8/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120

210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Vera

*
No. L-35778. January 27, 1983.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, and THE DIRECTOR

OF LANDS, petitioners, vs. HON. ABRAHAM P. VERA,
Judge, CFI, Bataan, Branch I, and LUISITO MARTINEZ,
respondents.
*
No. L-35779. January 27, 1983.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, and THE DIRECTOR

OF LANDS, petitioners, vs. HON. ABRAHAM P. VERA,
Judge, CFI, Bataan, Branch I, and THELMA TANALEGA,
respondents.

Cadastral Law; Land Registration Act; Judgment; A land

subjected to cadastral adjudication under the Land Registration
Act cannot be subject to registration by voluntary proceedings,
except where the applicant can still petition for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title.—In the instant cases, private
respondents apparently either did not file their answers in the
aforesaid cadastral proceedings or failed to substantiate 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. Respondents are now barred
by prior judgment to assert their rights over the subject land,
under the doctrine of res judicata. 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Prescription; Public Lands;
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 to
constitute a grant from the State.—Even granting that
respondents can still petition for judicial confirmation of imperfect

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743b02c177d62c4eb2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
8/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120

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

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

211

VOL. 120, JANUARY 27, 1983 211

Republic vs. Vera

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.
Same; Same; Evidence; The Land Registration Commission
has no authority to approve original survey plans.—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.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decisions of the

Court of First Instance of Bataan, Br. I.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743b02c177d62c4eb2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
8/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for petitioners.
     Benjamin M. Reyes for private respondent.

DE CASTRO, J.:

The two (2) above-entitled petitions for review on certiorari

of the decisions dated October 9, 1972 and October 16, 1972
issued by the CFI of Bataan, Branch I, in LRC No. N-210,
and in LRC No. N-206, respectively, involve a common
issue. For convenience, they are hereby decided jointly.
212

212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Vera

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.
On July 7, 1972 the lower court issued an order of
general default except as to the Republic of the Philippines
and the Province of Bataan.
On July 24, 1972, the Republic of the Philippines filed
with the lower court an opposition 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 September 16, 1972, the lower court issued an order
reading:

“Considering the testimony of the Provincial Forester Leonides B.

Rodriguez during the hearing of August 8, 1972 that this land,
subject matter of this application, was a subject of cadastral
proceeding and that this land was assigned as Lot No. 626 (Tsn,
August 3, 1972, page 41), this case is ordered re-opened and the
Land Registration Commissioner is directed to submit his report
and/or comment as to whether this lot is covered by the Mariveles
Cadastre within five (5) days from receipt hereof.”
x x x      x x x

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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743b02c177d62c4eb2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
8/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120

Survey of Mariveles, Province of Bataan, Cad. Case no. 19, LTC

Cad. Record No. 1097.”
x x x      x x x

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

213

VOL. 120, JANUARY 27, 1983 213

Republic vs. Vera

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.
Another witness, Antonio Reyes, 67 years old, testified
that he is the overseer of Luisito Martinez; that the area of
his land is 32 hectares, more or less; that since 1938,
applicant has possessed this land; that eight (8) hectares of
land is devoted to palay, and his son Manuel Reyes and
Silvestre Garcia are the ones tilling the land, and the
harvest is shared alike between applicant, on one hand,
and Manuel Reyes and Silvestre Garcia, on the other; that
eighteen (18) hectares, more or less, is planted to vegetables.
While another witness, Silvestre Garcia, 60 years old,
testified that he worked on the land of the applicant since
1932 which is 32 hectares, more or less; that said Luisito
Martinez inherited the land from Ins parents; that he
plants palay only on four (4) hectares; that there are 42
mango trees on the land.
G.R. No. L-35779:
On March 21, 1972, respondent Thelma Tanalega filed
an application for registration under Act No. 496 in the
Court of First Instance of Bataan, docketed as Land
Registration Case No. N-206, L.R.C. Rec. No. N-41884, of
two (2) parcels of land located in the barrio of Camaya,
municipality of Mariveles, province of Bataan, containing
an area of 443,297 square meters, more or less, and
378,506 square meters, more or less, respectively, and more
particularly described and identified as portions of Lot 626,

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743b02c177d62c4eb2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
8/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120

Mariveles Cadastre, covered by Plans (LRC) SWO-13430

and (LRC) SWO-13431, respectively.
On March 21, 1972, the corresponding notice of initial
hearing was duly issued by the Commissioner of Land
Registration.
On March 21, 1972, the lower court ordered the Bureau
of Lands to submit a report within ten (10) days if the land
sub-
214

214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Vera

ject 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.
On May 23, 1972, 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, on July 24, 1972, the
Chief Surveyor of the Land Registration Commission filed
in the lower court another report or manifestation stating
“that Plans (LRC) SWO-13430 and 13431, LRC Case No. N-
206, LRC Record No. N-41884, 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; that the plan and records of said Land
Registration application will be subjected to further
examination as soon as the decision to be rendered by this
Honorable Court is received in this Commission to
determine whether or not a patent or title has in the
meantime been issued in order to avoid duplication or
overlapping of titles.”
At the hearing on June 21, 1972, on motion of the
applicant’s counsel, the lower court issued an Order of
General Default against all persons, with the exception of
the Director of Lands and the Director of Forestry,
represented by the Office of the provincial fiscal, and the
oppositor Eliseo Martinez represented by Atty. Angelino
Banzon, who were directed to file their respective
oppositions.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743b02c177d62c4eb2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
8/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120

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, namely, Miguel Ocampo, 57
years old, and Agapito del Rosario, 50 years old, as well as
her
215

VOL. 120, JANUARY 27, 1983 215

Republic vs. Vera

documentary evidence in support of her application for

registration. On the other hand, Fiscal Arsenio Roman
appeared for the government, and submitted documentary
proof in support of the opposition filed by the provincial
fiscal’s office in this case.
At the hearing of this case in the lower court, applicant
Thelma Tanalega, 27 years old, testified that she had
possessed the land “openly, 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” in the same manner since 1935; that
the applicant had paid for the taxes of the land for the
years 1970-1972.
Another witness, Miguel Ocampo, 57 years old, testified
that his parents were the ones working on the land before
1935 and due to the illness of his parents, on their request
to owner Elisa Llamas, he became overseer up to 1970
when the same was sold to applicant; that 16 hectares of
these lands were planted to palay while others were
devoted to pasture land and planting vegetables.
Witness Agapito del Rosario, 50 years old, who testified
that since childhood, he had known Elisa Llamas to be the
owner of the land applied for; that she was the one
managing the planting and improving of the land; that he
used to see Leopoldo de Guzman and another one also
named Agapito del Rosario worked on the 16 hectares
portion of the land; that Elisa Llamas informed him that in
1970 she sold the land to Thelma Tanalega.
At the hearing on August 24, 1972, Fiscal Arsenio
Guzman who is appearing for the government, submitted a
certification dated July 3, 1972 of Leonidas B. Rodriguez,
District Forester of Balanga, Bataan (Exhibit 3) which
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743b02c177d62c4eb2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
8/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120

states “that the tract of land situated at Barrio Camaya,

Mariveles, Bataan containing an approximate area of
EIGHTY TWO HECTARES more or less, as shown and
described in the attached photostat copy of Plans in two
sheets, 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.”

216

216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Vera

The applicant did not present as witness her predecessor-

in-interest, Elisa Llamas, to testify on the alleged
possession of the land. The applicant also failed to present
Guillermo Ramirez, who was hired by her as overseer and
her alleged tenants. Not a single tenant was presented as
witness to prove that the applicant had possessed the land
as owners.
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. 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.
The petitions are meritorious and reversal of the
questioned decisions is in order.
It is noteworthy that as per, 1the report of the
Commissioner of Land Registration, 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.”

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743b02c177d62c4eb2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
8/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120

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

_____________

1 p. 23, Rollo in G.R. No. L-35778 and p. 27, Rollo in G.R. No. L-35779.

217

VOL. 120, JANUARY 27, 1983 217

Republic vs. Vera

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-in-interest, 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 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.
Respondents are now barred by prior judgment to assert
their rights over the subject land, under the doctrine of res
judicata. A cadastral proceeding is one in rem and binds
the whole world. Under this doctrine, parties are precluded
from re-litigating
2
the same issues already determined by
final judgment.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743b02c177d62c4eb2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
8/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120

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 por-

____________

2 Yusingco vs. Ong Hing Lian, 42 SCRA 589, 602.

218

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Vera

tions 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
3
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 approved4 by the
Director of Lands, the same are not of much value.
WHEREFORE, the decisions dated October 9, 1972 and
October 16, 1972 of the Court of First Instance of Bataan,
Branch I should be, as they are hereby reversed. Without
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743b02c177d62c4eb2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
8/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120

          Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero and

Escolin, JJ., concur.
     Abad Santos, J., in the result.

Decisions reversed.

______________

3 Director of Lands vs. Reyes, 68 SCRA 177, 195.

4 Director of Lands vs. Reyes, supra.

219

VOL. 120, JANUARY 27, 1983 219

Republic vs. Vera

Notes.—Assuming that the private respondent have

been aggrieved by the October 11, 1937 decision of the
cadastral court, their remedy was not to file a petition for
registration under Act No. 496 (1903) or Section 48 of the
Public Land Act, but to file a petition to reopen the
cadastral case, if possible, under R.A. 931 (1953). The
private respondents had all the time to take advantage of
the remedy provided in said R.A. 931 up to December 31,
1968. Because of their failure to avail themselves of that
law, their application for registration filed in 1971 should
have been dismissed outright by the court. (Republic vs.
Reyes, 71 SCRA 426).
An order of general default is appealable as soon as
judgment ordering the decree of registration is rendered.
(46 Phil. 19.)
The trial court erred when it ordered the issuance of the
final decree of registration even while the case was pending
appeal. To allow execution pending appeal in land
registration proceedings is contrary to the very essence and
purpose of land registration proceedings to finally settle,
quiet and adjudicate title to land. (Director of Lands vs.
Reyes, 69 SCRA 415.)
The issue regarding the validity and due execution of
the deed of partition having already been ventilated and
resolved in the land registration case, the same may not
again be the subject of another civil case on the principle of
res judicata. (Manalo vs. Mariano, 69 SCRA 80.)
The right to repurchase within 30 days from the time of
final judgment holds true only where a question is raised
regarding the juridical nature and character of the
contract, whether it is a sale a retro or an equitable
mortgage. Where the court ruled that the land was sold
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743b02c177d62c4eb2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
8/30/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120

absolutely, the same is not subject to the 30-day

redemption rule. (Tapas vs. Court of Appeals, 69 SCRA
393.)

——o0o——

220

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001743b02c177d62c4eb2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11