Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Director of Lands V. IAC (1986) G.R. No. 73002 December 29, 1986
Director of Lands V. IAC (1986) G.R. No. 73002 December 29, 1986
IAC (1986)
G.R. No. 73002 December 29, 1986
Lessons Applicable: Sec. 3 Art. XII, 1987 Constitution (Land Titles and Deeds)
FACTS:
Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., a corp. represented by Mr. Rodolfo
Nazario, acquired from Mariano and Acer Infiel, members of the Dumagat
tribe 5 parcels of land
possession of the Infiels over the landdates back before the Philippines was
discovered by Magellan
land sought to be registered is a private land pursuant to RA 3872 granting
absolute ownership to members of the non-Christian Tribes on land occupied
by them or their ancestral lands, whether with the alienable or disposable
public land or within the public domain
Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., has introduced more than P45M worth of
improvements
ownership and possession of the land sought to be registered was duly
recognized by the government when the Municipal Officials of Maconacon,
Isabela
donated part of the land as the townsite of Maconacon Isabela
IAC affirmed CFI: in favor of
ISSUES:
1. W/N the land is already a private land - YES
2. W/N the constitutional prohibition against
private corporations or associations applies- NO
their
acquisition
by
when Acme acquired it from said owners, it must also be conceded that Acme
had a perfect right to make such acquisition
The only limitation then extant was that corporations could not acquire, hold
or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024 hectares
2. REPUBLIC vs. RIZALVO
G.R. No. 172011
March 7, 2011
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
FACTS:
On December 7, 2000, respondent Teodoro P. Rizalvo, Jr. filed before the MTC of
Bauang, La Union, acting as a land registration court, an application for the
registration of a parcel of land, located in Bauang, La Union. Respondent alleged
that he is the owner in fee simple of the subject parcel of land, that he obtained
5
title over the land by virtue of a Deed of Transfer dated December 31, 1962, and
that he is currently in possession of the land. In support of his claim, he presented,
among others, Tax Declaration for the year 1994 in his name, and Proof of Payment
of real property taxes beginning in 1952 up to the time of filing of the application.
On April 20, 2001, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed an Opposition. The
MTC of Bauang, La Union, acting as a land registration court, rendered its Decision,
approving respondents application. The Republic of the Philippines through the
OSG filed a Notice of Appeal. However, the CA found no merit in the appeal and
promulgated the assailed Decision, affirming the trial courts decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent have shown indubitably that he has complied with
all the requirements showing that the property, previously part of the public
domain, has become private property by virtue of his acts of possession in the
manner and length of time required by law.
HELD:
NO. Under Section 14 (1) of PD 1529, applicants for registration of title must
sufficiently establish first, that the subject land forms part of the disposable and
alienable lands of the public domain; second, that the applicant and his
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the same; and third, that it is under a bona fide claim
of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
The first requirement was satisfied in this case. The certification and report dated
July 17, 2001 of the CENRO of San Fernando City, La Union, states that the entire
land area in question is within the alienable and disposable zone, certified as such
since January 21, 1987. Respondent has likewise met the second requirement as to
ownership and possession. The MTC and the CA both agreed that respondent has
presented sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence to show that he and his
separate occasions, private resps, with their hired laborers, forcibly entered a
portion of the land containing an approximate area of 2 hectares and began
plowing the same under pretext of ownership. On the other hand, private resps
denied the claim and said that the subject land formed part of the 5.5 hectare
agricultural land which they had purchased from their predecessor-in-interest,
Pablo Espinosa.
Titong identified Espinosa as the his adjoining owner asserting that no controversy
had sprouted between them for 20 years until the latter sold lot 3749 to V. Laurio.
The boundary between the land sold to Espinosa and what remained of Titongs
property was the old Bugsayon river. When Titong employed Lerit as his tenant, he
instructed the latter to change the course of the old river and direct the flow of
water to the lowland at the southern portion of Titongs property, thus converting
the old river into a Riceland.
Private resps, on the other hand, denied claim of Titongs, saying that the area and
boundaries of disputed land remained unaltered during the series of conveyances
prior to its coming into his hands. Accdg to him, Titong first declared land for
taxation purposes which showed that the land had an area of 5.5 hectares and was
bounded on the north by the B. River; on the east by property under ownership by
Zaragoza, and on the west by property owned by De la Cruz. He also alleges that
Titong sold property to Verano. The latter reacquired the property pursuant to
mutual
agreement
to
repurchase
the
same.
However, the property remained in Titongs hands only for 4 days because he sold it
to Espinosa. It then became a part of the estate of Espinosas wife, late Segundina
Espinosa. Later on, her heirs executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with
Simultaneous Sale whereby the 5.5 hectares was sold to Laurio for 5,000 pesos. In
all these conveyances, the area and boundaries of the property remained exactly
the same as those appearing in the name of Titongs.
The court found out that 2 surveys were made of the property. First survey was
made by Titong, while the second was the relocation survey ordered by the lower
court. Because of which, certain discrepancies surfaced. Contrary to Titongs
allegation, he was actually claiming 5.9789 hectares, the total areas of lot nos 3918,
3918-A and 3606. The lot 3479 pertaining to Espinosas was left with only an area of
4.1841 hectares instead of the 5.5 hectares sold by Titong to him.
The case originated from an action for quieting of title filed by petitioner Mario
Titong. The RTC of Masbate decided in favor of private respondents, Vicente Laurio
and Angeles Laurio as the true and lawful owners of the disputed land. The CA
affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Apprised of the discrepancy, private resps filed a protest before Bureau of Lands
against 1st survey, and filing a case for alteration of boundaries before the MTC,
proceedings of which were suspended because of instant case.
Titong asserts that he is the owner of an unregistered parcel of land with an area of
3.2800 hectares and declared for taxation purposes. He claims that on three
Private resps. Avers that Titong is one of the four heirs of his mother, Leonida
Zaragoza. In the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale of Estate of late Zaragoza, the
heirs adjudicated unto themselves the 3.6 hectares property of the deceased. The
property was bounded by the north by Verano, on the east by Bernardo Titong, on
the south by the Bugsayon River and on the west by Benigno Titong.
Instead of reflecting only .9000 hectares as his rightful share in the extrajud
settlement, Titongs share bloated to 2.4 hectares. It then appeared to Laurio that
Titong encroached upon his property and declared it as part of his inheritance.
The boundaries were likewise altered so that it was bounded on the north by
Verano, on the east by B. Titong, on the south by Espinosa and on the west by
Adolfo Titong. Laurio also denied that Titong diverted course of the B. river after he
had repurchased the land from Verano because land was immediately sold to
Espinosa thereafter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Titong is the rightful owner of the subject property?
RULING: NO
The remedy for quieting of title may be availed of under the circumstances
mentioned in Art 476 of the NCC wherein it says that action to quiet title may be
made as a remedial or preventive measure. Under 476, a claimant must show that
there is an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which casts a
cloud, doubt, question or shadow upon owners title to or interest in real property.
The ground for filing a complaint for quieting title must be instrument, record,
claim,
encumbrance
or
proceeding.
In the case at bar, Titong failed to allege that there was an instrument, claim etc be
clouded over his property. Through his allegations, what Titong imagined as clouds
cast on his title were Laurios alleged acts of physical intrusion into his purported
property. The grounds mentioned are for action for forcible entry and not quieting
title.
In addition, the case was considered to be a boundary dispute. The RTC and CA
correctly held that when Titong sold the 5.5 hectare land to Espinosa, his rights and
possession ceased and were transferred to Laurio upon its sale to the latter.
Thus, it is now a contract of sale wherein it is a contract transferring dominion and
other real rights in the thing sold. Titong also cannot rely on the claim of
prescription as ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith
and with just title for the time fixed by law.