Case Title:

[G.R. No. L-3793. February 19, 1908. ]

CIRILO MAPA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, Respondent-
Appellant.
Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellant.
Basilio R. Mapa, for Appellee.

Doctrine:

AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC LANDS DEFINED. — The phrase "agricultural public lands" defined by the act
of Congress of July 1, 1902, which phrase is also to be found in several sections of the Public Land
Act (No. 926), means those public lands acquired from Spain which are neither mineral nor timber
lands.

Ponente: WILLARD, J.

Brief of the Case:

Petitioner wanted to have registered a 16 ha. tract of land in Iloilo. Such is a lowland which is in his
and his ancestor’s possession as owners for more than 20 yrs. where fish ponds, nipa lands and salt
deposits were present. For Atty. General the subject land are not consider as agricultural land,
because by its very nature it is not an agricultural one and thus, it is not susceptible of disposal or
registration as homestead. SC ruled in favor of petitioner stating that the land is agricultural one
because it is a public land which are neither mineral nor timber lands, in accordance with the
definition mention in Act of Congress of July 1, 1902.

Nature of the Case: Appeal from a Judgement of the Court of Land Registration

Facts:

The petitioner sought to have registered a tract of land of about 16 hectares in extent, situated in
Mandurriao, Iloilo.

From the evidence adduced it appears that the land in question is lowland, and has been
uninterruptedly, for more than 20 years, in the possession of the petitioner and his ancestors as
owners and the same has been used during the said period, and up to the present, as fish ponds,
nipa lands, and salt deposits. The witnesses declare the land is far from the sea, the town of Molo
being between the sea and the said land.

The claim of the Atty. General seems to be that no lands can be called agricultural lands unless they
are such by their nature. He claims that it is not an agricultural land and therefore, cannot be
disposed of nor can be allowed for homestead.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the petitioner and the Government has appealed.

A motion for a new trial was made and denied in the court below. The decision of the court was
based upon Act No. 926 Section 54, par. 6 which provides that “ All persons who by themselves or
their predecessors in interest have been in the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation of agricultural public lands, as defined by said Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, under
a bona fide claim of ownership except as against the Government, for a period of 10 years next
preceding the taking effect of this Act, except when prevented by war, or force majeure, shall be
conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and to
have received the same, and shall be entitled to a certificate of title to such land under the provisions
of this chapter.

Issue:

Whether or not the land in controversy is agricultural land within the meaning of Act. No. 926.

Ruling:

Yes

The phrase “agricultural public lands” defined by the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, which phrase is
also to be found in several section of the Public Land Act (No. 926), means those public lands
acquired from Spain which are neither mineral nor timber lands.