Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ankron Vs Government

    Uploaded by

    Valerie Foja
    104 views1 page
    The Director of Lands appealed a lower court ruling that granted a man's application to register a parcel of land under the Torrens Title System. The Director argued that the man did not sufficiently identify the land, prove possession, and that parts of the land were mangroves and should be considered forestry land. However, the court upheld the lower court's ruling, finding that the man sufficiently proved the land was agricultural and had been occupied by him and predecessors for over 40 years, making it valid to grant the land registration.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Ankron vs Government

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Director of Lands appealed a lower court ruling that granted a man's application to register a parcel of land under the Torrens Title System. The Director argued that the man did not sufficiently identify the land, prove possession, and that parts of the land were mangroves and should be considered forestry land. However, the court upheld the lower court's ruling, finding that the man sufficiently proved the land was agricultural and had been occupied by him and predecessors for over 40 years, making it valid to grant the land registration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    104 views1 page

    Ankron Vs Government

    Uploaded by

    Valerie Foja
    The Director of Lands appealed a lower court ruling that granted a man's application to register a parcel of land under the Torrens Title System. The Director argued that the man did not sufficiently identify the land, prove possession, and that parts of the land were mangroves and should be considered forestry land. However, the court upheld the lower court's ruling, finding that the man sufficiently proved the land was agricultural and had been occupied by him and predecessors for over 40 years, making it valid to grant the land registration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    J.

    H Ankron vs The Government of the Philippine Islands


    GR No. L-14213
    August 23, 1919

    Facts:
    Ankron sought to have a parcel of land registered under the Torrens Title System at the
    Court of First Instance of Davao. This action was opposed by the Director of Lands,
    claiming that the subject land was property of the Government of the United States,
    under the control and administration of the Government of the Philippine Islands.
    The lower court ruled in favor of Ankron, hence, this appeal.
    The appellant, Director of Lands, contends that:
    1. Applicant Ankron did not sufficiently identify the land in question
    2. Applicant failed to prove his possession and occupation of the land pursuant to
    the provisions of par. 6, Section 54 of Act No. 926 and;
    3. Portions of the said land cannot be registered in accordance with the existing
    Land Registration Law for the reason that they are manglares and should be
    considered as forestry land, not agricultural.

    Issue:
    Whether the granting of the land registration was valid.

    Ruling:
    Yes. Under the provisions of Act No. 1148, the Government may, by reservation, decide
    for itself what portions of public land shall be considered forestry land, unless private
    insteresys have intervened before such reservation is made. Section 3 of the said Acts
    further provides that “The public forests shall include all unreserved lands covered
    with trees of whatever age.” In the instant case, however, the applicant was able to
    sufficiently prove that the land in question was agricultural land and that he abd his
    predecessors in interest had occupied the same in good faith for a period of more than
    forty years prior to the commencement of present action.
    The Court further stated that the fact that the land is a manglar is not sufficient for the
    courts to decide whether it is agricultural, forestry or mineral land.

    You might also like