Florencia Diaz vs. Republic Digest

Florencia Diaz vs. Republic Facts:  This is a letter-motion letter-motion praying praying for reconsideration reconsideration for the third third time of the resolution of the Supreme Supreme Court denying the petition for review led by petitioner Florencia Diaz  The petitioner led an application for registration registration of a vast tract of land in !ueva "ci#a She alleged that she possessed the land as owner owner and wor$ed% wor$ed% developed and harvested harvested the agricultural agricultural products and benets of the same continuously% publicly and adversely for more than &' years (S) opposed the applicat application ion because the land in *uestion *uestion was within within the Fort Fort +agsaysa +agsaysay y +ilitar +ilitary y ,eservation Thus% it was inalienable as it formed part of the public domain rior rior to this case% the Supreme Supreme Court already already ruled in the case of Director of Lands vs. Reyes  Reyes   that the property was inalienable as it formed part of a military reservation and the e.istence of a ossessory /nformation Title !o &0' 1registered in the name of a certain +elecio adilla2 which the respondent in the sited case anchored its claim on the land% was not proven CF/ ruled in favor of the petitioner 3pon appeal% the C4 ruled in favor of the ,epublic Subse*uently% C4 encouraged the parties to reach an amicable settlement on the matter The parties entered into one 5owever% (S) bac$ed out from the settlement and informed the C4 that the trac$ of land sub#ect of the amicable settlement was still within the military reservation C4 ruled in favor of the ,epublic etitioner moved for reconsideration and assailed the decision of 6ustice +endoza saying that +endoza should have inhibited himself when the case reached C4 since he was also the assistance Sol)en during the initial stages of the land registration proceedings proceedings etitioner then led for a review on certiorari which the SC denied The +, was also denied The petitioner then wants the case referred to the SC en banc which was li$ewise denied SC then issued a directive that no further pleadings would be entertained etitio etitioner ner then wrote letters addressed addressed to 6ustice 6ustice 7uisumbi 7uisumbing ng and 6ustice uno allegin alleging g there there was a miscarriage of #ustice and that the petitioner was tempted to go to media regarding the situation /ssue: 8(! the land in dispute can be registered to the petitioner ,uling: 0 The ruling in the case of Director of Lands vs. Reyes is Reyes  is applicable in this case and thus constitutes res  #udicata The Supreme Court ruled that in registration registration cases led under the provisions provisions of the ublic 9and 4ct for the #udicial conrmation of an incomplete and imperfect title% an order dismissing an application for registration and declaring the land as part of the public domain constitutes res judicata% judicata % not only against the adverse claimant but also against all persons & efore the military reservation was established% the evidence is inconclusive as to possession% for is is shown by the evidence that the land involved is largely mountainous and forested 4s a matter of fact% at the time of the hearing% it was conceded that appro.imately 0;%<=> hectares hectares of said land consist of public forest /t is well-settled that forest land is incapable of registration? and its inclusion in a title% whether such title be one issued using the Spanish sovereignty or under the present Torrens system of registration% nullies nullies the title 5owever% it is true that forest lands may be registered registered when they have been reclassied reclassied as alienable by the resident in a clear and categorical manner 1upon the recommendation of the proper departme department nt head who has the authorit authority y to classify classify the lands lands of the public public domain into alienab alienable le or disposable% timber and mineral lands2 coupled with possession by the claimant as well as that of her predecessors-inpredecessors-in-interes interest t 3nfortunately for the petitioner% she was not able to produce produce such evidence 5er occupation thereof could not have ripened into ownership of the sub#ect land ; The compromise agreement is null and void The land in *uestion could not have been a valid sub#ect matter of a contract because% being forest land% it was inalienable