(D) Forms and Contents, Dealings with Land Benin v. Tuason Facts: On Facts: On May 19, 1955 three sets of plaintis led three separate complaints containing substantially the same allegations. In case 1, Plaintis alleged that they ere the oners and possessors of the three parcels of agricultural lands, located in the barrio of !a !oma "no barrio of #an $ose% in the municipality "no city% of &aloocan, pro'ince of (i)al and that they inherited said s aid parcels of land from their ancestor #i*to +enin In case - the plaintis alleged that they ere the oners and possessors of to parcels of agricultural land that ere inherited by them from their deceased father +onoso lcantara. In case /, plaintis alleged that they are the oners and possessors of a parcel of agricultural ith an area of appro*ima app ro*imately tely 0-,21 s3uare meters hich as inherited by plaintis from their ancestor ancestor &andido Pili. 4he plaintis in these three ci'il ci'il cases uniformly alleged alleged that sometime in the year 1951 hile they ere enoying the peaceful possession of their lands, the defendants, particularly the defendant $.M. 4uason 4uason and &o. Inc., through their agents and representati'es, ith the aid of armed men, by force and intimidation, using bulldo)ers and other demolishing e3uipment, illegally entered and started defacing, demolishing and destroying the dellings and constructions of plaintis6 lessees, as ell as the impro'ements. 4hey later found out that their land as erroneously included in hat appears as Parcel 7o. 7o. 1 "8non as #anta Mesa state% in Original &erticate of 4itle. 4he plaintis in each of the three complaints also alleged alleged that the registered oners had applied for theregistration of to parcels p arcels of land and that the application for containing the boundaries, technical descriptions and areas of parcel 7o. 1 "#anta Mesa state% and parcel 7o. - ":iliman state% as published pub lished in the O;cial
?7 Issue: >?7 the !(& had urisdiction to render the decision for the reason that the amendment to the original plan as not published. Held@ Held@ 4he records sho, and it is established by the e'idence, that sometime in 1911 an application for the registration of their title o'er to parcels of land as
led, designated in the sur'ey plans accompanying the application as Parcel 1 ith an area of 2,=92,01= s3uare meters, and Parcel - ith an area of 10,-5,A/= s3uare meters. 4he application and the notice of hearing, containing the technical descriptions of the to parcels of land applied for, ere published in the issue of the O;cial e belie'e that the loer court erred hen it held that the !and (egistration &ourt as ithout urisdiction to render the. If the amendment consists in the inclusion in the application for registration of an area or parcel of land not pre'iously included in the original application, as published, a ne publication of the amended application must be made. 4he purpose of the ne publication is to gi'e notice to all persons p ersons concerned regarding the amended application. >ithout a ne publication p ublication the registration court can not ac3uire urisdiction o'er the area or parcel of land that is added to the area co'ered by the original application, and the decision of the registration court ould be a nullity insofar as the decision concerns the nely included land. 4he reason is because ithout a ne publication, the la is infringed ith respect to the publicity that is re3uired in registration proceedings, and third parties ho ha'e not had the opportunity to present their claim might be preudiced in their rights because of failure of notice. +ut if the amendment consists in the e*clusion of a portion of the area co'ered by the original application and the original plan as pre'iously published, a ne publication is not necessary. In the case at bar >e nd that the original plan co'ering Parcel Parcel 1 and Parcel - that accompanied the application for registration in !(& 7o. =021 as amended in order to e*clude certain areas that ere the subect of opposition, or hich ere the subect of another registration case. , hen the loer court said that the area of Parcel Parcel 1 in the decree of registration is bigger than the area of Parcel Parcel 1 in the application as published, it did not mention the fact that the dierence in area is only -=.1A s3uare meters. >e belie'e that this dierence of -=.1A s3uare meters is
too minimal to be of decisi'e conse3uence in the determination of the 'alidity of Original &erticate of 4itle 7o. =/5. It is the settled rule in this urisdiction that only in cases here the original sur'ey plan is amended during the registration proceedings by the addition of lands not pre'iously included in in the original plan should publication be made in order order to confer urisdiction on the court to order the registration of the area that as added after the publication of the original plan. 4he proceedings and the decree of of registration, relating relating to the lands that ere included in thepublication, are 'alid. 4hus, if it is shon that a certicate of title had been issued co'ering lands here the registration court had no urisdiction, the certicate of title is null and 'oid insofar as it concerns the land or lands o'er hich the registration court had not ac3uired urisdiction. endo!a v C" 2 #&( =0 B &i'il !a B !and 4itles and :eeds B $udgment &onrms 4itle B In hose name may title be dealt ith B #ec -9, P: 15-9 Facts: In Facts: In 190, it as pro'en that a parcel of land located in #ta. # ta. Maria, +ulacan, is oned by Mendo)a. Mendo)a applied for a title. :uring pendency of the application before the land registration court, Mendo)a sold the land to :aniel &ru). 4he contract of sale as admitted in court in lieu of the pending application for land title. 4he registration court rendered a decision in $uly 1905, ordering the registration of the to parcels of land in the name of &ru) subect su bect to the usufructuary rights of Mendo)a. 4he decision became nal and e*ecutory e*ecutory.. In 1902, hoe'er, upon failure failure of &ru) to pay Mendo)a, Mendo)a petitioned that the title issued in the name of &ru) be cancelled. 4he land registration court ruled in fa'or of Mendo)a on the ground that the court erred in its earlier decision in issuing the land title to &ru) B ho as not a party to the application of title initiated by Mendo)a. &ru) appealed. 4he &ourt of ppeals ruled in fa'or of &ru). I##$%: >hether I##$%: >hether or not the title can be dealt ith in the name of a Cthird partyD. es. 4he &ourt of ppeals ruling must be sustained. First First of all, it as pro'en H%LD: E H%LD: Ees. that Mendo)a caused the registration in the name of &ru) pursuant to their contract of sale. #econd, Mendo)a o'erloo8s #ection -9 of the th e !and (egistration ct hich e*pressly authori)es the registration of the land subect matter of a registration proceeding in the name of the buyer "&ru)% or of the person to hom the land has been con'eyed by an instrument e*ecuted during the inter'al of time beteen the ling of the application for registration and the th e issuance of the decree of title. C#&. -9. fter the ling of the application and before the issuance of the decree of title by the &hief of the
may be dealt ith and instruments relating thereto shall be recorded in the o;ce of the register of deeds at any time before issuance of the decree de cree of title, in the same manner as if no application had been made. 4he interested party may, hoe'er, present such instruments to the &ourt of First Instance instead of presenting them to the o;ce of the register of deeds, together ith a motion that the same be considered in relation ith the application, and the court after notice to the parties, shall order such land registered subect to the encumbrance created by a said instruments, or order the decree of registration issued in the name of the buyer or of the person to hom the property has been con'eyed by said instruments. . . . stranger or a third party may be dealt ith in the land registration proceedings. 4he only re3uirements of of the la are@ "1% that that the instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together ith a motion that the same be considered in relation ith the application and "-% that prior notice be gi'en to the parties to the case. nd the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in this case sho that these re3uirements ha'e been complied ith in this case.
B. PUBLICATION, OPPOSITION AND DEFAULT Director o& Lands vs. C" eodoro bistado led a petition for original registration of his title o'er 02 F"CT#: 4 F"CT#: 4eodoro s3uare meters of land under Presidential :ecree "P.:.% "P.:.% 7o. 15-9. 4he land registration court in its decision dated $une $un e 1/, 1929 dismissed the petition Cfor ant of urisdictionD, in compliance ith the mandatory pro'ision re3uiring publication of the notice of initial hearing in a nespaper of general circulation. 4he case as ele'ated to respondent &ourt of ppeals hich, set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered the registration of the title in the name of 4eodoro 4eodoro bistado. 4he &ourt of ppeals ruled that it as merely procedural and that the failure to cause such publication did not depri'e the trial court of its authority to grant the application. 4he :irector of !ands !ands represented by the #olicitor hether I##$%: >hether or not n ot the :irector of !ands is correct that nespaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case is mandatory. mandatory. H%LD: E#. H%LD: E#. Petition as granted. 4he pertinent part of #ection -/ of Presidential :ecree 7o. 15-9 re3uires re3uires publication of the notice of initial hearing. It should be noted further that land registration is a proceeding in rem. +eing in rem, such proceeding re3uires constructi'e sei)ure of the land as against all p ersons, including the state, ho ha'e rights to or interests interests in the property. property. n in rem proceeding proceeding is 'alidated essentially through publication. 4his being so, the process must strictly strictly be complied ith.
4he #upreme &ourt has no authority to dispense ith such such mandatory re3uirement. 4he la is unambiguous and its rationale clear clear.. 4ime and again, this this &ourt has declared that here the la spea8s in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, 'acillation or e3ui'ocation there is room only for application. 4here is no alternati'e. 4hus, the application for land registration led by pri'ate respondents must be dismissed ithout preudice to reapplication in the future, after all the legal re3uisites shall ha'e been duly d uly complied ith.
Director, Land anagement Bureau vs. Court o& "''eals Facts: (espondent Facts: (espondent 3uilino &ariGo led a petition for registration for !ot 0 hich is a sugar land claimed to be oned by his mother of hom after she died he became the administrator of the property in behalf of his brothers and sisters. +y 'irtue of a deed of e*traudicial settlement, he became the sole oner of the property. property. (eport from the land in'estigator shoed that th at the lot is agricultural in nature. (espondent claims that the impro'ements introduced ere in the form of bamboo clumps, sugarcane and mango trees ith the house of the tenant that the land is free from claim and conHict and is not n ot co'ered by e*isting public land application and no patent or title has been issued to it that the respondent is on continuous, open and e*clusi'e possession of the land as inherited from his deceased mother. (espondent is the sole itness for his petition and the only oppositor is the +ureau of !ands. 4he court granted the petition of the respondent. 4he petitioner led a re'ie for certiorari contending that the respondent failed to submit proof of his fee simple title and has not o'erthron the presumption that the land is a portion of the public domain belonging to the state. Issue: >hether Issue: >hether or not the respondent established proof of his muniment of title to merit registration of land in his fa'or
ct Held: 4he Held: 4he petition of the respondent is co'ered by the !and (egistration ct pro'iding that a person alleging in his petition or application onership in fee simple must present muniments of title to substantiate his claim of onership, presenting e'idence of his possession in the concept of an oner in a manner and number of years re3uired by la. la. 4he manner shall be open, continuous, e*clusi'e, and notorious possession of the property 8non as agricultural land of the public domain for /A years preceding the ling of application for conrmation "&ommonealth ct 7o. 11%. Possession of public land hoe'er long ne'er confers title upon the possessor unless occupant of the same is under claim of onership for the re3uired period. 'en in the absence of opposition the court can deny registration of land under the 4orrens 4orrens #ystem on ground ground that an applicant failed to establish establish his onership by a fee simple on the property sought to be registered. 4he respondent only traced his on possession in the the land in 199 by 'irtue of e*traudicial settlement and order and at the same time he led his application for registration in 19=5 thus he as in possession of said land only for -0 years. Jis mere allegation that his mother as in possession of the land since 1911 is self ser'ing and hearsay and is inadmissible as e'idence. 4he ta* receipts and ta* declaration he oered as e'idence do not substantiate clear proof of onership. 4hus, ith his failure to pro'e pro'e that his predecessorKinKinterest predecessorKinKinterest occupied the land under the condition laid don by la, he can only establish his possession of the land from 199. (espondent failed to pro'e his muniment of title for the registration of the land under the (egistration ct ith failure to present con'incing and positi'e proof of his continuous, open, uninterrupted and notorious occupation of lot 0 in the concept of an oner for at least /A years.
%$BLIC *F TH% HILII+%# vs.H%I# *F %"I#T* TI*TI*%+ Facts: Facts: second application as led by 'aristo 4iotioen on #eptember 0, 199/ for udicial conrmation conrmation and registration under the 4orrens 4orrens #ystem of to parcels parcels of situated in Pico, !a 4rinidad, +enguet, ith an aggregate area of 12A,22 s3uare meters. 'aristo 4iotioen as substituted by his heirs in the case hen he died on $une -1, 199=. #antiago . . #antiago, the Municipality of !a 4rinidad, 4rinidad, +enguet, and the petitioner opposed the aforesaid application on the ground that the parcels of land, applied for registration by the respondents, belong to the communal forest of !a 4rinidad, 4rinidad, +enguet, and are therefore inalienable land of the public domain, hich ha'e not been classied and considered as disposable and alienable. fter fter trial, the land registration court rendered its :ecision hich granted the application nding that the pplicants ha'e shon their ad'erse, continuous and
notorious possession and in the concept of oners of the land applied for since time immemorial, and thus their title thereto is proper to be conrmed, and is hereby conrmed. 4he petitioner and the municipality recei'ed recei'ed their respecti'e notices notices of the abo'eK mentioned decision. 4he municipality led its Motion for (econsideration thereto on #eptember -A, -AA1. 4he petitioner, on the other hand, led a Motion and Manifestation on October 5, -AA1 adopting the said motion of the municipality. municipality. 4he land registration court denied for for lac8 of merit the motion motion for reconsideration of the municipality and declared the same as pro forma because the issues cited ere e re already passed upon in the decision sought for reconsideration. 4he land registration court denied the notice of appeal of the municipality on the ground that the latterLs pro forma motion for reconsideration did not interrupt the reglementary period to appeal. 4he petitionerLs notice of appeal as also denied supposedly for ha'ing been led out of time. It is ellKsettled in our urisdiction that the right to appeal is a statutory right and a party ho see8s to a'ail of the right must comply ith the rules. 4hese rules, particularly the statutory re3uirement for perfecting an appeal ithin the reglementary period laid don by la, must be strictly folloed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of udicial business. In 'ie of the foregoing, the &ourt nds no con'incing and logical reasons to reconsider its Order dated $anuary -9, -AA- and hereby denies the Motion for (econsideration. Issue: #hould Issue: #hould the 7otice of ppeal by the (epublic, through the O#< be gi'en due course Held: E Held: Ees. es. In deciding this case, this &ourt is guided g uided by the settled doctrine that the belated ling of an appeal by the #tate, or e'en its failure to le an opposition, in a land registration case because of the mista8e or error on the part of its o;cials or agents does not depri'e the go'ernment of its right to appeal from a udgment of the court. In :irector of !ands '. Medina10, e said@ &onsidering the foregoing, the loer court gra'ely abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal of the go'ernment on the basis of hat it percei'ed as a procedural lapse. 4he loer court should be reminded that the ends of substantial ustice should be the paramount consideration in any any litigation or proceeding. s s this &ourt ruled in (epublic '. '. ssociacion +ene'ola de &ebu, to dismiss d ismiss the (epublic6s appeal merely on the alleged ground of late ling is not proper considering the merits of the case and to ignore the e'idence presented by the pro'incial scal in behalf of the :irector of Forestry hich constituted the cru* of the go'ernment6s case ould defeat d efeat the timeKhonored &onstitutional precepts and the (egalian doctrine that all lands of the public p ublic domain belong to the #tate, and
that the #tate is the source of any asserted right to onership in land and charged ith the conser'ation of such patrimony. patrimony. 4he 'ast tracts of land in'ol'ed in'ol'ed in this case are claimed claimed by the petitioner to be a protected atershed area, hich allegedly preser'es the main source of ater of the Municipality of !a 4rinidad. (elati'e thereto, the petitioner raises substantial factual and legal issues hich should be decided on their merit instead of being summarily disposed of based on a technicality. technicality. >J(FO(, in 'ie of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby <(74:. 4he assailed decision of the appellate court is hereby he reby P(4I!! P(4I!!E E MO:IFI: so as to gi'e due course to the 7otice of ppeal led on $anuary 11, -AA- by the petitioner from the :ecision dated ugust /A, -AA1 of +ranch 0/ of the (4& of !a 4rinidad, +enguet, in !and (egistration &ase "!(&% 7o. 9/K!(&KAAA2.
-*#% . "TI+% "TI+% v %$BLIC %$BLIC *F TH% HILII+%# HILII+%# 4he central issue presented in this Petition Petition for (e'ie (e'ie is hether an order of general default issued by a trial court in a land registration case bars the (epublic of the
Philippines, through the O;ce of the #olicitor ?7 Issue: >?7 the O#< could ha'e still appealed the (4& (4& decision after it had been declared in default.
>e note at the onset that the O#< does not impute before this &ourt that the (4& (4& acted improperly in declaring public respondent in default, e'en though an opposition had been led to Martine)Ls petition. nder #ection -0 of Presidential :ecree 7o. 15-9, as amended, the order of default may be issued iQf no person pers on appears and ansers ithin the time alloed. 4he (4& (4& appears to ha'e issued issu ed the order of general default simply on the premise that no oppositor appeared before it on the hearing of -9 March -AAA. +ut it cannot be denied that the O#< had already duly led its Opposition to Martine)Ls petition long before the said hearing. 4here is no pro'ision pro'ision under the 199= (ules (ules hich e*pressly denies the defaulted defendant the right to appeal the udgment by default against him. $urisprudence applying the 199= (ules has continued to ac8noledge the !ina doctrine hich embodies this right to appeal as among the remedies of a defendant, and no argument in this petition persuades the &ourt to rule otherise. If it cannot be made any clearer, e hold that a defendant party declared in default retains the right to appeal from the udgment by default on the ground that the plainti failed to pro'e the material allegations of the complaint, or that the decision is contrary to la, e'en ithout need of the prior ling of a motion to set aside the order of default. 4urning 4urning to the other issues, e a;rm the the conclusion of the &ourt of ppeals ppeals that Martine) failed to adduce the e'idence needed n eeded to secure the registration of the subect lots in his name. It should be noted that the O#<, in appealing the case to the &ourt of ppeals, did not introduce any ne e'idence, but simply pointed to the insu;ciency of the e'idence presented by Martine) before the trial court. 4he &ourt of ppeals as careful to point out that the case against Martine) as established not by the O#J(FO(, the petition is :I#MI##:. &osts against petitioner. petitioner.
%$BLIC *F TH% HILII+%# v. "/$I+* FI!( OF 4J I!! 7O4 !I. S (elati'e to the allegation that the :irector of !ands or that the go'ernment did not oppose the application of herein respondent, as in fact an order of general default as issued by the court against the hole orld, su;ce it to say that it is a ell 8non and settled rule in our urisdiction that the (epublic, or its go'ernment, is usually not estopped by mista8e or error on the part of its o;cial or agents. "!uciano '. strella, / #&( =09%. nd earlier, enunciated in (epublic '. Philippine (abbit +us !ines "/- #&( -11% that #uch a principal dates bac8 to guinaldo de (omero '. '. :irector of !ands, a 1919 decision. Facts@ On May 10, 1902, respondent Ri'encio P. ngeles led ith the &ourt of First Instance of (i)al an application for registration of title o'er a parcel of land situated in #an Mateo, (i)al. Opposition as led thereto, ointly by Rictorino Pere) and :ionisio, &onrado, $ose, 7icanor, !ourdes and 4rinidad, all surnamed #ta. Maria, and indi'idually by Feli* !oren)o, as representati'e of the heirs of Rictor !oren)o. !oren)o. One of the grounds of the opposition is that subect property as declared public land by the &ourt of First First Instance of (i)al. On February -9, 1950, ?7 Issue: >?7 the (epublic of the Philippines has no personality to le the petition considering that it had been declared in default for not ha'ing led its opposition tothe application
Held: >e Held: >e nd merit in the petition. (elati'e to the allegation that the :irector of !ands or that the go'ernment did not oppose the application of herein respondent, an order of general default as issued by the court against the hole orld, su;ce it to say that as stated by this it is a ell 8non and settled rule in our urisdiction that the (epublic, or its go'ernment, is usually usu ally not estopped by mista8e or error on the part of its o;cials or agents. >J(FO(, the decision of the loer court is hereby #4 #I: and accordingly, pri'ate respondent Ri'encio P. P. ngelesL application in !and (egistration &ase is hereby :I#MI##:. D$"+ vs.B%+"B% *LII" #ame #ame &ourt of First Instance ithout poer to decree again registration of land already decreed.S the title to the land thus determined is already a res udicata binding on the hole orld, the proceeding proceeding being in rem. 4eresa :ia) Rda. de :uran :ur an led an Facts: On Facts: On :ecember /, 195-, $ose O. :uran and 4eresa application for the registration in their names of si*teen lots in the &ourt of First Instance of &amarines #ur. On pril -A, 195, the case as heard initially and on May 5, 195, the oppositors led their opposition to the application. On ugust -=, 1952, the oppositors led a motion to dismiss the application on the ground that the court has no urisdiction to decree registration of the lots respecti'ely claimed by them, because said lots are already registered and certicates of title ha'e been issued thereon in their names. 4hey attached to the motion to to dismiss the dierent Original &erticate &erticate of 4itles 4itles in the names of +ernabe Oli'ia, Fe lma)an, Manuel rce, speran)a, and Jeirs of Florencio ?7 Issue: >?7 the loer court had urisdiction o'er the case Held: 4he Held: 4he pi'otal issue is one of urisdiction on the part of the loer court. court. In a 3uite impressi'e line of decisions, it has been ellKsettled that a &ourt of First First Instance has no urisdiction to decree again the registration of land already decreed in an earlier land registration case and a second decree for the same land is null and 'oid. 4his is so, because hen once decreed by a court of competent urisdiction, the title to the the land thus determined is already a res udicata binding on the hole orld, the proceedings being in rem. 4he court has no poer in a subse3uent proceeding "not based on fraud and ithin the statutory period% to adudicate the same title in fa'or of another person. Furthermore, the registration of the property in the name n ame of rst registered oner in the (egistration +oo8 is a standing notice to the orld that said property is already registered in his name. n ame. Jence, the later applicant is chargeable ith notice that the land he applied for is already co'ered by a title so that he has no right hatsoe'er to apply for it. 4o
declare the later title 'alid ould defeat the 'ery purpose of the 4orrens 4orrens system hich is to 3uiet title to the property and guarantee its indefeasibility. indefeasibility. It ould undermine the faith and condence of the people in the e;cacy of the registration la. >J(FO(, the orders appealed from f rom are hereby a;rmed. >ith costs against appellants.
"LI#+* vs. L"+ #ame #ame $udgments 4he doctrine in bellera 's. Farol Farol = Phil. -2, needs reK e'aluation nal udgment in an ordinary ci'il case determining onership of a certain land is res udicata in the 8ind registration case here the parties and the property are identical including the addition of a party in the registration case here he claims coKonership coK onership Ralisno Ralisno 's. Plan, 1/ #&( 5A-"1920%Q #ame #ame #ame, &aption of the complaint, as action to reco'er possession, does not control here same is really an accion rein'idicatoria. Ralisno Facts: On Facts: On ugust -1, 190, petitionersKspouses Flordeli)a and Jonorio Ralisno purchased from the legal heirs of gapita R. +lanco, namely,
4he & re'ersed the decision decision of the loer court and dismissed the complaint of of petitioners on a nding that the land in 3uestion described in the complaint and s8etched in *hibit & is completely dierent from the land appearing in the #ubdi'ision Plan of the appelles appellant, their respecti'e area and boundaries being completely dissimilar. 4herefore, as as the land occupied by the appellant has not been successfully successfully Identied ith that described in the complaint, the instant action should ha'e been dismissed outright, in 'ie of the pro'ision of rticle / of the 7e &i'il &ode hich reads. #ubse3uently, on #eptember -5, 19=9, pri'ate respondent led before the &ourt of First Instance of Isabela an application for registration in his name of the title of the lands in 3uestion. Petitioners led an opposition to the application. nne* +, Petition, p. 1, (olloQ (olloQ Pri'ate respondent, hoe'er, mo'ed for the dismissal of said opposition on the ground that the same is barred by a prior udgment. :espite the opposition of petitioners to said motion to dismiss, the loer court issued the rst of the assailed orders dismissing the petitioner6s opposition on the ground of res udicata. Issue: >?7 Issue: >?7 res udicata e*ists in the case at bar assuming arguendo that a motion to dismiss is proper in a land registration case Held: 4he Held: 4he !and (egistration ct ct 90Q does not pro'ide for a pleading similar or corresponding to a motion to dismiss. It must be noted that the opposition parta8es of the nature of an anser ith a counterclaim. In ordinary ci'il cases, the counterclaim ould be considered a complaint, this time ith the original defendant becoming the plainti. 4he original plainti, ho becomes defendant in the counterclaim may either then anser the counterclaim or be declared in default, or may le a motion to dismiss the same. >ith respect to the subect matter, there can be no 3uestion that the land sought to be reco'ered by petitioners are the 'ery same parcels of land being sought to be registered in &ayaba6s and 7oriega6s names. >hile the complaint in the rst rst action is captioned for reco'ery of possession, the allegations and the prayer for relief therein raise the issue of onership. In eect, it is in the nature of an accion rein'idicatoria. 4he second case is for registration of title. &onse3uently, beteen the to cases there is identity of causes of action because in accion rein'idicatoria, possession is sought on the basis of onership and the same is true in registration cases. (egistration of title in one6s name n ame is based on onership. In both cases, the plainti and the applicant see8 to e*clude other persons from onership of the land in 3uestion. 4he only dierence is that in the former case, the e*clusion is directed against particular persons, hile in the
latter proceedings, the e*clusion is directed against the hole orld. 7onetheless, the cause of action remains the same. It does not matter that the rst case as decided by a court of general urisdiction, hile the second case is being heard by one of a limited urisdiction, such as a registration court. It is enough that the court hich decided the rst case on the merits had 'alidly ac3uired urisdiction o'er the subect matter and the parties. 4hat both courts should ha'e h a'e e3ual urisdiction is not a re3uisite of res udicata. 4o 4o our mind, therefore, therefore, the better policy, both for practicality practicality and con'enience, is to grant the dismissal of either the application for registration or the opposition opp osition thereto, once it has been indubitably shon, as in the case at bar, that one or the other is barred by a prior udgment. >J(FO(, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. &ost against petitioners.
C. HEARING, JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF REGISTRATION 0*D$L" vs C" #ame #ame One claiming Cpri'ate rightsD must pro'e that he has complied ith &.. 7o. 11, as amended, otherise 8non as the Public !and ct, hich prescribes the substanti'e as ell as the procedural re3uirements for ac3uisition of public lands #ame #ame 4he possession of public agricultural land, hoe'er long the period may ha'e e*tended, ne'er confers title thereto upon the possessor. #ame #ame Petitioners ha'e failed to comply ith the mandatory /AKyear period of possession. former President Ferdinand Ferdinand . Marcos issued Proclamation Proclamation Facts: On $une -0, 1909, former 7o. 5=/ ithdraing from sale and settlement and setting aside as permanent forest reser'es, subect to pri'ate rights, certain parcels p arcels of the public domain 4he parcel of land land subect of the case at bar is, by petitioners6 petitioners6 e*plicit admission ithin Parcel 7o. 9 &alirayaK!umot (i'er Forest (eser'e.
More than three years after the land as segregated as part of the &alirayaK!umot (i'er Forest (eser'e, (eser'e, or on $anuary 9, 19=/, petitioner hether or not e Held: >e a;rm the &ourt of ppeals. Petitioners do not contest the nature of the land in the case at bar. It is admitted that it lies in the heart of the &alirayaK!umot (i'er Forest (eser'e, hich Proclamation Proclamation 7o. 5=/ classied as inalienable and indisposable. Its control as 'ested in the 7PO&O( under un der .O. 7o. --. Petitioners, hoe'er, contend that Proclamation 7o. 5=/ itself recogni)es pri'ate rights of landoners prior to the reser'ation. 4hey claim to ha'e established their pri'ate rights to the subect land. >e do not agree. 7o public land can be ac3uired by pri'ate persons ithout any grant, e*press or implied from the go'ernment it is indispensable that there be a shoing of a title from the state.1=Q st ate.1=Q 4he facts sho that petitioner
substanti'e as ell as the procedural re3uirements for ac3uisition of public lands. 4his la re3uires at least thirty "/A% years of open, open, continuous, e*clusi'e e*clusi'e and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona de claim of ac3uisition, immediately preceding the ling of the application for free patent. 4he rationale for the /AKyear period lies in the presumption that the land applied for pertains to the #tate, and that the occupants and?or possessors claim an interest therein only by 'irtue of their imperfect title or continuous, open and notorious possession. In the case at bar, petitioners ha'e failed to comply ith the mandatory /AKyear period of possession. 4heir -5Kyear possession of the land prior to its reser'ation as part of the &alirayaK!umot (i'er Forest (eser'e (eser'e cannot be considered compliance ith &. . 7o. 11, as amended. 4he &ourt has no authority to loer this re3uirement for it cannot amend the la. la.
DI%CT* *F L"+D# vs C" #ame 'idence pplicant for registration of title has burden of proof. #ame #ame pplicant failed to pro'e /AKyear possession Facts: On Facts: On $anuary -9, 19=/, spouses #il'estre Manlapa) and 7ati'idad Pi)arro led an application before the &ourt of First Instance of +ataan, see8ing the registration
and conrmation of titles to to "-% parcels of land. Prior to the initial hearing of the case, the trial court directed the !and (egistration &ommissioner to submit his report on hether or not the parcels of land in 3uestion had been issued patents or hether the same are subect su bect of pending decrees. In compliance ith this directi'e, cting itness Monico +alila testied that he is the oner of the parcel of land adoining pri'ate respondent6s property. property. Je had seen ngeles clear the same and plant dierent fruit trees. On crossKe*amination, he said that he as tel'e "1-% years old hen he rst li'ed at +ilolo, Orion, +ataan in 19/2. Jis land holding as 'e 8ilometers aay from pri'ate respondents6 land and it as his uncle ho as then in possession of the land he presently ons. 4he :irector of !ands, on the other hand, did not present any e'idence to support his opposition.
4he loer court rendered its its decision in fa'or of Manlapa) Manlapa) and Pi)arro.4he Pi)arro.4he & a;rmed the decision. Issue: >?7 Issue: >?7 the burden bu rden of proof of open, continuous, e*clusi'e, and notorious possession under a bonade claim of onership for /A years as met Held@ Held@ It must be emphasi)ed that the burden is on applicant to pro'e his positi'e a'erments and not for the go'ernment or the pri'ate oppositors to establish a negati'e proposition insofar as the applicants6 specic lots are concerned. -/ pplying this rule to the instant case, the conclusions reached by the court a 3uo and respondent &ourt of ppeals that the pri'ate respondents through their predecessorsKinKinterest ha'e been in open, continuous, e*clusi'e and notorious possession of the subect land under a bonade claim of onership are not persuasi'e for the folloing reasons. First, the testimony of &risanto ngeles ng eles as to his possession and onership of the to "-% parcels of land fails to inspire belief. Je claimed that he as in possession of the land ay bac8 in 19/A. Eet Eet he declared the same for ta*ation purposes only in 1900 #econd, the attempt of Monico +alila to corroborate ngeles6 length of possession o'er the subect property is less than credible. Ja'ing been an adoining oner only in 195/ by his on admission, he could not ha'e 8non ho long &risanto ngeles oned and possessed the parcels of land. 4hird, Pablito Pablito Punay, the second second predecessorKinKinterest predecessorKinKinterest of !ot 7o. 7o. -255 of the the pri'ate respondents as not made to testify. testify. 7o reason as disclosed for his failure to appear before the court. !astly, the documents introduced by the th e applicants merely e'idenced the fact that the parcels of land applied for ere alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, but no document has been presented that ould clearly establish the length of time of the possession of their predecessorsKinKinterest. ndoubtedly, the pri'ate respondents ha'e failed to submit con'incing proof p roof of their predecessorsKinKinterest6s actual, peaceful and ad'erse possession in the concept of oner of the lots in 3uestion during the period re3uired, by la. 4his is of utmost signicance in 'ie of the basic presumption that lands of hate'er classication belong to the #tate and e'idence of a land grant must be ellKnigh incontro'ertible. >J(FO( the decision &ourt of ppeals is hereby (R(#: and #4 #I:, #I:, and udgment is rendered :I#MI##I7< the application for registration and conrmation of titles.
%$BLIC *F TH% HILII+%# v %" #ame #ame #ame #ame # ame Prescription Public !ands Possession of public lands, hoe'er long ne'er confers title upon the possessor, unless the occupant can pro'e occupation of the same under claim of onership for the re3uired period to constitute a grant from the #tate. #ame #ame 'idence 4he !and (egistration &ommission has no authority to appro'e original sur'ey plans. (epublic 's. Rera, 1-A #&( -1A"192/%Q Facts: On Facts: On May , 19=-, respondent !uisito Martine) led ith the loer court an application for registration of title under ct 90 of oneparcel of land, situated in the Municipality of Mari'eles, +ataan. 4he (epublic of of the Philippines led ith the loer court court an opposition to the application stating that the parcel of land applied for is a portion of the public domain belonging to the (epublic, not subect to pri'ate appropriation. 4he loer court issued an ordered ordered the !and (egistration &ommissioner &ommissioner to submit his report and?or comment as to hether this lot is co'ered by the Mari'eles &adastre ithin 'e "5% days from receipt hereof. 4he &ommissioner of !and (egistration submitted to the loer court a report stating that the parcel of land applied for registration in the abo'eKentitled case is entirely inside the &adastral #ur'ey of Mari'eles, Pro'ince of +ataan. (ecords (ecords sho that in the hearing of this case in the loer court, applicant !uisito Martine), 0- years old, testied that he is the oner of the land applied for, ha'ing inherited the same from his parents, pa rents, consisting of /- hectares, more or less that he he started possessing the land in 19/2 that about 2 hectares of the land is planted to palay, and there are about - mango trees that 8amoteng 8ahoy is also planted thereon that he declared the land for ta*ation purposes only in 1909 because all the records ere lost during the ar, and that possession as continuous, open, undisturbed and in the concept of oner. nother itness, ntonio (eyes, 0= years old, testied that he is the o'erseer of !uisito Martine) that the area of his land is /- hectares, more or less that since 19/2, applicant has possessed this land that eight "2% hectares of land is de'oted to palay, and his son Manuel (eyes and #il'estre
and the har'est is shared ali8e beteen applicant, on one hand, and Manuel (eyes and #il'estre hile another itness, #il'estre
<.(. 7o. !K/5==9@ On March -1, 19=-, respondent 4helma 4analega 4analega led an application for registration under ct 7o. 90 in the &ourt of First First Instance of +ataan, of to "-% parcels of land located in the barrio of &amaya, municipality of Mari'eles, pro'ince of +ataan, On March -1, 19=-, the loer court ordered the +ureau of !ands to submit a report ithin ten "1A% days if the land subect of the application has been issued patents or is the subect of any pending application for the issuance of patents. !i8eise, the loer court directed the &ommissioner of !and (egistration to submit ithin the same period his report if the land applied for has been issued a title or is the subect of a pending decree. In May -/, 19=-, the &hief #ur'eyor # ur'eyor of the !and (egistration &ommission led a report in the loer court, stating st ating that the parcels of land applied for registration do not appear to ha'e been passed upon and appro'ed by the :irector of !ands as re3uired by #ection 1252 of the (e'ised dministrati'e &ode. On $uly =, 19=-, the pro'incial p ro'incial scal led his opposition in behalf of the :irectors of !ands and of Forestry, alleging that the parcels of land applied for are portions of the public domain belonging to the (epublic of the Philippines, not subect to pri'ate appropriation. 4hereafter, the case as tried. 4he applicant, 4helma 4analega "respondent herein%, testied in her behalf, and presented to "-% itnesses, namely, Miguel Ocampo, 5= years old, and gapito del (osario, 5A years old, as ell as her documentary e'idence in support of her application for registration. On the other hand,. Fiscal Fiscal rsenio (oman appeared for the go'ernment, and submitted documentary proof in support of the opposition led by the pro'incial scal6s o;ce in this case. t the hearing of this case in the loer court, applicant 4helma 4analega, 4analega, -= years old, testied that she had possessed the land openly, ad'ersely, notoriously and in the concept of oner since February -, 19=A hen the said land as sold to her by
lisa !lamas ho allegedly possessed this land in the same manner since 19/5 that the applicant had paid for the ta*es of the land for the years 19=AK19=-. nother itness, Miguel Ocampo, 5= years old, testied that his parents ere the ones or8ing on the land before 19/5 and due to the illness of his parents, on their re3uest to oner lisa !lamas, he became o'erseer up to 19=A hen the same as sold to applicant that 10 hectares of these lands ere planted to palay hile others ere de'oted to pasture land and planting 'egetables. >itness gapito del (osario, 5A years old, ho testied that since childhood, he had 8non lisa !lamas to be the oner of the land applied for that she as the one managing the planting and impro'ing of the land that he used to see !eopoldo de
portions they ere then occupying, otherise, titles o'er the portions subect of their respecti'e claims ould ha'e been issued to them. 4he &adastral &ourt must ha'e declared the lands in 3uestion public lands, and its decision had already become nal and conclusi'e. (espondents are no barred by prior udgment to assert their rights o'er the subect land, under the th e doctrine of res udicata. cadastral proceeding is one in rem and binds the hole orld. nder this doctrine, parties are precluded from reK litigating the same issues already determined by nal udgment. 'en granting that respondents can still petition for udicial conrmation of imperfect title o'er the lands subect matter of the instant cases, the same must necessarily fail. It is to be noted that in the instant cases e'idence for the respondents themsel'es tend to sho that only portions of the entire area applied for are culti'ated. mere casual culti'ation of portions of the land by the claimant does not constitute possession under claim of onership. In that sense, possession is not e*clusi'e and notorious so as to gi'e rise to a presumpti'e grant from the #tate. 4he possession of public land hoe'er long the period thereof may ha'e e*tended, ne'er confers title thereto upon the possessor because the statute of limitations ith regard to public land does not operate against the #tate, unless the occupant can pro'e possession and occupation of the same under claim of onership for the re3uired number of years to constitute a grant from the #tate. / pplicants, therefore, ha'e failed to submit con'incing proof actual, peaceful and ad'erse possession in the concept of oners of the entire area in 3uestion during the period re3uired by la.
Citi!enshi' e1uirement 2riven3o v. egister o& Deeds Uri'en8o, an alien, bought a residential residential lot from Magdalena Facts: le*ander Uri'en8o, state Inc. in :ecember 191. 4he registration as interrupted by the ar. In May 195, he sought to accomplish the said registration but as denied by the (egister of :eeds of Manila on the grounds that he is a foreigner and he cannot ac3uire a land in this urisdiction. Uri'en8o brought the case to the &FI of Manila. 4he &FI ruled that he cannot on a land, being an alien. Jence, this petition. Issue@ Issue@ >hether or not an alien alien may on pri'ate lands in the Philippines. Held: 7o. Held: 7o. #ec. 1, rt 1/ of the &onstitution, Cnatural resources, resources, ith the e*ception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and ith respect to public agricultural landsm their alienation is limited to Filipino citi)ens. +ut this constitutional purpose conser'ing agricultural resources in the h ands of the Filipino citi)ens may easily be defeated byt the Filipino Filipino citi)ens themsel'es ho may
alienate their agricultural lands in fa'or of aliens. It is partly to pre'ent this result that #ection 5 is included in article 1/ and it reads as follos@ sa'e in cases of hereditary succession, no pri'ate agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned e*cept to indi'iduals, corporations, or associations 3ualied to ac3uire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines. 4he important 3uestion that arises is hether pri'ate residential land is included in the terms pri'ate agricultural land. 4his constitutional pro'ision pro'ision closes the only remaining remaining a'enue through hich agricultural resources may lea8 into aliens6 hands. It ould certainly be futile to prohibit the alienation of public agricultural lands to aliens if, after all, they may be freely so alienated upon their becoming pri'ate agricultural lands in the hands of Filipino citi)ens. ndoubtedly, as abo'e indicated, section 5 is intended to insure the policy of nationali)ation contained in section 1. +oth sections must, th erefore, be read together for they ha'e the same purpose and the same subect matter. It must be noticed that the persons against hom the prohibition is directed in section 5 are the 'ery same persons ho under section 1 are dis3ualied to ac3uire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines. nd the subect matter of both sections is the same, namely, the nonKtransferability of agricultural land to aliens. #ince agricultural land under section 1 includes residential lots, the same technical meaning should be attached to agricultural land under section 5. It is a rule of statutory construction that a ord or phrase repeated in a statute ill bear the same meaning throughout the statute, unless a dierent intention appears. "II #utherland, #tatutory &onstruction, p. =52.% 4he only dierence beteen agricultural land under section 5, is that the former is public and the latter pri'ate. +ut such dierence refers to onership and not to the class of land. 4he lands are the same in both sections, and, for the conser'ation of the national patrimony, hat is important is the nature or class of the property regardless of hether it is oned by the #tate or by its citi)ens.
B**%* v D%#C"LL" Facts: In Facts: In 192 in &ebu, >ilhelm $ambrich "ustrian%, met ntonietta OpallaK :escallar, a separated "+4 7O4@ #4I!! !<!!E !<!!E M((I:% mother of to boys b oys and aitress at a hotel at that time. 4hey fell in lo'e and li'ed together. together. !ater, they bought a house and lots in groKMacro #ubd, Mandaue Mand aue &ity. &ity. In the &ontracts to #ell, both of them ere referred to as the buyers of the groKMacro. Joe'er, the (egister of :eeds refused to register the :eed on the ground that $ambrich as an alien and could not ac3uire alienable lands of the public domain. $ambrichLs name n ame as erased from the document, though his signature remained on the left hand margin of page 1 beside ntoniettaLs as buyer. 4he 4&4s ere issued in ntoniettaLs name alone. 4hey bro8e up in 1991.
In 1929, $ambrich purchased an engine and some accessories for his boat from petitioner &amilo +orromeo. Je became indebted to the latter for P15A,AAA.AA. 4o 4o pay for the debt, he sold his rights and interests in the groKMacro properties to the petitioner thru a :eed of bsolute #ale?ssignment for P-5A,AAA.AA. Joe'er, in 1991, hen &amilo sought to register the :eed, he disco'ered that the titles to the three lots ere transferred to ntonietta, and that the p roperty has already been mortgaged. Petitioner led a complaint against respondent for reco'ery of property before the (4&. (4 &. Je claimed that the :eed of bsolute #ale o'er the properties do not reHect the true agreement of the parties since ntonietta as not in fact the buyer, but $ambrich alone. (espondent (espondent claimed, on the contrary, that she solely solely and e*clusi'ely used her on personal funds for the purchase, and that $ambrich, as an alien, as prohibited under the &onstitution from ac3uiring such properties. (4& ruled in fa'or of petitioner. (4& petitioner. It held that it is highly improbable that respondent could ac3uire the properties "hich accordingly are orth more than P=AA,AAA.AA% hile she as still or8ing as a aitress earning P1,AAA?mo salary as she could not e'en pro'ide for the daily needs of her family. family. It also held that th at the only probable reason hy her name appeared in the contracts to sell as because as obser'ed by the &ourt, Cshe being a scheming and e*ploitati'e oman, she has ta8en ad'antage of the goodness of $ambrich ho at that time as still beitched by her beauty, seetness, and good attitude shon by her to him ***D & ruled in fa'or of respondent. Issue:
>as the transfer to petitioner 'alid despite $ambrichLs foreign citi)enship
Held: Ees. Held: Ees. 4ransfer of land to petitioner 'alid, despite foreign citi)enship of $ambrich. 4he transfer of land from from groKMacro :e'elopment :e'elopment &orp to $ambrich, an ustrian ould ha'e been declared in'alid, had $ambrich not con'eyed the properties to petitioner ho is a Filipino citi)en. If land is in'alidly transferred to an alien ho subse3uently becomes a Filipino Filipino citi)en or transfers it to a Filipino, Filipino, the Ha in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered 'alid. #ince the ban on aliens is intended to preser'e preser'e the nationLs land for future generations of Filipinos, Filipinos, that aim is achie'ed by ma8ing laful the ac3uisition of real estate by aliens ho became Filipino Filipino citi)ens by naturali)ation or those transfers made by aliens to Filipino Filipino citi)ens. s the property in dispute is already already in the hands of a 3ualied person, a Filipino citi)en, there ould be no more public policy to be protected. 4he obecti'e of the constitutional pro'ision to 8eep our lands in Filipino hands has been achie'ed. e'u4lic C" and #'s La'ina Facts: On Facts: On $une 1=, 19=2, respondent spouses bought !ots /= and /2, &ad. s/2K:, as their residence ith a total area of 91.== s3. m. situated in #an # an Pablo &ity, from
one &risteta :a)o +elen. t the time of the purchase, respondent spouses here then naturalKborn Filipino citi)ens. On February 5, 192=, the spouses led an application for registration of title of the to "-% parcels of land before the (egional 4rial &ourt of #an Pablo &ity, +ranch VVVI. 4his time, hoe'er, they ere no longer Filipino Filipino citi)ens and ha'e opted to embrace &anadian citi)enship through naturali)ation. n opposition as led by the (epublic and after the parties ha'e presented their respecti'e e'idence, the court a 3uo rendered a decision conrming pri'ate respondents6 title to the lots. In the main, petitioner see8s to defeat respondents6 application for registration of title on the ground of foreign nationality. Issue: &an a foreign national apply for registration of title o'er a parcel of land hich he ac3uired by purchase pu rchase hile still a citi)en of the Philippines, from a 'endor ho has complied ith the re3uirements for registration under the Public !and ct "& 11% Held: In Held: In the case at bar, pri'ate respondents ere e re undoubtedly naturalKborn Filipino Filipino citi)ens at the time of the ac3uisition of the properties and by 'irtue thereof, ac3uired 'ested rights thereon, tac8ing in the process, the possession in the concept of oner and the prescribed period of time held by their predecessorsKinK interest under the Public !and ct. In addition, pri'ate respondents ha'e constructed a house of strong materials on the contested property, no occupied by respondent !apiGas mother. mother. +ut hat should not be missed in the disposition of this case is the fact that the &onstitution itself allos pri'ate respondents to register the contested parcels of land in their fa'or. #ections = and 2 of rticle VII of the &onstitution contain the folloing pertinent pro'isions, to it@ #ec. =. #a'e in cases of hereditary succession, no pri'ate lands shall sh all be transferred or con'eyed e*cept to indi'iduals, corporations, or associations 3ualied to ac3uire or hold lands of the public domain. #ec. 2. 7otithstanding the pro'isions of #ection = of this rticle, a naturalKborn citi)en of the Philippines ho has lost his Philippine citi)enship may be b e a transferee of pri'ate lands, subect to limitations pro'ided by la. #ection 2, rticle VII of the 192= &onstitution abo'e 3uoted 3 uoted is similar to #ection 15, rticle VIR of the then 19=/ &onstitution hich reads@ #ec. 15. 7otithstanding the pro'isions of #ection 1 of this rticle, a naturalKborn citi)en of the Philippines ho has lost his citi)enship may be a transferee of pri'ate land, for use by him as his residence, as the +atasang Pambansa may pro'ide.
Pursuant thereto, +atas Pambansa +lg. 125 as passed into la, the th e rele'ant pro'ision of hich pro'ides@ #ec. -. ny naturalKborn citi)en of the Philippines ho has lost his Philippine citi)enship and ho has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine las may be a transferee of a pri'ate land up to a ma*imum area of one thousand s3uare meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence. In the case of married couples, one of them may a'ail of the pri'ilege herein granted Pro'ided, 4hat if both b oth shall a'ail of the same, the total area ac3uired shall not e*ceed the ma*imum herein *ed. In case the transferee already ons urban or rural lands for residential purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a transferee of an additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes hich, hen added to those already oned by him, shall not e*ceed the ma*imum areas herein authori)ed. From the adoption of the 192= &onstitution up to the present, no other la has been passed by the legislature on the same subect. 4hus, hat go'erns the disposition of pri'ate lands in fa'or of a naturalKborn Filipino Filipino citi)en ho has lost his h is Philippine citi)enship remains to be +P 125. 'en if pri'ate respondents ere already &anadian citi)ens at the time they applied for registration of the properties in 3uestion, said s aid properties as discussed abo'e ere already pri'ate lands conse3uently, there could be no legal impediment for the registration thereof by respondents in 'ie of hat the &onstitution ordains. 4he parcels of land sought to be registered no longer form part of the public p ublic domain. 4hey are already already pri'ate in character since pri'ate respondents6 respondents6 predecessorsKinK interest ha'e been in open, continuous and e*clusi'e possession and occupation thereof under claim of onership prior p rior to $une 1-, 195 or since sin ce 19/=. 4he la pro'ides that a naturalKborn citi)en of the Philippines ho has lost his Philippine citi)enship may be a transferee of a pri'ate land up to a ma*imum area of 1,AAA s3.m., if urban, or one "1% hectare in case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence "+P 125%. It is undisputed that pri'ate respondents, as 'endees of a pri'ate land, ere naturalKborn citi)ens of the Philippines. For the purpose of transfer and?or ac3uisition of a parcel of residential land, it is not signicant sig nicant hether pri'ate respondents are no longer Filipino citi)ens at the time they purchased or registered the parcels of land in 3uestion. >hat is important is that pri'ate respondents ere formerly naturalKborn citi)ens of the Philippines, and as transferees of a pri'ate land, they could apply for registration in accordance ith the mandate of #ection 2, rticle VII of the &onstitution. &onsidering that pri'ate p ri'ate respondents ere able to pro'e the re3uisite period and character of possession of their predecessorsKinK interest o'er the subect lots, their application for registration of title must perforce be appro'ed.#O O(:(:.
BC v L$I #H% Faustino "a8a !ola $Smy nic8name not the caseLs @P% Facts: $ustina Facts: $ustina #antos y &anon Faustino and her sister !oren)a ere the oners in common of a piece of land in Manila. "4hey are - 'ery rich old old maid doGas.% In it are - residential residential houses ith entrance on Florentino 4orres street and the Jen >ah (estaurant ith entrance on (i)al 'enue. 'enue. 4he sisters li'ed in one of the houses, hile >ong Jeng, a &hinese, li'ed ith his family in the restaurant. >ong had been a longKtime lessee of a portion of the property, ha'ing a monthly rental of P-, 0-A. #eptember --, 195=@ !ola $ became the oner of the entire property as !oren)a died ith no other heir. heir. t that time, she as already already 9A years old, blind, blind, crippled and an in'alid, she as left ith no other relati'e to li'e ith, but she as ta8en care of by >ong. >ong. "+O7# I7FO@ !ola !ola had 1= dogs and 2 maids naman ith her h er.. @P% !ola $ e*ecuted e*ecuted a contract of lease in fa'our of >ong >ong for the grateful ac8noledgment of the personal ser'ices of the !essee to her, "7ote@ >ong >ong as the one ho managed her aairs li8e chec8ing !ola $L# account to pay for the maids and pay for dog food. Jis 8ids also fre3uently 'isited her h er.. #he also belie'ed that >ong >ong sa'ed her and !oren)a from the re after the liberation of Manila but a itness said they ere actually sa'ed by - other guys.% 4his contract co'ering the portion as then already already leased to him and another portion fronting Florentino 4orres 4orres street. 4he contract as amended so as to ma8e it co'er the entire property, including the portion on hich the house of $ustina #antos stood, at an additional monthly rental of P/0A. #he e*ecuted contract gi'ing >ong the option to buy the leased premises for P1-A U payable ithin 1A years at a monthly instalment of P1U. 4he option as conditioned on his obtaining Philippine citi)enship, a petition for hich as then pending in the &FI (i)al. #he e*ecuted - other contracts, one e*tending the term of the lease to 99 years, and another *ing the term of the option at 5A years. +oth contracts are ritten in 4agalog. 4agalog. In - ills e*ecuted e*ecuted on ugust - and -9, 1959, she bade her legatees to respect the contracts she had entered into ith >ong, but in a codicil of a later date "7o'ember , 1959% she appears to ha'e a change of heart. &laiming that the 'arious contracts ere made by her because of machinations and inducements practised by him, she no directed her e*ecutor to secure the annulment of the contracts. +oth parties hoe'er died, >ong >ong Jeng on October -1, 190- and !ola $ on :ecember -2, 190. >ong as substituted by his ife, !ui #he, the other defendant in this case, >hile !ola $ as substituted by the Philippine +an8ing &orporation "P+&%. !ola
$ maintained S no reiterated reiterated by the P+& S that the lease contract contract should ha'e been annulled along ith the four other contracts because it lac8s mutuality, among others (4&@ (4 &@ &ontracts are null and 'oid e*cept for the 7o'. 15, 195= lease contract.
PetLs arguments@ Prohibition Prohibition re@ aliens ac3uiring lands in the Phil and also of the Phil. 7aturali)ation lasD Issue: >O7 Issue: >O7 the contracts are 'oid for trying to circum'ent Philippine &onstitution against alienation of property to foreigners E#. 4he contract of lease cannot be sustained. Ees, Ees, a lease to an alien for for a reasonable period is 'alid, so as an option gi'ing an alien the right to buy real property on condition that he is granted Philippine citi)enship. +ut if an alien as gi'en not only a lease of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land, by 'irtue of hich h ich the Filipino Filipino oner cannot sell or otherise dispose of his property, this to last for 5A years, then it became clear that the arrangement as a 'irtual transfer of onership hereby the oner di'ested himself in stages not only of the right to enoy the land "us possidendi, us utendi, us fruendi and us abutendi% but also of the right to dispose of it "us disponendi% S rights the sum total of hich ma8e up onership. It as ust as if today the possession is transferred, tomorro, tomorro, the use, the ne*t day, the disposition, and so on, until ultimately all the rights of hich onership is made up are consolidated in an alien. nd yet this as ust e*actly hat the parties in this case did ithin this pace of one year, ith the result that !ola $6s onership of her property as reduced to a hollo concept. :I#PO#I4IO7@ 4he contracts in 3uestion are annulled and set aside the land subectK matter of the contracts as ordered returned to the estate of $ustina #antos as represented by the Philippine +an8ing &orporation.
