49.) Republic v. Vera

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (REPUBLIC), AND THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS 9.
9. The corresponding notice of initial hearing was duly issued by the

V. Commissioner of Land Registration.
HON. ABRAHAM VERA , (CFI JUDGE), AND LUISITO MARTINEZ (MARTINEZ) 10. CFI issued an Order of General Default against all persons, with the exception
of the Director of Lands and the Director of Forestry.
G.R. NO. L-35778, 27 JANUARY 1983
11. The provincial fiscal filed his opposition in behalf of the Directors of Lands and
DE CASTRO, J. of Forestry, alleging that the parcels of land applied for are portions of the
DOCTRINE: public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines, not subject to
A land subjected to cadastral adjudication under the Land Registration Act cannot be subject private appropriation.
to registration by voluntary proceedings, except where the applicant can still petition for 12. During trial, Tanalega testified that she had possessed the land “openly,
judicial confirmation of imperfect title. adversely, notoriously and in the concept of owner since February 2, 1970 when
the said land was sold to her by Elisa Llamas who allegedly possessed this land”
Possession of public lands, however long never confers title upon the possessor, unless the
occupant can prove occupation of the same under claim of ownership for the required period in the same manner since 1935; that the applicant had paid for the taxes of the
to constitute a grant from the State. land for the years 1970-1972.
13. In both cases, the CFI in two separate decisions confirmed the titles to subject
The Land Registration Commission has no authority to approve original survey plans. parcels of land and adjudicated them in favor of applicants Martinez and
Tanalega, now respondents herein.
FACTS: 14. In the instant petitions for review, the Republic argued that Lot 626, Mariveles
1. Two petitions are involved in this case. SC decided them jointly. Cadastre was declared public land by the decision of the Cadastral Court dated
G.R. No. L-35778 (Respondent: Martinez) October 11, 1937 and such being the case, the CFI is without jurisdiction over
2. Martinez filed with the CFI an application for registration of title under Act 496 the subject matter of the application for voluntary registration under Act
of 1 parcel of land, situated in the Municipality of Mariveles, Bataan. 496. Petitioner likewise stressed that the lands in question can no longer be
3. CFI issued an order of general default except as to the Republic and the subject to registration by voluntary proceedings, for they have already been
Province of Bataan. subjected to compulsory registration proceedings under the Cadastral Act.
4. Republic filed with the CFI an opposition to the application stating that the
parcel of land applied for is a portion of the public domain belonging to the ISSUE: Does the CFI still have jurisdiction over the two applications in view of a
Republic, not subject to private appropriation. previous decision by the Cadastral court declaring the lands applied for as public
5. CFI ordered that the subject land was a subject of cadastral proceeding and that lands?
this land was assigned as Lot No. 626, and that this case is ordered re-opened.
6. The Commissioner of Land Registration submitted to CFI a report stating that HELD:
the parcel of land applied for registration is entirely inside Lot No. 626 of the
Cadastral Survey of Mariveles, Province of Bataan. No. In the instant cases, Respondents apparently either did not file their
7. Records show that in the hearing of this case in the CFI, Martinez testified: answers in the aforesaid cadastral proceedings or failed to substantiate their claims
a. That he is the owner of the land applied for, having inherited the same from his over the portions they were then occupying, otherwise, titles over the portions
parents; subject of their respective claims would have been issued to them. The Cadastral
b. That he started possessing the land in 1938; Court must have declared the lands in question public lands, and its decision had
c. That about 8 hectares of the land is planted to palay, and there are about 42
already become final and conclusive. Respondents are now barred by prior judgment
mango trees;
d. That kamoteng kahoy is also planted thereon; to assert their rights over the subject land, under the doctrine of res judicata. A
e. That he declared the land for taxation purposes only in 1969 because all the Cadastral proceeding is one in remand binds the whole world. Under this doctrine,
records were lost during the war; and parties are precluded from re-litigating the same issues already determined by final
f. That possession was continuous, open, undisturbed and in the concept of judgment.
owner.
Even granting that respondents can still petition for judicial confirmation of
G.R. No. L-35779 (Respondent: Tanalega) imperfect title over the lands subject matter of the instant cases, the same must
8. Respondent Thelma Tanalega (Tanalega) filed an application for registration necessarily fail. It is to be noted that in the instant cases evidence for the respondents
under Act No. 496 in the CFI of two (2) parcels of land located in Mariveles, themselves tend to show that only portions of the entire area applied for are
Bataan. 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 of 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
subdivided 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.

49.) Republic v. Vera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

49.) Republic v. Vera

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

49.) Republic v. Vera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (REPUBLIC), AND THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS 9.

9. The corresponding notice of initial hearing was duly issued by the

You might also like