Republic vs. Vera, 120 SCRA 210

Republic vs. Vera, 120 SCRA 210 Doctrine: A land subjected to cadastral adjudication under the Land Registration Act cannot be subject to registration by voluntary proceedings, exc ept where the applicant can still petition for judicial confirmation of imperfec t title.

Facts: These case involves two petitions for review.

G.R. No. L-35778

Respondent Luisito Martinez filed with the lower court of Bataan an application for registration under Act No. 496 of one parcel of land situated in Mariveles, Bataan. The Republic opposed the application claiming that the aforementioned pa rcel of land is a portion of the public domain, thus not subject to private appr opriation. Commission of Land Registration (LRC) issued a certificate that such land is inside Lot 626 of the Cadastral Survey of Mariveles.

G.R. No. L-35779

Respondent Thelma Tanalega filed an application for registration before the same  court for two parcels of land described as portions of Lot 626 of the Mariveles  Cadastre. The Chief Surveyor of LRC filed a report in the lower court that such  parcels of land do not appear to have been passed upon and approved by the Dire ctor of Lands, and further examination will be conducted in order to determine w hether or not a patent or title has been issued in order to avoid duplication or  overlapping of titles. The Republic opposed the registration claiming that the land applied for are por tions of the public domain thus not subject to private appropriation.

*********************** In both cases, the lower court ruled in favor of applicants Martinez and Tanaleg a, hence this petition. Republic argued that Mariveles Cadastre was declared pub lic land by the decision of the Cadastral Court in 1937, thus the lower court is  without jurisdiction over the subject matter for voluntary registration under A ct 496. The Republic also claimed that the lands in question can no longer be su bject to registration by voluntary proceedings, for they have already been subje cted to compulsory registration proceedings under the Cadastral Act.

Issue:

W/N lower court has jurisdiction over application of registration of land which was already subjected to cadastral registration.

Held:

NO, the lower court does not have jurisdiction. In cadastral proceedings any per son claiming any interest in any part of the land object of the petition is requ ired by Act No. 2259 to file an answer on or before the return date or within su ch time as may be allowed by court. In the instant cases, private respondents ap parently either did not file their answers in the cadastral proceedings or faile d to substantiate their claims over the portions they were then occupying. The C adastral Court must have declared the lands in question public lands, and its de cision had already become final and conclusive.

Respondents are now barred by prior judgment to assert their rights over the sub ject land, under the doctrine of res judicata. A cadastral proceeding is one in rem and binds the whole world. Under this doctrine, parties are preclu ded from re-litigating the same issues already determined by final judgment.

Even granting that respondents can still petition for judicial confirmation of i mperfect title, the same must necessarily fail. In the instant cases, evidence f or the respondents themselves tend to show that only portions of the entire area  applied for are cultivated. Mere cultivation of portions of land does not const itute possession under claim of ownership.

In addition, the survey plans submitted by private respondents were not approved  by the Director of Lands but by the Land Registration Commission (LRC). The LRC  has no authority to approve original survey plans. The submission of the plan i s a statutory requirement of mandatory character and unless the plan and its tec hnical descriptions are duly approved the by the Director of Lands, the same are  not of much value.

* Respondents should have filed a petition to reopen the cadastral case under RA  931.