Ocsio v. CA
Ocsio v. CA
Ocsio v. CA
SYLLABUS
DECISION
NARVASA, J : p
From the adverse judgment of the Court of Appeals, 1 affirming in toto that of
the Trial Court, 2 the petitioner has come to this Court on an appeal by
certiorari to plead for reversal of (1) the factual determination that she had sold
the lot in controversy to private respondent, and (2) the legal conclusion that
neither the 1973 nor the 1987 Constitution disqualifies the corporation known
as the Religious of the Virgin Mary, from acquiring the land in question and
registering it in its name. In light of the time-honored rule that findings of fact
of the Court of Appeals are generally final, and the doctrine lately laid down by
this Court on the precise legal issue now raised by petitioner, her appeal must
fail.
Let the corresponding decree issue 30 days after this decision shall
have become final.
As regards the issue of law raised by her, petitioner fares no better. Citing
Manila Electric Co. v. Castro-Bartolome, 114 SCRA 799 (1982) and Republic v.
Villanueva, 114 SCRA 875 (1982), in relation to Section 11, Article XIV of the
1973 Constitution, she asserts that as the private respondent is a religious
corporation, it is disqualified to obtain judicial confirmation of an imperfect title
under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act which grants that right only to
natural persons. The cited rulings no longer control. Current doctrine, first
announced by the Court en banc in Director of Lands v. I.A.C., 146 SCRA 509
(1986), is that open, continuous and exclusive possession of alienable public
land for at least thirty (30) years in accordance with the Public Land Act ipso
jure converts the land to private property, and a juridical person who thereafter
acquires the same may have title thereto confirmed in its name. Virtually the
same state of facts obtained in said case that now obtain here. A private
corporation had purchased the land originally of the public domain from parties
who had, by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest, possessed
and occupied it since time immemorial. It had thereafter instituted proceedings
for confirmation of title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. In upholding
its right to do so, the court held that the fact that the proceedings had been
instituted by said purchaser in its own name and not in the name of the
transferors was ". . . simply . . . (an) accidental circumstance, productive of a
defect hardly more than procedural and in nowise affecting the substance and
merits of the right of ownership sought to be confirmed." The ruling was
reaffirmed in two later cases, Director of Lands v. Manila Electric Co., 153 SCRA
686 (September 11, 1987), and Republic v. C.A, 156 SCRA 344 (October 30,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
1987) where the same question of law was raised. In the latter it was expressly
held that the prohibitions in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions against
acquisition or registration of lands by or in behalf of private corporations do not
apply to public lands already converted to private owner ship by natural
persons under the provisions of the Public Land Act. In the present case,
Virginia Ong de Ocsio and her predecessors-in-interest having possessed Lot
No. 1272 for the period and under the conditions prescribed by law for
acquisition of ownership of disposable public land prior to the sale of the
property to the Religious of the Virgin Mary, confirmation of title thereto in the
latter's name is, under the precedents referred to, entirely in order.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Appeals subject of the petition for
review on certiorari is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the petitioner.
Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rendered on May 17, 1976 in CA-G.R. No. 43661-R: L.B. Reyes, J., ponente,
with whom concurred de Castro and Ericta, JJ.
2. Rendered on August 31, 1968 in Cadastral Case No. N-11-1, LRC Rec. No.
146 of the CFI of Lanao del Norte, Hon. F. Pineda, presiding.
3. The petition was filed on July 20, 1956 and was docketed, as aforestated, as
CAD Case No. N-11-1, LRC Rec. No. N-146, and assigned to the sala of Judge
Pineda. The petition was filed pursuant to Sec. 1955 of the Revised
Administrative Code in relation to Sec. 53 of the Public Land Act, Rollo, p. 30,
Rec. on App., pp. 1-5.
4. Rec. on App., pp. 9-106.
5. The Court allowed it to file its answers albeit tardily, upon its motion to
reopen the proceedings and upon a showing of excusable negligence in
failing to file the same on time. Rec. on App., pp. 20-22, 36.
6. Rec. on App., pp. 48-49.
7. SEE e.g., Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. C.A., G.R. No. 57493, Jan. 7, 1987.
8. SEE e.g., Manlapaz v. CA.; G.R. No. 56989, Jan. 12, 1987; Vallarta v. I.A.C.,
G.R. No. 74957, June 30, 1987.