
the course of that decision the Supreme Court,
speaking through Mr. Justice Moir, said: "We have After a careful examination of the entire record and
examined the plans and all the evidence presented in the evidence adduced during the trial of this cause as
this case and are of the opinion that the trial court was well as that adduced during the trial of the first cause,
correct in its declaration that this send a did not mean we are fully persuaded that no error has been
the old road to Boñgabon. The fact that nearly all the committed. Whether particular land is more valuable
northern property is forestry land is a further indication for forestry purposes than for agricultural purposes, or
that the applicant's possessory information title did not vice-versa, is a question of fact and must be
include the land running up to the road to Bongabon, established during the trial of the cause. Whether the
because all the papers which the applicant has particular land is agricultural, forestry, or mineral is a
regarding this property call the land palayero." 1 question to be settled in each particular case, unless
the Bureau of Forestry has, under the authority
conferred upon it, prior to the intervention of private
Judge Nepomuceno in his decision directed that the interest, set aside for forestry or mineral purposes the
appellant herein present an amended plan in that particular land in question. (Ankron vs. Government of
case, showing the particular part or parcel of the land the Philippine Islands, 40 Phil., 10.) During the trial of
in question which she was entitled to have registered. the present cause the appellant made no effort to
We have no evidence before us showing that order of show that the land which she claimed, outside of that
Judge Nepomuceno was ever complied with. which had been decreed in her favor, was more
valuable for agricultural than forestry purposes. For all
Nothing further seems to have occurred with of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is
reference to the registration of the land included in the hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
former case until the 26th day of April, 1921, when the
Acting Director of Lands presented the petition in the Avanceña, C. J., Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns,
present case for the registration, under the cadastral Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
Republic of the Philippines possessed and enjoyed by the heirs of
SUPREME COURT Bibiano Jocson, as owners, for more than 27
Manila years, not counting the prior possession of
their predecessor in interest.
EN BANC
4. The court erred in holding that lot No.
G.R. No. L-13756 January 30, 1919 1158 and part of lots 1104 and 1154 are
forest land, finding this fact as sufficiently
proven by the sole and absurd testimony of
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE the ranger to the effect that nipa is a plant of
ISLANDS, ET AL., petitioners. spontaneous growth and in not planted; and
VICENTE JOCSON, ET AL., appellants, , as the photographs only refer to small
vs. portions of the area of the lot, the court also
THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, objector-appellee. erred in holding that the whole lot was
covered with firewood trees, while in fact but
Mariano Locsin Rama and J. E. Blanco for appellants. a very small portion of it is covered with trees
Attorney-General Paredes for appellee. which protect the nipa plants and the fish
hatchery, it having been proven that a large
MOIR, J.: part of the lot was sown with rice and used
as pasture land.

In the cadastral land registration for the town of

Hinigaran, Occidental Negros, the appellants sought 5. The court erred in not holding that the
to register the three lots or parcels of land involved in parts of lots 1104, 1154 and 1158, covered
this appeal, which registration was opposed by the by mangrove swamps, are agricultural land,
Director of Forestry. and in not holding to have been proven that
these swamp are not available, inasmuch as
they are drained at low tide; errors
The trial court found that lot 1104 was almost entirely committed with manifest violation of law and
"forestry" land, that a small portion of lot 1154 and all disregard of the jurisprudence established by
of lots 1158 were "forestry" lands, to which appellants the Honorable Supreme Court of the
had no title, and declared the lots public lands, and Philippine.
refused registration of the parts of these lots to which
opposition had been filed by the Forestry Bureau. The
claimants excepted and perfected their bill of 6. The court erred in not holding that the
exceptions and brought the case to this court for claimants and appellants, by their
review, setting up the following assignments of error: peaceable, public, and continuous
possession for more than forty years, as
owners, including that held by their
1. The court erred in not holding to have predecessors in interests, had acquired by
been proven the facts that the lots 1104, prescription lots 1104, 1154, and 1158, in
1154, and 1158 of the cadastral survey of conformity with act No. 190, section 41,
Hinigaran were possessed by Bibiano which, without exception, is applicable to the
Jocson as owner during his lifetime and from State as well as to private parties, and by
a time prior to the year 1880, and, after his extraordinary prescription of thirty years.
death, by his heirs, on which lots nipa plants
were planted and now exists and that these
latter are not spontaneous plants utilized by 7. The court erred in not adjudicating said
said heirs. lots to the claimants and appellants, in
consideration of the possession they have
had for more than forty years, form the time
2. The court erred in not holding to have of their predecessor in interest to the present
been proven the a part of lot No. 1158 is rice time, thus violating the legal provision
and pasture land that was possessed as whereby the holders of land who have been
owner by Bibiano Jocson during his lifetime in its possession for ten years prior to the
and peaceably long before 1880, a enactment of the land law, Act No. 926, by
possession continued by his heirs who still the United States Philippine Commission,
enjoy the use of the land up to the present are to be deemed the absolute owners of
time. such land, and to be presumed to have
applied for the same and to have complied
3. The court erred in not holding to have with the Spanish laws and all the
been proven that on that same lot 1158, proceedings required by the Royal Decrees
there has existed since the year 1890, and on the composition of titles; and, therefore,
still exists, a fish hatchery which has been pursuant to said Act now in force, the land in
 question should be adjudicated to the The photographs filed by the Government as exhibits
possessors thereof. in this case show that at two places there were trees
growing on this land, but the forester who testified for
8. The court erred in not granting the new the Government always calls these lots "mangles,"
trial requested by the appellants, the motion and he says the trees which are growing on the lands
therefor being based on the ground that his are of no value except for firewood. The fact that
findings of facts, if there are any, are openly there are a few trees growing in a manglar or nipa
and manifestly contrary to the weight of the swamp does not change the general character of the
evidence. land from manglar to timber land.

It is not necessary to consider all these assignments That manglares are not forestry lands within the
of error, for the main question involved is meaning of the words "Timber lands" in the Act of
whether manglares[mangroves] are agricultural lands Congress has been definitely decided by this Court in
or timber lands. If they are timber lands the claimants the case of Montano vs. Insular Government (12 Phil.
cannot acquire them by mere occupation for ten years Rep., 572). In that case the court said:
prior to July 26, 1904; if not, they can so acquire them
under the Public Land Act, and no grant or title is Although argued at different times, five of
necessary. these cases have been presented
substantially together, all being covered by
This being a cadastral case there are no findings of one brief of the late Attorney-General in
fact, but the trial court states that lot 1104 was in behalf of the Government in which, with
possession of claimants and their ancestors for more many interesting historical and graphic
than thirty years and lot 1154 for more than twenty- citations he described that part of the
five years. Lot 1158 is declared to be wholly "forestal." marginal seashore of the Philippine Islands
The are of the lots does not appear. known as manglares, with their characteristic
vegetation. In brief, it may be said that they
are mud flats, alternately washed and
The evidence fully sustains the contention of the exposed by the tide, in which grow various
claimants that they have been in possession of all of kindered plants which will not live except
those lots quietly, adversely and continuously under when watered by the sea, extending their
a claim of ownership for more than thirty years prior to roots deep into the mud and casting their
the hearing in the trial court. There is not a word of seeds, which also germinate there. These
proof in the whole record to the contrary. They set up constitute the mangrove flats of the tropics,
no documentary title. They do claim the parts of the which exists naturally, but which are also, to
lands denied registration are "mangles" with nipa and some extent, cultivated by man for the sake
various other kinds of aquatic bushes or trees growing of the combustible wood of the mangrove,
on them, and that in 1890 on lot 1158 they like trees, as well as for the useful nipa palm
constructed a fishpond (vivero de peces) which was propagated thereon. Although these flats are
later abandoned as unprofitable, and that part of this literally tidal lands, yet we are of the opinion
lot is pasture land, part palay and part "mangles." that they can not be so regarded in the
sense in which the term is used in the cases
The attorney-General contends in his brief that the cited or in general American jurisprudence.
parts of the lands denied registration are public forest The waters flowing over them are not
and cannot be acquired by occupation, and that all available for purpose of navigation, and they
"manglares are public forests." "may be disposed of without impairment of
the public interest in what remains."
In the Act of Congress of July 1st, 1902, there is a
classification of all public lands of the Philippine The court on page 573 further said:
Islands, and in mentioning forestry land the Act of
Congress used the words "timber land." These words It is a kindred case to Cirilo Mapa vs. The
are always translated in the Spanish translation of Insular Government . . . (10 Phil. Rep., 175).
that Act as "terrenos forestales." We think there is an
error in this translation and that a better translation
would be "terrenos madereros." Timber land in As some discussion has arisen as to the
English means land with trees growing on it. scope of that decision, it appears opportune
The manglar plant would never be called a tree in to reaffirm the principle there laid down. The
English but a bush, and land which has only bushes, issue was, whether lands used as a
shrubs or aquatic plants growing on it can not be fishery, for the growth of nipa, and as salt
called "timber land." deposits, inland some desistance from the
sea, and asserted, thought not clearly
proved, to be overflowed at high tide, could
 be registered as private property on the xxx xxx xxx
strength of ten years' occupation, under
paragraph 6 of section 54 of Act No. 926 of This Act went into effect July 26th, 1904. Therefore,
the Philippine Commission. The point all persons who were in possession of agricultural
decided was that such land within the public lands under the conditions mentioned in the
meaning of the Act of Congress of July 1, above section of Act No. 926 on the 26th of July,
1902, was agricultural, the reasoning leading 1894, are conclusively presumed to have a grant to
up to that conclusion being that Congress such lands and are entitled to have a certificate of title
having divided all the public lands of the issued to them. (Pamintuan vs.Insular Government, 8
Islands into three classes it must be included Phil., Rep., 485.)
in tone of the three, and being clearly neither
forest nor mineral, it must of necessity fall
into the division of agricultural land. While we hold that manglares as well as nipa lands
are subject to private acquisition and ownership when
it is fully proved that the possession has been actual,
In the case of Mapa vs. Insular Government (10 Phil. complete and adverse, we deem it proper to declare
Rep., 175), this court said that the phrase "agricultural that each case must stand on its own merits.
lands" as used in Act No. 926 means those public
lands acquired from Spain which are not timber or
mineral lands. One cannot acquire ownership of a mangrove swamp
by merely cutting a few loads of firewood from the
lands occasionally. The possession must be more
Whatever may have been the meaning of the term complete than would be required for other agricultural
"forestry" under the Spanish law, the Act of Congress lands.
of July 1st, 1902, classified the public lands in the
Philippine Islands as timber, mineral or agricultural
lands, and all public lands that are not timber or The appellants were in actual possession of the lots in
mineral lands are necessarily agricultural public lands, question from 18821, and their ancestors before that
whether they are used as nipa swamps, manglares, date, and they should have been declared the owners
fisheries or ordinary farm lands. and title should have been issued to them.

The definition of forestry as There is no need to consider the other points raised
including manglares found in the Administrative Code on appeal.
of 1917 cannot affect rights which vested prior to its
enactment. The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the
case is returned to the lower court, with instruction to
These lands being neither timber nor mineral lands enter a decree in conformity with this decision. So
the trial court should have considered them ordered.
agricultural lands. If they are agricultural lands then
the rights of appellants are fully established by Act Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Street, Araullo and
No. 926. Avanceña, JJ., concur.

Paragraph 6 of section 54 of that Act provides as Republic of the Philippines

follows: SUPREME COURT
Manila
All persons who by themselves or their
predecessors in interest have been in the IN BENCH
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of agricultural G.R. No. L-48321 August 31, 1946
public lands, as defined by said Act of
Congress of July first, nineteen hundred and
two, under a bona fide claim of ownership OH CHO, applicant-appellee,
except as against the Government, for a vs.
period of ten years next preceding the taking THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, oppositor-appellant.
effect of this Act, except when prevented by
war of force majuere, shall be conclusively Office of the Solicitor General Roman Ozaeta and
presumed to have performed all the Assistant Solicitor General Rafael Amparo for
conditions essential to a government grant appellant.
and to have received the same, and shall be Vicente Constantino for appellee.
entitled to a certificate of title to such land Ferrier, Gomez and Sotelo and J. T. Chuidian as
under the provisions of this chapter. amici curiae.
PADILLA, J.: case on the nature or classifications of the sought to
be registered.
This is an appeal from a judgment decreeing the
registration of a residential lot located in the It may be argued that under the provisions of the
municipality of Guinayangan, Province of Tayabas in Public Land Act the applicant immediate predecessor
the name of the applicant. in interest would have been entitled to a decree of
registration of the lot had they applied for its
The opposition of the Director of Lands is based on registration; and that he having purchased or acquired
the applicant's lack of title to the lot, and on his it, the right of his immediate predecessor in interest to
disqualification, as alien, from acquiring lands of the a decree of registration must be deemed also to have
public domain. been acquired by him. The benefits provided in the
Public Land Act for applicant's immediate
predecessors in interest should comply with the
The applicant, who is an alien, and his predecessors condition precedent for the grant of such benefits. The
in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive condition precedent is to apply for the registration of
and notorious possession of the lot from 1880 to filing the land of which they had been in possession at least
of the application for registration on January 17, 1940. since July 26, 1894. This the applicant's immediate
predecessors in interest failed to do. They did not
The Solicitor General reiterates the second objection have any vested right in the lot amounting to the title
of the opponent and adds that the lower court, which was transmissible to the applicant. The only
committed an error in not declaring null and void the right, if it may thus be called, is their possession of the
sale of the lot to the applicant. lot which, tacked to that of their predecessors in
interest, may be availed of by a qualified person to
The applicant invokes the Land Registration Act (Act apply for its registration but not by a person as the
No. 496), or should it not be applicable to the case, applicant who is disqualified.
then he would apply for the benefits of the Public
Land Act (C.A. No. 141). It is urged that the sale of the lot to the applicant
should have been declared null and void. In a suit
The applicant failed to show that he has title to the lot between vendor and vendee for the annulment of the
that may be confirmed under the Land Registration sale, such pronouncement would be necessary, if the
Act. He failed to show that he or any of his court were of the opinion that it is void. It is not
predecessors in interest had acquired the lot from the necessary in this case where the vendors do not even
Government, either by purchase or by grant, under object to the application filed by the vendee.
the laws, orders and decrease promulgated by the
Spanish Government in the Philippines, or by Accordingly, judgment is reversed and the application
possessory information under the Mortgaged Law for registration dismissed, without costs.
(section 19, Act 496). All lands that were not acquired
from the Government, either by purchase or by grant Moran, CJ, Fair, Pablo, Hilado and Bengzon,
below to the public domain. An exception to the rule JJ., Concur.
would be any land that should have been in the
possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in
interest since time immemorial, for such possession
would justify the presumption that the land had never
been part of the public domain or that it had been a
private property even before the Spanish conquest. Separate Opinions
(Cariño vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S., 449; 53
Law. Ed., 594.) The applicant does not come under
the exception, for the earliest possession of the lot by PERFECTO, J., concurring:
his first predecessors in interest begun in 1880.
Oh Cho, a citizen of the Republic of China, purchased
As the applicant failed to show title to the lot, the next in 1938 from Antonio, Luis and Rafael Lagdameo a
question is whether he is entitled to decree or parcel of land located in the residential district of
registration of the lot, because he is alien disqualified Guinayangan, Tayabas, which has been in the
from acquiring lands of the public domain (sections continuous, public, and adverse possession of their
48, 49, C.A. No. 141). predecessors in interest as far back as 1880. on June
17, 1940, Oh Cho applied for the registration of said
parcel of land. The Director of Lands opposed the
As the applicant failed to show the title to the lot, and application because, among other grounds, the
has invoked the provisions of the Public Land Act, it Constitution prohibits aliens from acquiring public or
seems unnecessary to make pronouncement in this private agricultural lands.
One of the witnesses for the applicant, on cross- the land to cultivation for agricultural or not
examination, expressly admitted that the land in (State vs. Stewart, 190, p.,129).
question is susceptible of cultivation and may be
converted into an orchard or garden. Rodolfo Tiquia, Judge Pedro Magsalin, of the Court First Instance of
inspector of the Bureau of Lands, testifying as a Tayabas, rendered a decision on August 15, 1940,
witness for the government, stated that the land, overruling the opposition without must explanation
notwithstanding the use to which it is actually and decreeing the registration prayed for the
devoted, is agricultural land in accordance with an applicant. The Director of Lands appealed from the
opinion rendered in 1939 by the Secretary of Justice. decision, and the Solicitor General appearing for
The pertinent part of said opinion, penned by appellant, maintains that the applicant, not being a
Secretary Jose Abad Santos, later Chief Justice of the citizen of the Philippines, is disqualified to buy or
Supreme Court, is as follows: acquire the parcel of land in question and that the
purchase made in question and that the purchase
1. Whether or not the "public agricultural made in 1938 is null and void.
land" in section 1, Article XII, of the
Constitution may be interpreted to include This is the question squarely reversing to us for
residential, commercial or industrial lots for decision. The majority, although reversing the lower
purposes of their disposition. court's decision and dismissing the application with
we agree, abstained from the declaring null and void
1. Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution the purchase made by Oh Cho in 1938 as prayed for
classifies lands of the public domain in the the appellant. We deem it necessary to state our
Philippines into agricultural, timber and opinion on the important question raised, it must be
mineral. This is the basic classification squarely decided.
adopted since the enactment of the Act of
Congress of July 1, 1902, known as the The Solicitor General argued in his brief as follows:
Philippine Bill. At the time of the adoption of
the Constitution of the Philippines, the term
"agricultural public lands" had, therefor, I. The lower court erred decreeing the
acquired a technical meaning in our public registration of the lot in question in favor of
laws. The Supreme Court of the Philippines the applicant who, according to his own
in the leading case of Mapa vs. voluntary admission, is a citizen of the
Insular Government, 10 Phil., 175, held that Chinese Republic.
the phrase "agricultural public lands" means
those public lands acquired from Spain (a) The phrase "agricultural land" as used in
which are neither timber nor mineral lands. the Act of the Congress of July 1, 1902, in
This definition has been followed by our the Public Land Act includes residential lots.
Supreme Court in many subsequent cases.
(Montano vs. Ins. Gov't 12 Phil., 572, 574; In this jurisdiction lands of public domain
Santiago vs. Ins. Gov't., 12, Phil., 593; suitable for residential purposes are
Ibañes de Aldecoa vs. Ins. Gov't., 13 Phil., considered agricultural lands under the
159; Ins. Gov't., vs. Aldecoa & Co., 19 Phil., Public Land Law. The phrase "agricultural
505, 516 Mercado vs. Collector of Internal public lands" has well settled judicial
Revenue, 32 Phil., 271, 276; Molina 175, definition. It was used for the first time in the
181; Jocson vs. Director of Forestry, 39 Phil., Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, known as
560, 564; and Ankron vs. Government of the the Philippine Bill. Its means those public
Philippines, 40 Phil., 10, 14.) lands acquired form Spain which are neither
mineral nor timber lands (Mapa vs. Insular
Residential, commercial or industrial lots Government, 12 Phil., 572; Ibañes de
forming part of the public domain must have Aldecoa vs. Insular Government 13 Phil.,
to be included in one or more of these 159; Ramos vs. Director of Lands, 39 Phil.,
classes. Clearly, they are neither timber nor 175; Jocson vs. Director of Forestry, 39 Phil.,
mineral, of necessity, therefore, they must be 560; Ankron vs. Government of the
classified as agricultural. Philippine Islands, 40 Phil., 10). In the case
of Mapa vs. Insular Government, supra, the
Viewed from the another angle, it has been Supreme Court, in defining the meaning and
held that in determining whether lands are scope of that phrase from the context of the
agricultural or not, the character of the lands sections 13 and 15 of that Act, said:
is the test (Odell vs. Durant 62 N. W., 524;
Lerch vs. Missoula Brick & Tile Co., 123 p., The phrase "agricultural public lands" as
25). In other words, it is the susceptibility of defined by the Act of Congress of July 1,
1902, which phrase is also to be found in
several sections of the Public Land Act (No. case, we quote at some length from the
926) means those public lands acquired from decision therein rendered:
Spain which are neither mineral timber
lands. "The question set up in these proceedings by
virtue of the appeal interposed by counsel for
xxx xxx xxx Juan Ibañez de Aldecoa, is whether or not a
parcel of land that is susceptible of being
"We hold that there is to be found in cultivated, and ceasing to be agricultural
the act of Congress a definition of land, was converted into a building lot, is
the phrase "agricultural public subject to the legal provisions in force
lands," and after careful regarding Government public lands which
consideration of the question we may be alienated in favor of private
are satisfied that only definition individuals or corporations. . . .
which exists in said Act is the
definition adopted by the court xxx xxx xxx
below. Section 13 say that the
Government shall "make and rules "Hence, any parcel of land or
and regulations for the lease, sale, building lot is susceptible of
or other dispositions of public lands cultivation, and may converted into
other than timber or mineral lands," a field, and planted with all kinds of
To our minds that is only definition vegetation ; for this reason, where
that can be said to be given land is not mining or forestal in its
agricultural lands. In other nature, it must necessarily be
words, that the phrase "agricultural included within the classification of
lands" as used in Act No. 926 agriculture land, not because it is
means those public lands acquired actually used for the purposes of
from Spain which are not timber or agriculture, but because it was
mineral lands. . . ." Mapa vs. Insular originally agricultural and may again
Government, 10 Phil., 175, 178, become so under other
182, emphasis added.) circumstances; besides the Act of
Congress (of July 1, 1902) contains
"This phrase "agricultural public lands" was only three classifications, and
subsequently used in Act No. 926, which is makes no special provision with
the first public land law of the Philippines. As respect to building lots or urban
therein used, the phrase was expressly land that have ceased to be
given by the Philippine Commission the agricultural land. . . .
same meaning intended for it by Congress
as interpreted in the case of Mapa vs. Insular xxx xxx xxx
Government, supra. This is a self-evident
from a reading of section 1, 10, 32, and 64
(subsection 6 of Act No. 926). Whenever the "From the language of the foregoing
phrase "agricultural public lands" is used in provisions of the law, it is deduced
any of said sections, it is invariably by the that, with the exception of those
qualification "as defined by said Act of comprised within the mineral and
Congress of July first, nineteen hundred and timber zone, all lands owned by
two." State or by the sovereign nation are
public in character, and per
se alienable and, provided they are
"More specially, in the case of Ibañez de not destine to the use of public in
Aldecoa vs. Insular Government, supra, the general or reserved by the
Supreme Court held that a residential or Government in accordance with
building lot, forming part of the public law, they may be acquired by any
domain, is agricultural land, irrespective of private or juridical person; and
the fact that it is not actually used for considering their origin and
purposes of agriculture for the simple reason primitive state and the general uses
that it is susceptible of cultivation and may to which they are accorded, they
be converted into a rural estate, and are called agricultural lands, urbans
because when a land is not mineral or lands and building lots being
forestal in its nature it must necessarily be included in this classification for the
included within the classification of a purpose of distinguishing rural and
agricultural land. Because of the special urban estates from mineral and
applicability of the doctrine laid down in said
 timber lands; the transformation Act the lands of the public have been
they may have undergone is no classified into three divisions: (a) alienable or
obstacle to such classification as disposable, (b) timber, and (c) mineral lands.
the possessors thereof may again The lands designated alienable or
convert them into rural disposable correspond to lands designated
estates." (Ibañez de in the Constitution as public agricultural
Aldecoa vs. Insular Government 13 lands, because under section 1, Article XII,
Phil., 161, 163 164, 165, 166; public agricultural lands are the only natural
emphasis added.). resources of the country which are the only
natural resources of the country which are
(b) Under the Constitution subject to alienation or deposition.
and Commonwealth Act
No. 141 (Public Land Act), "Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 141
the phrase (Public Land provide that the alienable or disposable
Act), the phrase "public public lands shall be classified, according to
agricultural land" includes use or purposes to which they are destined,
lands of the public domain into a agricultural, residential, commercial,
suitable for residential industrial, etc., lands. At first blush it would
purposes. seem that under this classification residential
land is different from agricultural land. The
"Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution, difference however, is more apparent than
reads as follows: real. 'Public agricultural land ' as that phrase
is used in the Constitution means alienable
lands of the public domain and therefore this
"All agricultural timber, and phrase is equivalent to the lands classified
mineral lands of the public by the Commonwealth Act No. 141 as
domain waters, minerals, coal, alienable or disposable. The classification
petroleum and other mineral oils, all provided in section 9 is only for purposes
forces of potential energy, and administration and disposition, according to
other natural resources of the the purposes to which said lands are
Philippines belong to the State, and especially adopted. But notwithstanding this
disposition, exploitation, of all said lands are essentially agricultural
development, or utilization shall be public lands because only agricultural public
limited to citizens of the Philippines, lands are subject to alienation or disposition
or to corporations or associations at under section 1, Article XII of the
least sixty per centum of the capital Constitution. A contrary view would
of which is owned by such citizens, necessarily create a conflict between
subject to any existing right, grant Commonwealth Act No. 141 and section 1 of
lease, or concession at the time of Article XII of the Constitution, and such
the inauguration of the Government conflict should be avoided , if possible, and
established under this Constitution. said Act construed in the light of the
Natural resources, with the fundamental provisions of the Constitution
exception of publicagricultural land, and in entire harmony therewith.
shall not be alienated . . ."
(Emphasis added.).
"Another universal principles
applied in considering constitutional
"Under the above-quote provision, the question is, that an Act will be so
disposition exploitation, development or construed, if possible, as to avoid
utilization of the natural resources, including conflict with the Constitution,
agricultural lands of the public domain is although such a construction may
limited to citizens of the Philippines or to the not be the most obvious or natural
corporations or associations therein one. "The Court may resort to an
mentioned. It also clearly appears from said implication to sustain a statute, but
provision that natural resources, with the not to destroy it." But the courts
exception of public agricultural land, are not cannot go beyond the province of
subject to alienation. legitimate construction, in order to
save a statute; and where the
"On November 7, 1936, or more than one meaning is plain, words cannot to
year after the adoption of the Constitution, be read into it or out of it for that
Commonwealth Act No. 141, known as the purpose." ( 1 Sutherland, Statutory
Public Land Act, was approved. Under this Construction, pp. 135, 136.)
"In view of the fact that more than one than these doubtful expressions in the
one year after the adoption of the statute, and as that now put another
Constitution the National Assembly revised construction has since prevailed,
the Public Land Law and passed there is no reason why we should
Commonwealth Act No. 141, which a now put another construction of the
compilation of the laws relative to the lands act on account of any suppose
of the public domain and the amendments change of convenience." This rule
thereto, form to the Constitution. of construction will hold good even
if the court be opinion that the
"Where the legislature has revised practical erroneous; so that if the
a statute after a Constitution has matter were res integra the court
been adopted, such a revision is to would adopt a different
be regarded as a legislative construction. Lord Cairns said: "I
construction that the statute so think that with regard to statutes ...
revised conforms to the it is desirable not so much that the
Constitution." (59 C.J., 1102; principle of the decision should be
emphasis added.) capable at all times of justification,
as that the law should be settled,
and should, when once settled, be
"By the way of illustration, let us supposed maintained without any danger of
that a piece or tract of public land has been vacillation or uncertainty. "Judicial
classified pursuant to section 9 of usage and practice will have
Commonwealth Act No. 141 as residential weight, and when continued for a
land. If, by reason of this classification, it is long time will be sustained though
maintained that said land has ceased to be carried beyond the pair purport of
agricultural public land, it will no longer be the statute."(II Lewis' Sutherland
subject to alienation or disposition by reason Statutory Construction, pp. 892,
of the constitutional provision that only 893.) .
agricultural lands are alienable; and yet such
residential lot is alienable under section 58,
59, and 60 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 to "An important consideration
citizens of the Philippines or to corporations affecting the weight of
or associations mentioned in section 1, contemporary judicial construction
Article XII of the Constitution. Therefore, the is the length of time it has
classification of public agricultural lands into continued. It is adopted, and
various subdivisions is only for purposes of derives great force from being
administration, alienation or disposition, but it adopted, soon after the enactment
does not destroy the inherent nature of all of the law. It may be, and is
such lands as a public agricultural lands. presumed, that the legislative sense
of its policy, and of its true scope
and meaning, permeates the
"(c) Judicial interpretation of doubtful clause judiciary and controls its exposition.
or phrase use in the law, controlling. Having received at that time a
construction which is for the time
"The judicial interpretation given to the settled, accepted, and thereafter
phrase "public agricultural land" is a followed or acted upon, it has the
sufficient authority for giving the same sanction of the of the authority
interpretation to the phrase as used in appointed to expound the law, just
subsequent legislation, and this is especially and correct conclusions, when
so in view of the length of time during which reached, they are, moreover, within
this interpretation has been maintained by the strongest reasons on which
the courts. On this point Sutherland has the founded the maxim of stare decisis.
following to say: Such a construction is public given,
and the subsequent silence of the
"When a judicial interpretation has legislature is strong evidence of
once been put upon a clause, acquiescence, though not
expressed in a vague manner by conclusive. . . . (II Lewis Sutherland
the legislature, and difficult to be Statutory Construction, pp. 894,
understood, that ought of itself to be 895.)
sufficient authority for adopting the
same construction. Buller J., said: "Furthermore, when the phrase "public
"We find solemn determination of agricultural land" was used in section 1 of
Article XII of the Constitution, it is presumed "Granting that the land in question has
that it was so used with the same judicial ceased to be a part of the lands of the public
meaning therefor given to it and therefor the domain by reason of the long continuous,,
meaning of the phrase, as used in the public adverse possession of the applicant's
Constitution, includes residential lands and predecessors in interest, and that the latter
another lands of the public domain, but had performed all the conditions essential to
excludes mineral and timber lands. a Government grant and were entitled to a
certificate of title under section 48,
"Adoption of provisions previously subsection (b), of Commonwealth Act No.
construed — ad. Previous 141, still the sale of said land of December 8,
construction by Courts. — Where a 1938, to the applicant as evidenced by
statute that has been construed by Exhibits B and C, was null and void for being
the courts of the last resort has contrary to section 5, Article XII of the
been reenacted in same, or Constitution, which reads as follows:
substantially the same, terms, the
legislature is presumed to have "Save in cases of hereditary
been familiar with its construction, succession, no private agricultural
and to have adopted it is part of the land shall be transferred or
law, unless a contrary intent clearly assignedexcept to individuals,
appears, or a different construction corporations, or associations
is expressly provided for; and the qualified to acquire or hold lands of
same rule applies in the the public domain of the
construction of a statute enacted Philippines."
after a similar or cognate statute
has been judicially construed. So "The applicant, being a Chinese citizen, is
where words or phrases employed disqualified to acquire or hold lands of the
in a new statute have been public domain (section 1, Article XII of the
construed by the court to have been Constitution; section 12, 22, 23, 33, 44, 48,
used in a particular sense in a Commonwealth Act No. 141 ), and
previous statute on the same consequently also disqualified to buy and
subject, or one analogous to it, they acquire private agriculture land.
are presumed, in the a absence of
clearly expressed intent to the
contrary, to be used in the same "In view of the well settled judicial meaning
sense in the statute as in the of the phrase public agricultural land,' as
previous statute." (59 C.J., 1061- hereinbefore demonstrated, the phrase
1063.). 'private agricultural land,' as used in the
above quoted provision, can only mean land
of private ownership, whether agricultural,
"Legislative adoption of judicial residential, commercial or industrial. And this
construction. — In the adoption of necessarily so, because the phrase
the code, the legislature is 'agricultural land used in the Constitution and
presumed to have known the in the Public Land Law must be given the
judicial construction which have same uniform meaning to wit, any land of the
been placed on the former statutes; public domain or any land of private
and therefore the reenactment in ownership, which is neither mineral or
the code or general revision of forestal.
provisions substantially the same
as those contained in the former
statutes is a legislative adoption of "A word or phrase repeated in a
their known judicial constructions, statute will bear the same meaning
unless a contrary intent is clearly throughout the statute, unless a
manifest. So the fact that the different intention appears. ...
revisers eliminated statutory Where words have being long used
language after it had been judicially in a technical sense and have been
construed shows that they had such judicially construed to have a
construction in view." (59 C. J., certain meaning, and have been
1102.) adopted by the legislature as
having a certain meaning prior to a
particular statute in which they are
"II. The lower court erred in not declaring null used, the rule of construction
and void the sale of said land to the requires that the words used in
appellant (appellee). such statute should be construed
 according to the sense may vary One of our fellow members therein, Delegate Montilla,
from the strict literal meaning of the said:
words." (II Sutherland, Statutory
Construction., p. 758.) . The constitutional precepts that I believe will
ultimately lead us to our desired goal are; (1)
"This interpretation is in harmony with the the complete nationalization of our lands and
nationalistic policy, spirit and purpose of our natural resources; (2) the nationalization of
Constitution and laws, to wit, `to conserve our commerce and industry compatible with
and develop the patrimony of the nation,' as good international practices. With the
solemnly enunciated in the preamble to the complete nationalization of our lands and
Constitution. natural resources it is to be understood that
our God-given birthright should be one
"A narrow and literal interpretation of the hundred per cent in Filipino hands. ... Lands
phrase 'private agriculture land' would impair and natural resources are immovable and as
and defeat the nationalistic aim and general such can be compared to the vital organs of
policy of our laws and would allow a gradual, a person's body, the lack of possession of
steady, and unlimited accumulation in alien which may cause instant death or the
hands of a substantial portion of our shortening of life. If we do not completely
patrimonial estates, to the detriment of our nationalize these two of our most important
national solidarity, stability, and belongings, I am afraid that the time will
independence. Nothing could prevent the come when we shall be sorry for the time we
acquisition of a great portion or the whole of were born. Our independence will be just a
a city by subjects of a foreign power. And yet mockery, for what kind of independence are
a city or urban area is more strategical than we going to have if a part of our country is
a farm or rural land. not in our hands but in those of foreigner? (2
Aruego, The Framing of the Philippine
Constitution, p. 592.).
"The mere literal construction of
section in a statute ought not to
prevail if it is opposed to the From the same book of Delegate Aruego, we quote:
intention of the legislature apparent
by the statute; and if the words are The nationalization of the natural resources
sufficiently flexible to admit of some of the country was intended (1) to insure
other construction it is to be their conservation for Filipino posterity; (2) to
adopted to effectuate that intention. serve as an instrument of national defense,
The intent prevails over the letter, helping prevent the extension into the
and the letter will, if possible be so country of foreign control through peaceful
read as to conform to the spirit of economic penetration; and (3) to prevent
the act. While the intention of the making the Philippines a source of
legislature must be ascertained international conflict with the consequent
from the words used to express it, danger to its internal security and
the manifest reason and the independence.
obvious purpose of the law should
not be sacrificed to a liberal xxx xxx xxx
interpretation of such words." (II
Sutherland, Stat. Construction, pp.
721, 722.) . . . In the preface to its report, the committee
on nationalization and preservation of lands
and other natural resources said;
"We conclude, therefore, that the residential
lot which the applicant seeks to register in
his name falls within the meaning of private "International complications have often
agricultural land as this phrase is used in our resulted from the existence of alien
Constitution and, consequently, is not ownership of land and natural resources in a
subject to acquisition by foreigners except by weak country. Because of this danger, it is
hereditary succession." best that aliens should be restricted in the
acquisition of land and other natural
resources. An example is afforded by the
The argument hold water. It expresses a correct case of Texas. This state was originally
interpretation of the Constitution and the real intent of province of Mexico. In order to secure its
the Constitutional Convention. rapid settlements and development, the
Mexican government offered free land to
settlers in Texas. Americans responded
 more rapidly than the Mexicans, and soon Both the applicant and the Director of Lands practiced
they organized a revolt against Mexican rule, their tests before an arbitrator appointed by the Court
and then secured annexation to the United of First Instance of Tayabas. In view of such
States. A new increase of alien landholding evidence, Judge Magsalin, of the aforementioned
in Mexico has brought about the desire a Court, issued a judgment in favor of the applicant, of
prevent a repetition of the Texas affair. which we transcribe the following pertinent portions:
Accordingly the Mexican constitution of 1917
contains serious limitation on the right of The representation of the opposing Director
aliens to hold lands and mines in Mexico. of Land tries to prove through the testimony
The Filipinos should profit from this of the Land Buro Inspector that the land
example." subject of the request is part of the public
domain and in addition the applicant is a
xxx xxx xxx Chinese citizen, but said witness stated that
the land subject to the the present
It was primarily for these reasons that the application is a site located within the
Convention approved readily the proposed population of the municipality of Guinayanga,
principle of prohibiting aliens to acquire, Tayabas, and in the same there is a house
exploit, develop, or utilize agricultural, of strong materials and lacking merit this
timber, and mineral lands of the public opposition should be dismissed.
domain, waters minerals, coal, petroleum,
and other mineral oils, all forces of potential Therefore, after rejecting the opposition of
energy, and other natural resources of the the Director of Land, is awarded with its
Philippines. For the same reasons the improvements the plot of land subject of the
Convention approved equally readily the present application described in the map
proposed principle of prohibiting the transfer Psu-109117, in favor of the applicant Oh
of assignment to aliens of private agricultural Cho, Chinese citizen, adult, married with Yee
land, save in the case of hereditary Shi, and resident in the municipality of
succession. (2 Aruego, Framing of the Guinayanga, Tayabas, Philippine
Philippine Constitution, pp. 604, 605, 606.). Islands. (Decision, page 8, Record on
Appeal.)
All the foregoing show why we, having been a
member of the Constitutional Convention, agree with From the transcript, the following is inferred in a
Solicitor General's position and concur in the result in forced manner: ( a ) that the lower court dismissed
this case, although we would go as far as the outright outright the opposition of the Director of Land based
pronouncement that the purchase made by appelle is on the assumption that the site under question is part
null and void. of the public domain ; ( b ) that the same court
rejected the other basis of the opposition, that is, that
BRIONES, M., with whom they are satisfied the applicant being Chinese citizen is incapacitated
PARAS and TUASON, MM., Dissident: under our Constitution to acquire land, whether public,
or private, even if it is an urban lot; ( c ) that,
according to the Judge a quo's ruling , the questioned
The applicant in this file requests the registration of land is not public, it is necessarily private land .
the lot that is treated as privately owned land , and
only with a supplementary character invokes the
provisions of chapter 8 of Law No. 2874 on public The Director of Land, not being satisfied with the
lands (Part of Exceptions, p. 3.) judgment, appealed it to the Court of Appeal and
made two allegations of error, none of which calls into
question the quality of private land disputed. The
For its part, the Director of Land opposes the appellant does not raise any question of fact; It raises
application under three grounds, namely: (1) because only one question of law. That is why in the
neither the applicant nor its predecessors in interest reconstitution of this file - the original was burned
can demonstrate sufficient title on said parcel of land, during the war - there has been no need to include
not having acquired it or by title of composition with the shorthand notes or the documentary evidence,
the State under the sovereignty of Spain, or title of and in fact we have considered and decided this
possessory information under the Royal Decree of matter without these notes and proofs. The lawyer
February 13, 1894; (2) because the aforementioned Constantino, of the appellee, in the hearing for the
lot is a portion of the lands of public domain belonging reconstitution of the cars, made this
to the Commonwealth of the Philippines; (3) because demonstration; "In view also of the fact that the
the applicant being a Chinese citizen, is not qualified questions involved here are only questions of law, this
under the provisions of the Constitution of the representation waives the right to present the
Philippines to acquire lands of a public or private evidence presented in the trial court. . . "For his part,
nature ( idem , pp. 5 and 6). the Attorney General, when explaining the case on
behalf of the appellant Director of Land, begins his represents the State, admits in its argument the
argument with the following statement: private nature of the site, and only raises a question,
of right, namely: that under our Constitution no
This appeal is a test case. There are now transfer act of ownership in favor of a foreigner is
several cases of exactly the same nature valid, so it is an urban property , because the phrase
pending in the trial courts. "private agricultural land" that is contained in the
Constitution includes not only the rustic but also the
urban ones? And, above all, can we, in fairness and
Whether or not an alien can acquire a justice, consider and review a point that not only is not
residential lot and register it in his name is discussed by the parties, as they consider it accepted
the only question raised in this appeal from a and established, but it is of right and of because the
decision of the Court of First Instance of phrase "private agricultural land" that is contained in
Tayabas which sustained the affirmance and the Constitution covers not only rustic but also urban
decreed the registration of the said property properties? And, above all, can we, in fairness and
in favor of the applicant who, by his own justice, consider and review a point that not only is not
voluntary admission, is a citizen of the discussed by the parties, as they consider it accepted
Chinese Republic. This question is raised in and established, but it is of right and of because the
connection with the constitutional provision phrase "private agricultural land" that is contained in
that no private agricultural land shall be the Constitution covers not only rustic but also urban
transferred or assigned to foreigners except properties? And, above all, can we, in fairness and
in cases of hereditary succession. (Pags. 1, justice, consider and review a point that not only is not
2, alegato del apelante.) discussed by the parties, as they consider it accepted
and established, but it is of right and ofdone at the
Having appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal, same time? What basis do we have to do it when we
why did this case go to the Supreme Court, before do not have both the testimony and documentary
which it was pending even before the war, and evidence in front of us? Our answer is, at all,
without being resolved during the Japanese negative.
occupation? The reason does not appear specifically
in the record, but since it is not an appeal from the The competence of this Court to review the judgments
Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, the only of the lower courts, of which an appeal has been filed,
explanation is that he should realize that the appeal is based on the principle that such jurisdiction, in its
was not more than a question of law , ordered, as it exercise, must be limited to the controversial issues,
was de rigueur, the transfer of the matter to this Court and this is determined through the pointing out errors
because of its jurisdiction and competence. that the appellant makes in his plea. Article 19 of the
old rules of procedure in this Supreme Court said in
We have considered it necessary to set the previous its first paragraph the following:
premises because they serve as the basis for the
argument that we are going to follow to support this Attached to the appellant's argument and in
dissidence. a separate document, a list of the errors of
law to be discussed will be attached. The
I. From the foregoing it is evident that the Director of specification of each of these errors will be
Lands has opposed the requested registration, among made by separate paragraphs, clearly, in a
other reasons, because the land is public ; that the concise manner, and without incurring
lower court has dismissed this ground for "lacking repetitions, and will be numbered in
merit," ruling that the land is private ; that the Director correlative order.
of Lands, in his appeal before us, does not question
this conclusion of the Judge a quo, but admitting that Article 20 of the same regulation stated:
the land is privately owned, argues, however, that
under Section 5, Article XII of the Constitution of the
Philippines the applicant, being a foreigner, can not No error of law other than that relating to
acquire private agricultural land, being included in this jurisdiction over the subject matter of a
concept an urban lot like the one in this file. Once the litigation shall be taken into consideration as
matter has been raised in such terms, can this Court it is not specified in the relationship of the
consider and resolve a point not disputed between the errors and presented as one of the grounds
parties - a point that is firmly and definitively resolved in the pleading.
and is not subject to appeal? In other words: can this
Court, as the majority in its opinion, revoke a Interpreting these regulatory provisions, the Court
conclusion of the lower court that is not discussed in made in the Santiago case against Felix (24 Jur. Fil.,
the appellant's argument? Can we, in good procedural 391), the following doctrinal pronouncements:
law, declare public the land in question on our own
initiative, when the same Attorney General, which
 1. APPEAL; EFFECT OF LEAVING OF notice of error or appropriate argument in the Attorney
PRESENTING RELATIONSHIP OF General's plea , is included among the exceptions of
ERRORS; RULE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED. - which the rule speaks transcribed above because it
It is a rule established by the jurisprudence does not affect the jurisdiction over the matter of the
of the Courts of these Islands, by virtue of litigation, nor is it a "plain error," or "clerical error."
repeated and uniform judgments of this
Court, that if in an appeal the appellant fails It will be noted that in the old regulation there was no
to point out the errors incurred by the lower "plain errors not specified" (patent or manifest errors
Court, and will limit itself to discussing issues not specified in the allegation). But can this
of fact in general, it is not possible that this reservation be invoked in the case at hand?
Court can consider or review the adverse Undoubtedly not, for the following reasons: ( a ) the
resolution to the appellant, for the reason of documents do not show that the judge a quohe made
having been issued against the law and the a clear and manifest error in declaring in his judgment
weight of the evidence, but it is necessary that the land is not public but private; we have no
that State and specify the error or errors that choice but to accept in its face the conclusion of the
determined the appealed decision that the judge sentencing on this matter for the simple reason
appellant qualifies as unlawful and unfair. that we do not have before us the evidence or testify
or documentary, and, therefore, there is no basis to
2. Id .; Id .; Rule Same as Adopted by the review, much less to revoke said conclusion, having
Courts of the United States. - Equal legal interpreted this reservation in the sense that one can
doctrine is in observance in the Courts of the only take "judicial knowledge of the palpable error in
United States of North America, since a view of the proceedings and proceedings"; ( b) even
general manifestation that the Court failed to admitting for a moment, for the purposes of the
pronounce judgment in favor of one of the argument, that His Honor the Judge suffered a
parties, is not enough as a basis for the palpable error in stating this conclusion, since the
Court may review the sentence appealed, Attorney General does not raise the issue in his plea,
because unless the Judge's assessment of it must be understood that he has renounced his right
the facts alleged and proven at trial is to do so , choosing to base its case on other reasons
manifestly contrary to the result and weight and reasons; therefore, we are not entitled to
of the evidence, the Court of Appeals usually consider the alleged error motu proprio proprio
accepts the Judge's judgment and criteria on proprio motu proprio motu proprio proprio proprio ,
the issues of fact, and it is not appropriate to because obviously it is not an oversight
revoke the sentence appealed without just or oversight of the representative of the State, but a
cause. (Enriquez against Enriquez, 8 Jur. deliberate resignation, and jurisprudence on the
Fil., 574; Chaplaincy of subject tells us that "the underlying purpose,
Tambobong againstAntonio, 8 Jur. Fil., fundamental of the reservation in the rule is to prevent
693; Paterno against the City of Manila, 17 the miscarriage of justice by virtue of carelessness.
Jur. Fil., 26) "(Santiago against Felix, 24 Jur. " Here are some relevant authorities:
Fil., 391.)
Purpose of exception as to plain errors. —
This doctrine was subsequently reiterated in the The proviso in the rule requiring assignments
following matters: Tan Me Nio v. Administrator of of error, permitting the court, at its option, to
Customs, 34 Jur. Fil., 995, notice a plain error not assigned, "was and in
996; Hernaez against Montelibano, 34 Jur. Fil., 1011. intended, in the interest of justice, to reserve
to the appellate court the right, resting in
Rule 53, section 6, of the current regulations of the public duty, to take cognizance of palpable
courts, provides as follows: error on the face of the record
and proceedings, especially such as clearly
demonstrate that the suitor has no cause of
SEC. 5. Questions that may be decided. — action." Santaella vs. Otto F. Lange Co. (155
No error which does not affect the Fed., 719, 724; 84 C. C. A., 145).
jurisdiction over the subject matter will be
considered unless stated in the assignment
of errors and properly argued in the The rules does not intend that we are to sift
brief, save as the court, at its option, may the record and deal with questions which are
notice plain errors not specified, and also of small importance, but only to notice errors
clerical errors. which are obvious upon inspection and of a
controlling character. The underlying
purpose of this reservation in the rule is
It will not be said that the question of whether the to prevent the miscarriage of justice from
disputed terrain is public or private, considered and oversight. Mast vs. Superior Drill Co. (154
resolved by the majority in its decision without prior Fed., 45, 51; 83 C. C. A. 157).
II. So far we have developed our argument under the not discuss or question in his plea the conclusion that
assumption that the quality of private litigation is the aforementioned land is private property.
not controversial justiciable in this instance because
the question is not raised in the plea of the Attorney On the other hand, the majority seems to give a too
General or be a matter of dispute between the parties absolute and rigid character to the proposition that "all
in the appeal pending before US; so, consequently, lands that were not acquired from the Government (in
we are not entitled to review, much less revoke motu the time of Spain), by purchase or by concession,
propriothe conclusion of the court to quo on the belong to the public domain." Strictly interpreting the
particular. Now we are going to work under another law, this Supreme Court denied the registration
assumption - that the Attorney General has made the requested in the famous affair againstthe Insular
corresponding error statement and the question is, Government that cites the majority in its opinion, for
therefore, properly raised before this Supreme Court that same reason that is accentuated in the paper - on
for the purposes of the review. The question naturally the grounds that Cariño could not show title of
in order is the following: did the Judge a quo when purchase, concession or possession information
declaring and conceptualizing the land in question as issued by the Government in the time of Spain, being
private, or is his conclusion in this regard correct? We therefore the land is part of the public domain. But
are of opinion that the Judge did not make an error, when the matter was raised to appeal to the Supreme
that the land in question meets the necessary legal Court of the United States, it reversed the judgment of
conditions to qualify as private and differentiate it from this Court, declaring the land as private property and
a property of public domain, and that, therefore, the decreeing its registration on behalf of the
applicant has a confirmatory title on the property. applicant.paper issued by that Government. Here is
under the provisions of the Land Registration Law No. what Judge Holmes says:
496.
We come, then, to the question on which the
It is affirmed in the decision of the majority that the case was decided below — namely, whether
applicant has not been able to prove that he or any of the plaintiff owns the land. The position of
his legal claimants acquired the lot of the State government, shortly stated, is that Spain
through purchase or concession under the laws, assumed, asserted, and had title to all the
ordinances and decrees promulgated by the Spanish land in the Philippines except so far it saw fit
Government in the Philippines, or by virtue of of the to permit private titles to be acquired; that
procedures related to possessory information under there was no prescripcion against the
the mortgage law in the time of Spain. From this the Crown, and that, if there was, a decree of
majority concludes that the disputed land is not June 25, 1880, required registration within a
private because, according to its criterion, "all the limited time to make the title good; that the
lands that were not acquired from the Government plaintiff's land was not registered, and
(Spanish Government, it is meant), either by therefore became, if it was not always, public
purchase, or by concession, belong to the public land; that the United States succeeded to the
domain"; and citing as authority the classic title of Spain, and so that the plaintiff has no
affair againstThe Government Insular the paper does rights that the Philippine Government is
not admit more exception to the rule that the case in bound to respect.
which a land has been in the possession of the
occupant and its predecessors in interest since time
immemorial, because such possession would justify If we suppose for the moment that the
the presumption that the land had never been part of government's contention is so far correct that
the public domain, or that had been private property the Crown of Spain in form asserted a title to
even before the Spanish conquest. " this land at the date of the treaty of Paris, to
which the United States succeeded, it is not
to be assumed without argument that the
What, in the first place, does not seem correct is the plaintiff's case is at an end. It is true that
assurance with which the paper states that the land Spain, in its earlier decrees,"embodied the
was not acquired under Spanish sovereignty by virtue universal feudal theory that all lands were
of any of the ways known in the legislation of that held from the Crown, and perhaps the
time, because as we do not have before proofs, there general attitude of conquering nations
is naturally no way to verify the certainty of the toward people not recognized as entitled to
proposition. If it is taken into account that the Director the treatment accorded to those in the same
of Lands opposed the application for registration on zone of civilization with themselves. It is true,
the grounds that the land is public domain, and that also that, in legal theory, sovereignty is
the lower court dismissed this ground, the absolute, and that, as against foreign
presumption is that the quality of the land was nations, the United States may assert, as
satisfactorily proven. , Presumption that is Spain asserted, absolute power. But it does
strengthened if it is considered that the Attorney not follow that, as against the inhabitants of
General, in sustaining the Government's appeal, does the Philippines, the United States asserts
 that Spain had such power. When theory is powers of Spain beyond this recognition in
left on one side, sovereignty is a question of their books.
strength, and may vary in degree. How far a
new sovereign shall insist upon the Prescription is mentioned again in the royal
theoretical relation of the subjects to the cedula of October 15, 1754, cited in (3 Phil.,
head in the past, and how far it shall 546): "Where such possessors shall not be
recognize actual facts, are matters for it to able to produce title deeds, it shall be
decide. (U. S. Supreme Court Reports, Vol. sufficient if they shall show that ancient
212, p. 596.) possession, as a valid title by prescription." It
may be that this means possession from
Further on, the following is said in the aforementioned before 1700; but, at all events, the principle
judgment of the Federal Supreme Court: is admitted. As prescription, even against
Crown lands, was recognized by the laws of
It is true that, by section 14, the Government Spain, we see no sufficient reason for
of the Philippines is empowered to enact hesitating to admit that it was recognized in
rules and prescribe terms for perfecting titles the Philippines in regard to lands over which
to public lands were some, but not all, Spain had only a paper sovereignty.
spanish conditions has been fulfilled, and to
issue patents to natives for not more than 16 It is true that the language of articles 4 and 5
hectares of public lands actually occupied by attributes title to those "who may prove"
the native or his ancestors before August 13, possession for the necessary time, and we
1898. But this section perhaps might be do not overlook the argument that this
satisfied if confined to cases where the means may prove in registration
occupation was of land admitted to be public proceedings. It may be that an English
land, and had not continued for such a conveyancer would have recommended an
length of time and under such circumstances application under the foregoing decree, but
as to give rise to the understanding that the certainly it was not calculated to convey to
occupants were owners at that date. We the mind of an Igorot chief the notion that
hesitate to suppose that it was intended to ancient family possessions were in danger, if
declare every native who had not a paper he had read every word of it. The words
title a trespasser, and to set the claims of all "may prove" (acrediten), as well, or better, in
the wilder tribes afloat. view of the other provisions, might be taken
to mean when called upon to do so in any
xxx xxx xxx litigation. There are indications that
registration was expected from all, but none
sufficient to show that, for want of it,
If the applicant's case is to be tried by the ownership actually gained would be lost. The
law of Spain, we do not discover such clear effect of the proof, wherever made, as not to
proof that it was bas by that law as to satisfy confer title, but simply to establish it, as
us that he does not own the land. To begin already conferred by the decree, if not by
with, the older decrees and laws cited by the earlier law. The royal decree of February 13,
counsel for the plaintiff in error seem to 1894, declaring forfeited titles that were
indicate pretty clearly that the natives were capable of adjustment under the decree of
recognized as owning some lands, 1880, for which adjustment had not been
irrespective of any royal grant. In other sought, should not be construed as a
words, Spain did not assume to convert all confiscation, but as the withdrawal of a
the native inhabitants of the Philippines into privilege. As a matter of fact, the applicant
trespassers or even into tenants at will. For never was disturbed. This same decree is
instance, Book 4, title 12, Law 14 of quoted by the court of land registration for
the Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias, another recognition of the common-law
cited for a contrary conclusion in prescription of thirty years as still running
Valenton vs. Murciano (3 Phil., 537), while it against alienable Crown land.
commands viceroys and others, when it
seems proper, to call for the exhibition of
grants, directs them to confirm those who xxx xxx xxx
hold by good grants or justa prescripcion. It
is true that it begins by the characteristic . . . Upon a consideration of the whole case
assertion of feudal overlordship and the we are of opinion that law and justice require
origin of all titles in the King or his that the applicant should be granted what he
predecessors. That was theory and seeks, and should not be deprived of what,
discourse. The fact was that titles were by the practice and belief of those among
admitted to exist that owed nothing to the whom he lived, was his property, through a
 refined interpretation of an almost forgotten request was originally from Captain Gina and that this
law of Spain. (U. S. Supreme Court Reports, was in possession since the year 1880 , then became
Vol. 212, pp. 597-599.) Francisco Reformed until 1885, later that is in 1886
was Claro Lagdameo, the death of this happened to
It is evident from the jurisprudence set forth in the him in the possession of his widow Fortunata Olega
aforementioned affair of Cariño against the Insular de Lagdameo, this in 1929 he sold it to his three
Government that whatever the theory about the feudal children Antonio, Luis and Rafael appellant
superdomination that the Crown of Spain assumed on Lagdameo, according to Exhibits F and G, and these
all lands in the Philippines, in practice and in reality it last ones in turn sold it in 1938 to the applicant Oh
was recognized that the mere lapse of time in the Cho, according to Exhibits B 1 -and C-1. " "
possession (20 or 30 years, as the case may be)
could establish and in fact establish private property As you can see, at least since 1880 there was a well-
rights by just prescription,and the presumptive title known owner and owner of the land - Captain
thus acquired was for all purposes equivalent to an Gina. Now, it coincides that on June 25 of that year
express concession or a written title issued by the that precisely when the Decree was issued "for the
Government. But anyway - paraphrasing what was adjustment and adjudication of the real estate
said by Judge Holmes - even supposing that Spain occupied unduly by private individuals in the
had such feudal sovereignty or superdomination over Philippine Islands." Although it is true that the purpose
all the lands in this archipelago, and that against other of the Decree or law was to order that the adjustment
nations the United States, upon succeeding Spain, and registration procedures described in it be
would affirm said uprising, of it does not follow that complied with and practiced, and in this sense, to
against the inhabitants of the Philippines the require that each one obtain a title document or,
American Government (now the Philippine Republic) failing that, lose your property. It is also true that the
would take the position that Spain had such absolute Decree expressed certain qualifications that seemed
power. Historically it is known that the change of to denote that these formal procedures were not
sovereignty had the effect of liquidating many Spanish strictly applicable to the entire world. One of these
institutions and laws that became obsolete, archaic in caveats, for example, provided (Article 5) that, for all
the new state of affairs, and incompatible with the legal purposes, "all those who have been in
spirit of the new regime. There was no reason why possession for a period of time would be considered
this change should not also produce its salutary as owners - for cultivated land, 20 20 years without
effects on the legal rules of the land property interruption, it is sufficient, and for uncultivated land,
regime. To paraphrase Judge Holmes again, and 30 years." And Article 6 provides that "the interested
applying the doctrine to the present case, there is no parties not included in the two previous articles (the
reason why, meditating "a refined interpretation of an articles that recognize the 20 and 30 years
almost forgotten law of Spain," it is considered as prescription) may legalize their possession, and
public land what evidently, under all concepts and consequently acquire full control over said lands,
norms , it is private land. through adjustment and adjudication procedures.
processed as follows. " This last provision seems to
The jurisprudence established in the affair of Cariño indicate, by its terms, that it is not applicable to those
against the Insular Government has come to establish who have already been declared owners by virtue of
the norm, the basic authority in matters of registration the mere passing of a certain period of time
before our courts. In the wake of its genuinely liberal (See Affection against Insular Government, supra ,
sense and tendency, there has been an inflow of 598).
private land under the Torrens system. In cases much
less meritorious than the one before us, our courts It does not appear in the inferior's ruling that Captain
have recognized the character or condition of private Gina has accepted the provisions of the
ownership of the lands on which the requests were aforementioned Decree of June 25, 1880, obtaining a
based, not the enabling and supplementary clauses of title document to legalize his possession, but neither
the public land laws being applied - first the Law No does it positively state otherwise, because we do not
926, then No. 2874, and finally No. 141 of the have before us the proofs . But even assuming that
Commonwealth - but the stricter provisions of Law the formal procedures prescribed in the Decree have
No. 496 on registration of private lands, under the not been complied with, it does not follow that the
Torrens system. land was not already private then, since the
presumption is that there was no need for such
But even under strictly interpreted Spanish legislation, formality because Captain Gina or her legal claimants
we believe that the land in question is as private as they had already been declared owners of the
the land in the affair of Cariño, if not more property by the mere passing of a lapse of time,
so. According to the sentence of the inferior - the according to the qualifications mentioned above. This
united data for this examination, since it has already presumption is all the more logical since Article 8 of
been said repeatedly that we do not have the the Decree provided for the case of parties that did
evidence before us - "the land object of the present not request within a year the adjustment and
adjudication of land from whose possession they were so many precedents molded in the turquoise of the
unduly enjoying, and declared that the Treasury "will Holmesian doctrine, and at the same time as the
resume the domain of the State on the land "and sell demarcation of the starting point of a new route in our
at auction the part that is not reserved for itself; and jurisprudence on registration of land.
not only does it not appear in the record that the
possession of Capitata Gina or its successors in law However, in the opinion of the majority it is said that
has never been considered illegal or that Estao and the applicant can not successfully claim that their lot
its agents have adopted and practiced against them is private land because the possession of its first
the proceedings and procedures referred to in Article predecessor (Capitana Gina) started only in 1880,
8 of the said Convention. Decree, but, on the while in the case of Cariño against the Insular
contrary, it is stated in the ruling that from Capitan government, is required as a requisite possession
Gina in 1880 there were successive transmissions of from time immemorial, possession that, according to
rights first to Francisco Reformed in 1885 and later to the majority. "would justify the presumption that the
Claro Lagdameo in 1886, and to the death of the land had never been part of the public domain, or that
latter to his widow Fortunata Olega de Lagdameo, it had been private property even before the Spanish
from whom the title passed under of sale to his conquest." It does not seem that one wants to indicate
children Antonio, Luis and Rafael named Lagdameo, a date, a year, as a norm to determine
and the last transaction on the site took place quite the immemoriality of the possessory beginning. But
recently, in 1938, when the last named were sold to what date, what year would this be? 1870, '60,
Oh Cho the applicant in the present record. From all '50? Would not it be enough v. gr. 1875, '65, or '55? In
of which it follows that the site in question was always the affair of Cariño the known and remembered date
considered private property - at least where the of the initial possession could be fixed around the
memory reaches - from 1880 until the American middle of the last century, that is 1849, because
sovereignty died in the Philippines, and that neither according to the evidence, Cariño and his
the State nor its agents ever interfered in the made of predecessors had owned the land for more than 50
his exclusive possession, Continues and publishes as years until the treaty of Paris - April 11, 1899. In the
owner by different people not only under the Decree present case, from Capitana Gina until the applicant
of June 25, 1880 so often mentioned, but even under submitted his application for registration on January
the Decree of February 13, 1894 (possessory 17, 1940, 60 years had elapsed; so that in the time of
information) that was practically the last decree possession both cases are identical. With an
issued in the aftermath of the Spanish sovereignty in advantage in favor of the present case, namely: while
relation to the adjustment and adjudication of real or in the affair of Cariño the lands that were the object of
public lands. And do not say that it would have been the application were pasture, in large part, and only
by inadvertence of the authorities, particularly the cultivated a few portions, in which the lot is urban, but
Treasury, because it is a plot located in the same in one of the oldest towns in the Philippines, with a
town of Guinayangan, one of the oldest towns in the house of strong materials nestled in the. It is
province of Tayabas, it is undeniable that if it did not undeniable that the possession of an urban site is
gather the conditions and requirements to be more concrete, more strict and more adverse to the
conceptualized as private property and the whole world, without excluding the State.
possession of its successive occupants was undue
and illegal,See Affection against Insular
Government, ut supra598.) The fact that none of this But even limiting ourselves to possession under
has happened is the best proof that in the time of Spanish sovereignty for the purposes of qualifying the
Spain the different and successive occupants of this land as private property, it can still be said that the
site already had a perfect Sunday title, and it is simply present case is as good as, if not better than, that of
absurd, ridiculous that now, after 66 years, declare Cariño. In the affair of Cariño the known point of
public land; and all because of what and for that - to departure is around 1849; in ours, 1880, when the
yield submission, repeating again the subtle irony of possession of Capitana Gina began, according to the
Judge Homles, to the "refined interpretation of an appealed sentence. But this does not mean that
almost forgotten law of Spain." And it is more the before Capitana Gina the site was no longer an urban
futility of this tardy tribute to an anachronism, to a estate, owned by someone else as private property. It
juridical mummy of a more and more remote past, if must be taken into account that it is a plot located in
one considers that when Magistrate Homes the town of Guinayangan, one of the oldest in
pronounced his sentence clearly and progressively Tayabas. We do not have before us the exact date of
liberated (January 23, 1909) we were only barely 10 the founding of said town, and we do not have time
years after the fall of the Spanish sovereignty in the now to do historical research. But fortunately we have
Philippines while now that a radical deviation from the managed to save a substantial part of our private
groove drawn by the solid grid of said sentence we library from the devastation caused by the recent war,
are already almost half a century away, with full and one of the books saved is the celebrated
republican dominion over the national territory. This Geographical, Statistical and Historical Dictionary of
should not worry us if it were not because this the Philippine Islands published in Madrid by Fr.
decision can now be interpreted as an abrogation of Manuel Buzeta and Fr Felipe Bravo in 1950,
according to the imprint, of two volumes. In the 2nd Republic of the Philippines
volume, pp. 70 and 71, a description of the town of SUPREME COURT
Guinayanga is given, with a good copy of historical, Manila
geographical, social and economic data. The
description begins this way: "Town with priest and IN BANC
gobernadorcillo, in the Island of Luzon, province of
Tayabas, dioc, of Nueva caceres"; . . "It has about
1,500 houses, in general of simple construction, GR No. L-46935 April 18, 1941
distinguishing as the best factory the parish house
and the so-called court of justice, where is the GREGORIO REYES UY UN, recurrent,
jail. "Considering that we can take judicial knowledge vs.
that in time of Spain the municipality and the parish MAMERTA PEREZ and ISIDORO
were the culmination of a long and slow process of VILLAPLANA, appealed.
civilization and Christianization, we can therefore
presume that long before 1850 - 50, 70 or 100 years - Mr. Claro M. Recto in representation of the appellant.
the town of Guinayangan was already a geographical, D. Potenciano A. Magtibay in representation of the
civil and spiritual unit, in every rule, and with definitive respondents.
characteristics of urban viability.It is also perfectly
possible to presume that its inhabitants possessed
their respective lots as owners, as well as what IMPERIAL, J .:
happened In other duly organized municipalities, it
can not be presumed that the State allowed them to The appellant requests in his application
occupy their plots unduly, without taking against them for certiorari to review and revoke the decision issued
the action referred to in Article 8 of the by the Court of Appeals, nullifying the sale made by
aforementioned Decree of June 25, 1880; and we the Sheriff on September 21 , 1934 of the land subject
have already seen that it does not appear in the to the litigation, declaring valid the sale of the
record that the land in question has ever been improvements existing in the same and ordering that
confiscated by the agents of the Treasury or these improvements are sold to satisfy the amount
Treasury, or declared illegal possession thereof, in that the appellant paid as auction price amounting to
accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned P379.85, without costs.
Decree. So from any angle you see this case, falls
perfectly under the rules of immemorial possession
The appellant initiated the matter in the Court of First
established in the affair of love.
Instance of Tayabas to recover the property and
possession of an agricultural land of 10 hectares of
III. Demonstrated since the land in question is private, surface, located in the municipality of Guinayangan,
the conclusion is conclusive that the applicant has the Province of Tayabas, as well as the improvements
right to have his title confirmed under the provisions of that exist in the same consisting of 333 first fruity
the Land Registration Law No. 496, in accordance coconuts and 200 fruitless coconuts.
with the Torrens system. It is firmly established
doctrine in this jurisdiction that a foreigner has the
The relevant facts in the case are exposed by the
perfect right to have private land registered under his
Court of Appeals in these terms:
name, under the Torrens system, and that the
provisions of the law of public lands are inapplicable
to private lands ( see Agari against the Government of Martin Villaplana was owner of a land, as
the Philippine Islands, 42 Jur. Fil., 150, Tan owner, from the time of the Spanish
Yungquip against the Director of Land, 42 Jur. Fil., Government, having declared it for mining
134, Central Capiz againstRamirez, 40 Jur. Fil., purposes in 1902, and having introduced in
926). In the first case cited the applicant was a the improvements consisting of coconut
Japanese called Ichisuke Agari and the request was trees, the oldest of which is now 60 year
estimated to be a private land, acquired in Spain time old. On May 27, 1916, Martin Villaplana sold
mediant composition with the state. In the second the land to his son Vicente Villaplana,
case, the applicant was a Chinese and the application married to the defendant Mamerta Perez. On
was considered for the same reason, having proven a December 7, 1922 Vicente Villaplana
known and remembered possession of 30 to 40 years requested it as "Free Patent." Having
prior to the filing of the application, that is, a shorter Vicente Villaplana contracted a debt of
time than that of the applicant. present case. The P291.05 of Gregorio Reyes Uy Un on
same happened in the third case cited, being Spanish February 13, 1931, and having been sued
owners of the farm. Confirm, therefore, the sentence for the payment of said amount and
appealed. sentenced to pay it on May 5, 1933, the
corresponding execution order was issued,
which was completed on September 21,
1934, selling the property to the demarker
 (Exhibit A). On April 20, 1935, Vicente public domain by prescription or by possession or
Villaplana was granted a free title. On occupation as owner, or by agreement or by virtue of
December 13, 1934, the possession of the any law in force before the American occupation,
land was handed over to Gregorio Reyes Uy except as expressly provided by the laws issued after
Un by virtue of an order of the Magistrate's said occupation of the Philippine Islands by the
Court of Guinayangan, Tayabas, but in July U.S. The fact that Vicente Villaplana requested the
1935 the defendants, who are Vicente free title of the land on December 7, 1922, is another
Villaplana's wife and children, escaped take fact that shows that in his opinion he had not acquired
possession of it, having been released from a perfect title and that it continued to be public land of
it on September 10 of the same year under a the State. We conclude, therefore, that the Court of
preliminary injunction issued in this case. Appeals did not err in stating that the land was public
and subject to the provisions of Law No. 2874.
The Court of Appeals, after reviewing the evidence
presented in the first instance, declared that the land In the second error statement, it is intended that the
was public and that it was part of the public lands of Court of Appeals should have declared that the land
the State that could be disposed of by free consent. In subject of the litigation could not be granted by
his first error statement, the appellant maintains that gratuitous title and that this title, issued on April 20,
such conclusion is erroneous and inconsistent with 1935, is null and void and may affect the rights that
the facts established by the Court of Appeals the appellant had acquired on the spot. Having
itself. He argues that having declared the Court of declared that the land continued to be public on the
Appeals that Martin Villaplana owned the land as date on which the free title was issued, it is obvious
owner since 1902, declaring it in the millage as his that it was subject to the provisions of the Law of
property and having cultivated it by sowing in the Public Lands and, consequently, the free title that was
coconut trees that are now over 60 years of age and issued in favor of Vicente Villaplana is legal and valid.
that its son Vicente Villaplana and his wife owned it in
the same concept, the land stopped being public land To support his theory that the land had become
and became private and, therefore, private property, that Vicente Villaplana and its cause
Martin Villaplana were the exclusive owners of the
According to subsection ( b ) of article 45 of Law No. same and that he happened in the title of the first one
2874, in force on the dates on which the possesion of when acquiring it in public auction, the appellant cites
the respondents and their cause occurred and the what was resolved by this Court in the matters of
issuance of the gratuitous title, which, by itself, or by Affection vs. Insular Government of the Philippines
means of their quasantes, would have been in open, Islands, 212 US, 449, 53 Law. ed., 594, 597; 41 Phil.,
conitnua, exclusive and notorious possession and 935, 940-941; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, vs. The Director of Lands , 27 Phil., 246,
pretending in good faith to acquire the property, 248; and Susi vs. Razon and the Director of Lands,
except against the Government, from the twenty-six of 48, Phil., 424, where it was declared that the
July one thousand eight hundred and ninety four, they agricultural land that has been owned under the
have right to the confirmation of their rights and the conditions prescribed by the Law of Public Lands has
issuance of a certificate of titutlo in accordance with ceased to be public land to become oppressed land,
the Law of the Registry of Property, and have in their and that the one that has owned it has the juris et de
favor the presumption juris et de jureof having fulfilled jure presumption of having obtained a government
all the necessary conditions for the granting of the concession and that has the right to register it in its
Government and will have the right to a certificate of name in accordance with the Law of the Land
title under the provisions of said Law. In accordance Registry. The above-mentioned cases are
with said legal disposition, the petitioners and their distinguished, however, from the present in that in this
cause had an inchoative Sunday right on the ground, the one that owned the land and from which derives
which enabled them to to request and obtain the its rights the recurente is the same that recognized
confirmation of said right and to issue the certificate of the condition of the land of being public of the
title in accordance with the Law of the Property property of the State and not only recognized that it
Registry; they had also in their favor the continued to be public land but I request that it be
presumption juris et de jurethat they had fulfilled all issued free title in accordance with the Law of Public
the necessary conditions for the granting of the Lands.
title; but until the title was issued, they did not have
the legal concept of being the true owners of the land, In the last error statement the appellant maintains that
nor did they cease to belong to the public lands of the the Court of Appeals should have confirmed the
State susceptible to alienation. That this was the legal decision of the Court of First Instance that declared
condition of the land until the Government issued the valid the sale in public auction of the land made by
free title, is confirmed by Article 54 of the same law the Sheriff in his favor. Since the land was public of
that provides that in the future you can not acquire the State when the Sheriff sold in auction publishes to
title, legal right or right for equity reason on land of the the appellant the 21 of September of 1934 and
Vicente Villaplana was not even owner of the, it is On August 4, 1960 appellants filed an application for
obvious that the first one did not acquire the domain registration of the land above described pursuant to
of the land that did not have it yet the executed the provisions of Act 496. They alleged that the land
Vicente Villaplana and, consequently, the sale was had been inherited by them from their grandfather,
null and of no legal effect. The sale, in addition, can Pelagio Zara, who in turn acquired the same under a
not be declared valid under the precept of Article 116 Spanish grant known as "Composicion de Terrenos
of Law No. 2874, as amended by Article 23 of Law Realengos" issued in 1888. Alternatively, should the
No. 3517, which prohibits the encumbrance and provisions of the Land Registration Act be not
alienation, applicable, applicants invoke the benefits of the
provisions of Chapter VIII, Section 48, subsection (b)
If the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is of C.A. 141 as amended, on the ground that they and
adjusted to the law, the request for certiorari is their predecessor-in-interest had been in continuous
denied , with the costs to the appellant. This is how it and adverse possession of the land in concept of
is ordered. owner for more than 30 years immediately preceding
the application.
Avanceña, Pres., Diaz, Laurel, and
Horrilleno. MM., Are satisfied. Oppositions were filed by the Director of Lands, the
Director of Forestry and by Vicente V. de Villa, Jr. The
latter's opposition recites:
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila x x x that the parcel of land sought to be
registered by the applicants consisting of
107 hectares, more or less, was included in
EN BANC the area of the parcel of land applied for
registration by Vicente S. de Villa, Sr. in Civil
G.R. No. L-19535 July 10, 1967 Case No. 26, L.R. Case No. 601 in this
Court, which was decided by this same
HEIRS OF PELAGIO ZARA; PIO, CLEMENTE, Court through the then incumbent Judge, the
SERAFIA, PORFIRIO and ESTEBAN, all surnamed Honorable Juan P. Enriquez, on September
MINDANAO; MARIA and GLICERIA, both 30, 1949; that the parcel sought to be
surnamed SEDARIA; DULCE CORDERO, registered by the applicants was declared
VICTORIA DE LOS REYES and JOSE public land in said decision; that they (the
GARCIA, applicants-appellants, oppositors Vicente V. de Villa, Jr. and
vs. Vicente S. de Villa, Sr.) have an interest over
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, DIRECTOR OF the land in question because for a period
FORESTRY, Government oppositor-appellees. more than sixty (60) years, the de Villas
VICENTE V. DE VILLA, JR., and VICENTE S. DE have been in possession, and which
VILLA, SR., private oppositors-appellees. possession, according to them, was open
continuous, notorious and under the claim of
ownership; that the proceeding being in rem,
Jose L. Matias and H. A. Jambora for applicants- the failure of the applicants to appear at the
appellants. case No. 26, L.R. Case No. 601 to prove
Francisco Villanueva, Jr. and Gregorio L. Oquitania their imperfect and incomplete title over the
for private oppositors-appellees. property, barred them from raising the same
Manuel Reyes Castro for oppositor-appellee Director issue in another case; and that as far as the
of Forestry. decision in Civil Case No. 26, L.R. Case No.
601 which was affirmed in the appellate
MAKALINTAL, J.: court in CA-G.R. No. 5847-R is concerned,
there is already "res-adjudicata" — in other
words, the cause of action of the applicant is
Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
now barred by prior judgment; and that this
Batangas (Lipa City) dismissing appellants'
Court has no more jurisdiction over the
"application for registration of the parcel of land
subject matter, the decision of the Court in
consisting of 107 hectares, more or less, situated in
said case having transferred to the Director
the barrio of Sampiro, Municipality of San Juan,
of Lands.
Province of Batangas, and designated in amended
plan PSU-103696 as Lot A."
On November 15, 1960 the De Villas (De Villa, Sr.
was subsequently included as oppositor) filed a
The proceedings in the court a quo are not disputed.
motion to dismiss, invoking the same grounds alleged
in its opposition, but principally the fact that the land
applied for had already been declared public land by It should be noted that appellants' application is in the
the judgment in the former registration case. alternative: for registration of their title of ownership
under Act 496 or for judicial confirmation of their
The trial court, over the objection of the applicants, "imperfect" title or claim based on adverse and
granted the motion to dismiss by order dated January continuous possession for at least thirty years. It may
27, 1961, holding, inter alia, that "once a parcel of be that although they were not actual parties in that
land is declared or adjudged public land by the court previous case the judgment therein is a bar to their
having jurisdiction x x x it cannot be the subject claim as owners under the first alternative, since the
anymore of another land registration proceeding x x x proceeding was in rem, of which they and their
(that) it is only the Director of Lands who can dispose predecessor had constructive notice by publication.
of the same by sale, by lease, by free patent or by Even so this is a defense that properly pertains to the
homestead." 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
In the present appeal from the order of dismissal disturbed or foreclosed by such declaration, for
neither the Director of Lands nor the Director of precisely the proceeding contemplated in the
Forestry filed a brief as appellee. The decisive issue aforecited provision of Commonwealth Act 141
posed by applicants-appellants is whether the 1949 presupposes that the land is public. The basis of the
judgment in the previous case, denying the decree of judicial confirmation authorized therein is
application of Vicente S. de Villa, Sr., and declaring not that the land is already privately owned and hence
the 107 hectares in question to be public land, no longer part of the public domain, but rather that by
precludes a subsequent application by an alleged reason of the claimant's possession for thirty years he
possessor for judicial confirmation of title on the basis is conclusively presumed to have performed all the
of continuous possession for at least thirty years, conditions essential to a Government grant.
pursuant to Section 48, subsection (b) of the Public
Land Law, C.A. 141, as amended. This provision
reads as follows: On the question of whether or not the private
oppositors-appellees have the necessary personality
to file an opposition, we find in their favor, considering
The following-described citizens of the that they also claim to be in possession of the land,
Philippines, occupying lands of the public and have furthermore applied for its purchase from
domain or claiming to own any such lands or the Bureau of Lands. 1äwphï1.ñët

an interest therein, but whose titles have not

been perfected or completed, may apply to
the Court of First Instance of the province Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside and
where the land is located for confirmation of the case is remanded to the Court a quo for trial and
their claims and the issuance of a certificate judgment on the merits, with costs against the private
of title therefor, under the Land Registration oppositors-appellees.
Act, to wit:
Reyes, J.B.L., Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Castro,
xxx xxx xxx Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J. and Dizon, J., took no part.
(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 a bona
fide claim 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. 1äwphï1.ñët

The right to file an application under the foregoing

provision has been extended by Republic Act No.
2061 to December 31, 1968.