Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Application of the doctrine laid down in 1986 in Director of Lands v. I.A.C.1 is all that is necessary
to resolve the issue presented in the appeal at bar.
The petitioner takes no issue with the factual findings of the Registration Court. In its petition 2 it
makes the following recitation of the relevant facts, viz.:
Respondent Iglesia ni Kristo filed an application for the registration and confirmation of
title over a parcel of land, with an area of 280 sq. meters, situated at Barrio Consuelo Sur,
Municipality of San Marcelino, Province of Zambales. The application ... was docketed in
the Court of First Instance of Zambales & Olongapo, Branch III (presided by respondent
Judge) as LRC No. N-187-0.
Petitioner (Republic) opposed the application on the ground that the ** Iglesia ni Kristo
is a private corporation, and that under Art. XIV, sec. 11, of the Constitution, private
corporations cannot acquire lands of the public domain but can only hold them by lease
in an area not exceeding 1,000 hectares. ... It appears that the applicant acquired the
property in question from Gregorio Rolls and Romualdo Rolls (both of San Marcelino,
Zambales) on May 23,1946, as shown by the Deed of Sale (Exhibit 'I'). After acquiring the
land, applicant had it declared for taxation purposes. ... ... The latest tax declaration of
this same parcel of land starts with the year 1974 as per Tax Dec. No. 4763 .... The land is
exempt from payment of Realty Tax, being devoted primarily for religious purposes
(Exhibit N).
Without passing upon the Government's contention that respondent Iglesia ni Kristo was
disqualified from acquiring the land in question, the trial court rendered judgment on
June 2,1980 decreeing the registration of the land in the name of the respondent (Iglesia).
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered registering and confirming the title of
the applicant, Iglesia ni Kristo with its Executive Minister Eraño G. Manalo as
corporation sole with office and postal address at corner of Central and Don
Mariano Marcos Avenues, Diliman, Quezon City, over the parcel of land situated
at Barrio Consuelo Sur, Municipality of San Marcelino, Province of Zambales, with
an area of 280 sq. m. covered by Plan PSU-03-000947. (Exhibit "F").
SO ORDERED.
(N.B. The decision also makes the finding that since acquiring the land, the Iglesia ni Kristo
"has been in open, public, adverse, peaceful and continuous possession in the concept of
an owner thereof to the present time," having in fact "put up a chapel made of concrete
materials and galvanized iron for its roofing;" and that the land is not also within any
military or naval reservation.)
It is this decision of June 2, 1980 that is subject of the Government's petition for review on
certiorari at bar.
The petition will have to be denied, in accordance with the judgment of this Court en banc in
Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court handed down on December 29, 1986,3 involving
substantially similar facts. That judgment reconsidered and declared "no longer ... binding
precedent," Manila Electric Company v. Castro-Bartolome, et al., promulgated on June 29, 1982,4
and instead adopted the dissenting opinion therein5 (based on a line of cases beginning with
Carino v. Insular Government in 19096 thru Susi v. Razon in 19257down to Herico v. Dar in 1980.8
In that case, Director of Lands v. I.A.C. a private corporation, Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc.
purchased a tract of land in 1962 from Mariano Infiel and Acer Infiel, two members of the
Dumagat tribe, but applied with the Court for registration of its title over the land under the
Torrens Act only in July, 1981, long after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution-which inter alia
prohibits private corporations from holding alienable lands of the public domain, except by lease
not to exceed 1,000 hectares (a prohibition not found in the 1935 Constitution, in force in 1962
when Acme purchased the land in question). There being no question that Acme and its
predecessors-in-interest had possessed and occupied the land for more than the required 30-
year period prescribed in Section 48 of the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended),9 the question presented to the Court en banc was whether or not the title that Acme
had acquired in 1962 could be confirmed in its favor in proceedings instituted by it in 1981 when
the 1973 Constitution was already in effect, having in mind the prohibition therein against private
corporations holdings lands of the public domain. That question the Court en banc answered in
this wise:
... (The weight of authority is) that open, exclusive and undisputed possession of alienable
public land for the period prescribed by law creates the legal fiction whereby the land,
upon completion of the requisite period ipso jure and without the need of judicial or other
auction, ceases to be public land and becomes private property.
Herico (supra), in particular, appears to be squarely affirmative:
... Secondly, under the provisions of Republic Act No. 1942, which the respondent
Court held to be inapplicable to the petitioner's case, with the latter's proven
occupation and cultivation for more than 30 years since 1914, by himself and by
his predecessors-in-interest, title over the lands has vested on petitioner so as to
segregate the land from the mass of public land. Thereafter, it is no longer
disposable under the Public Land Act as by free patent. ...
As interpreted in several cases when the conditions as specified in the foregoing
provision are complied with, the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by
operation of law a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity of a
certificate of title being issued. The land, therefore, ceased to be of the public
domain and beyond the authority of the Director of Lands to dispose of. The
application for confirmation is a mere formality, the lack of which does not affect
the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the patent and the
Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said patent.
Nothing can more clearly demonstrate the logical inevitability of considering possession
of public land which is of the character and duration prescribed by statute as the
equivalent of an express grant from the State than the dictum of the statute itself (Section
48 (b) of C.A. No. 141) that the possessor(s) "... shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a
certificate of title ... ." No proof being admissible to overcome a conclusive presumption,
confirmation proceedings would, in truth, be little more than a formality, at the most
limited to ascertaining whether the possession claimed is of the required character and
length of time; and registration thereunder would not confer title, but simply recognize a
title already vested. The proceedings would not originally convert the land from public to
private land, but only confirm such a conversion already effected by operation of law from
the moment the required period of possession became complete. As was so well put in
Carino, '... (T)here are indications that registration was expected from all, but none
sufficient to show that, for want of it, ownership actually gained would be lost. The effect
of the proof, wherever made, was not to confer title, but simply to establish it, as already
conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law.
xxx xxx xxx
... The purely accidental circumstance that confirmation proceedings were brought under
the aegis of the 1973 Constitution which forbids corporations from owning lands of the
public domain cannot defeat a right already vested before that law came into effect, or
invalidate transactions then perfectly valid and proper. This Court has already held, in
analogous circumstances, that the Constitution cannot impair vested rights.
The substantial identity of the facts and issues between the case at bar and Director of Lands v.
I.A.C. being undeniable, and being cited to no persuasive reason to decline to apply the doctrine
in the latter to the former, the Court, as aforesaid, has no alternative except to rule adversely to
the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the judgment of the respondent Court dated June 2,
1980 in LRC No. N-187-0 entitled, "Iglesia ni Kristo, etc. v. Director of Lands, et al.," is AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
8
G.R. No. 85322 April 30, 1991
ALFREDO M. ALMEDA, LEONARDO M. ALMEDA and ERNESTO M. ALMEDA, petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, representative represented by
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, respondents.
Leonardo M. Almeda for petitioners.
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
This petition for review assails the Court of Appeals' decision dated May 9, 1988 in CA-G.R. No.
09309-CV reversing the judgment dated January 6, 1986 of the Regional Trial Court in LRC Case
No. N-10771 entitled, "Alfredo M. Almeda, Leonardo M. Almeda and Ernesto M. Almeda,
Applicants versus Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, Oppositor."
The case involves a parcel of land with an area of 1,208 square meters located in Barrio
Pampangin Pateros, Rizal, and described in Survey Plan Psu-128539. It was originally owned and
possessed by Emiliano Almeda, father of the petitioners, by virtue of an "Escritura de Particion
Extrajudicial" (Exh. G) executed on June 15, 1935, between him and his brother Adriano wherein
they attested the fact that the land in question was inherited from their parents, Vedasto Almeda
and Josefa C. Concepcion, who had inherited the same from their own parents (great-
grandparents of herein petitioners).
After Emiliano's death on May 1, 1948 at the age of 67, his wife, Ana Menguito and their children
received the produce of the land and rented out to third persons portions of the property where
Emiliano had three houses built. Upon Ana's death on April 3, 1950, her children with Emiliano
inherited the property and the lessees moved out. On June 9, 1980, the brothers Alfredo,
Leonardo and Ernesto executed an extrajudicial partition adjudicating the land to themselves
(Exh. J).
On September 12, 1984, the Almeda brothers applied for the registration of the land in the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch CLVI, where the case was docketed as LRC Case No. N-10771,
LRC Record No. N-58761 entitled, "Alfredo M. Almeda, Leonardo M. Almeda and Ernesto M.
Almeda, Applicants." Their application was set for hearing on December 20, 1984. The notice of
hearing dated October 10, 1984 was duly published in the Official Gazette and posted by the
deputy sheriff.
On the date of the hearing, no one appeared to oppose the application except the Director of
Lands, through the Solicitor General, who had earlier filed a formal opposition. An order of
general default was issued against the whole world, except the aforementioned oppositor, and
the case was set for hearing.
The report of the Bureau of Lands stated that the land is not included in any military area or naval
reservation nor is it covered by any land patent or public land application. The Land Registration
Commission Report also stated that Plan Psu-128539, when plotted in the Municipal Index map,
does not overlap with any previously plotted titled properties under Act 496 as amended by PD
1525, and that the survey books do not show that the subject lot had been applied for except in
this case.
The Director of Lands, through the Office of the Solicitor General, presented Corazon Calamno
senior forester of the Bureau of Forest Development, who stated that she prepared the
inspection report on November 26, 1984; that the land fags within the alienable and disposable
land under Project No. 29 of Pateros, Metro Manila, as per BFD Map LC 2623, certified and
declared as such on January 23, 1968.
The Court found that the applicants' possession of the parcel of land sought to be registered,
together with that of their predecessors-in-interest, has been public, peaceful, continuous,
adverse to the whole world and in the concept of an owner for a period of more than thirty (30)
years, and, that the land is not located within any forest reservation nor mortgaged or
encumbered in favor of any person or lending institution.
In a decision dated January 18, 1986, the trial court affirmed the order of general default and
confirmed the title of the applicants to the parcel of land covered by the plan, Psu-128539, and
ordered its registration in the names of Alfredo, Leonardo and Ernesto Almeda pro-indiviso (pp.
42-45, Rollo).
From that decision, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General,
appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 09309, alleging that the applicants-appellees
have not met the statutory requirements on possession under Section 48(b) of CA 141, mainly
because the land applied for was inalienable forest land before its release as alienable and
disposable land on January 3, 1968. The applicants' possession thereof prior to January 3, 1968
was invalid for purposes of a grant under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.
The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated May 9, 1988, reversed the lower court and denied the
application for registration. It held that private respondents had not qualified for a grant under
Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act 141 which requires public, peaceful, continuous, adverse
possession by the applicants in the concept of an owner, for a period of at least 30 years. They
have to their credit only seventeen (17) years possession and occupation of the land, counted
from January 23, 1968, when it was declared alienable and disposable, up to September 12, 1984,
when their application for registration was filed.
After their motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals, the applicants filed
this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioners allege that the Court of Appeals erred:
1. in not holding that the land, classification made by the Director of Forestry (Bureau of
Forest Development) could not affect the vested rights of the applicants and their
predecessors-in-interest who had continuously occupied and profited from the land since
1918 or very much earlier, as in this case; and
2. in denying the motion for reconsideration despite the ruling in "The Director of Lands
vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Iglesia ni Cristo," 158 SCRA 568 promulgated on
March 14, 1988, which allowed registration even when the land applied for was within
the proposed alienable or disposable block of a proposed LC project.
There is no merit in the petition.
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the private respondents had not qualified for a grant
under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act because their possession of the land while it was still
inalienable forest land, or before it was declared alienable and disposable land of the public
domain on January 13, 1968, could not ripen into private ownership, and should be excluded
from the computation of the 30-year open and continuous possession in concept of owner
required under Section 48(b) of Com. Act 141. It accords with our ruling in Director of Lands vs.
Court of Appeals, Ibarra Bishar et al., 178 SCRA 708, that:
Unless and until the land classified as forest is released in an official proclamation to that
effect so that it may form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain,
the rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply Amunategai vs. Director of
Forestry, 126 SCRA 69; Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 689; Director of
Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 701; Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 480;
Vallarta vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 151 SCRA 679).
Thus, possession of forest lands, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership (Vamo
vs. Government, 41 Phil. 161 [1920]; Adorable vs. Director of Forestry, 107 Phil. 401
[1960]). A parcel of forest land is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry
and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral court to register under the Torrens
System (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA 648; Republic vs. Vera, 120 SCRA 210
[19831; Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 689 [1984]).
The petitioners have erroneously cited our decisions in Director of Forestry vs. Villareal, 170 SCRA
598 and Republic vs. Court of Appeals, Miguel Marcelo, et al., 168 SCRA 77, in support of their
position in this case. In those cases, the applicants' possession of the land antedated its
classification as forest land. We held that such lands could not be retroactively legislated or
classified as forest lands because it would violate previously acquired property lights protected
by the due process clause of the Constitution.
The situation of the land in this case is the reverse of the Villareal and Marcelo cases. The land
here was already forest land when occupied by the petitioners but it was later released on
January 23, 1968 from its forest classification. In other words, the petitioners here occupied
forest land before it was released as alienable and disposable, while the applicants in the Villareal
and Marcelo cases possessed parcels of land long before they were reserved as forest land. The
subsequent reservation did not prejudice their vested rights therein.
Petitioner's recourse to the decision of this Court in Director of Lands vs. Court of appeals and
Iglesia Ni Cristo, 158 SCRA 568, is inappropriate. That case did not involve forest land, but
agricultural land of the public domain within the proposed alienable or disposable block.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is denied for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
9.