Republic vs Vera (1983)

Facts:
G.R. No. L-35778:
On May 4, 1972, respondent Luisito Martinez filed with
the lower court an application for registration of
title under Act 496 of one (1) parcel of land, situated
in the Municipality of Mariveles, Bataan, containing an
area of 323,093 square meters, more or less.
The Republic of the Philippines opposed to the
application stating that the parcel of land applied for is
a portion of the public domain belonging to the
Republic, not subject to private appropriation.
On October 5, 1972, the Commissioner
of Land Registration submitted to the
lower court a report stating.
That the parcel of land applied for
registration in the above-entitled case
is entirely inside Lot No. 626 of the
Cadastral
Survey
of
Mariveles,
Province of Bataan, Cad. Case no. 19,
LTC Cad. Record No. 1097.
xxx xxx xxx
Records show that in the hearing of this case in the
lower court, applicant Luisito Martinez, 62 years old,
testified that he is the owner of the land applied for,
having inherited the same from his parents, consisting
of 32 hectares, more or less; that he started possessing
the land in 1938; that about 8 hectares of the land is
planted to palay, and there are about 42 mango trees;
that kamoteng kahoy is also planted thereon; that he
declared the land for taxation purposes only in 1969
because all the records were lost during the war, and
that possession was continuous, open, undisturbed and
in the concept of owner. This was corroborated by 2
witnesses.
G.R. No. L-35779:
On March 21, 1972, respondent Thelma Tanalega filed
an application for registration under Act No. 496 in the
CFI of Bataan, of two (2) parcels of land located in the
barrio of Camaya, municipality of Mariveles, province
of Bataan described and Identified as portions of
Lot 626, Mariveles Cadastre.
On March 21, 1972, the lower court ordered the Bureau
of Lands to submit a report within ten (10) days if the
land subject of the application has been issued patents
or is the subject of any pending application for the
issuance of patents. Likewise, the lower court directed

the Commissioner of Land Registration to submit within

the same period his report if the land applied for has
been issued a title or is the subject of a pending
decree.
The Chief Surveyor of the Land Registration
Commission filed a report in the lower court, stating
that the parcels of land applied for registration "do not
appear to have been passed upon and approved by the
Director of Lands as required by Section 1858 of the
Revised Administrative Code."
Later, the Chief Surveyor of the Land Registration
Commission filed in the lower court another report or
manifestation stating "that the plans, when plotted on
the Municipal Index Map on file in the Commission
does not appear to overlap with any previously
titled property under Act 496.
On July 7, 1972, the provincial fiscal filed his opposition
in behalf of the Directors of Lands and of Forestry,
alleging that the parcels of land applied for are
portions of the public domain belonging to the
Republic of the Philippines, not subject to
private appropriation.
Thereafter, the case was tried. The applicant, Thelma
Tanalega (respondent herein), testified in her behalf,
and presented two (2) witnesses as well as her
documentary evidence in support of her application for
registration. Applicant Thelma Tanalega, 27 years old,
testified that she had possessed the land OCENPO
since February 2, 1970 when the said land was sold to
her by Elisa Llamas who allegedly possessed this land"
in the same manner since 1935; that the applicant had
paid for the taxes of the land for the years 1970-1972.
Fiscal Arsenio Guzman who is appearing for the
government, submitted a certification dated July 3,
1972 of Leonides B. Rodriguez, District Forester of
Balanga, Bataan which states "that the tract of
land situated at Barrio Camaya, Mariveles,
Bataan, as surveyed for Thelma Tanalega, et al.,
was found to be within the Alienable and
Disposable Block, Project 4-B, Mariveles, Bataan,
certified by the Director of Forestry as such
on February 16, 1972."
In both cases, the Court of First Instance of Bataan in
two separate decisions, dated October 9, 1972 and
October 16, 1972, confirmed the titles to subject
parcels of land and adjudicated them in favor of
applicants Luisito Martinez and Thelma Tanalega,
now respondents herein.
In the instant petitions for review the Republic of the
Philippines, through the Solicitor General, argued that
Lot 626, Mariveles Cadastre was declared public

land by the decision of the Cadastral Court dated

October 11, 1937 and such being the case, the
lower court is without jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the application for voluntary
registration under Act 496.

their claims over the portions they were then

occupying, otherwise, titles over the portions subject
of their respective claims would have been issued to
them. The Cadastral Court must have declared the
lands in question public lands, and its decision had
already become final and conclusive.

Petitioner likewise stressed that the lands in question

can no longer be subject to registration by voluntary
proceedings, for they have already been subjected
to compulsory registration proceedings under
the Cadastral Act.

Respondents are now barred by prior judgment to

assert their rights over the subject land, under the
doctrine of res judicata.

Issue: WON the subject lots may be registered by

respondents. No.

A cadastral proceeding is one in rem and binds

the whole world. Under this doctrine, parties are
precluded from re-litigating the same issues
already determined by final judgment. 2

It is noteworthy that as per the report of the

Commissioner of Land Registration, 1 the land subject
matter of the instant proceedings "is entirely inside
Lot No. 626 of the Cadastral Survey of Mariveles,
Province of Bataan, Cad. Case No. 19, LRC Cad. Record
No. 1097"; that some portions of Lot No. 626 were
decreed and titles were issued therefor; and that
"portion declared Public Land as per decision dated
October 11, 1937."
In a cadastral proceedings any person claiming any
interest in any part of the lands object of the petition is
required by Section 9 of Act No. 2259 to file an answer
on or before the return day or within such further time
as may be allowed by the court, giving the details
required by law, such as: (1) Age of the claimant; (2)
Cadastral number of lot or lots claimed, or the block
and lot numbers, as the case may be; (3) Name of the
barrio and municipality, township or settlement in
which the lots are situated; (4) Names of the owners of
adjoining lots; (5) If claimant is in possession of the lots
claims and can show no express grant of the land by
the Government to him or to his predecessors-ininterest, the answer need state the length of time
property was held in possession and the manner it was
acquired, giving the length of time, as far as known,
during which his predecessors, if any, held possession;
(6) If claimant is not in possession or occupation of the
land, the answer shall set forth the interest claimed by
him and the time and manner of its acquisition; (7) If
the lots have been assessed for taxation, their last
assessed value; and (8) Encumbrance, if any, affecting
the lots and the names of adverse claimants as far as
known. In the absence of successful claimants, the
property is declared public land.
In the instant cases, private respondents apparently
either did not file their answers in the aforesaid
cadastral proceedings or failed to substantiate

Even granting that respondents can still petition for

judicial confirmation of imperfect title over the lands
subject matter of the instant cases, the same must
necessarily fail. It is to be noted that in the instant
cases evidence for the respondents themselves tend to
show that only portions of the entire area applied for
are cultivated. A mere casual cultivation of portions of
the land by the claimant does not constitute
possession under claim of ownership. In that sense,
possession is not exclusive and notorious so as to give
rise to a presumptive grant from the State. The
possession of public land however long the period
thereof may have extended, never confers title thereto
upon the possessor because the statute of limitations
with regard to public land does not operate against the
State, unless the occupant can prove possession and
occupation of the same under claim of ownership for
the required number of years to constitute a grant from
the State.
Applicants, therefore, have failed to submit convincing
proof actual, peaceful and adverse possession in the
concept of owners of the entire area in question during
the period required by law.
Apart from the foregoing, the survey plans submitted
by petitioners were not approved by the Director of
Lands but by the Land Registration Commission. The
Land Registration Commission has no authority to
approve original survey plans in this particular case.
Section 34-A of R.A. No. 6389 relied upon by
respondents applies only to lands subject of tenancy
relation which are expropriated and sub-divided in
favor of new amortizing-owner-beneficiaries. The
submission of the plan is a statutory requirement of
mandatory character and unless the plan and its
technical description are duly approved by the Director
of Lands, the same are not of much value.