12

CASE DIGESTS in Natural Resources and Environmental Law

11. Pajomayo v Manipon GR L-33676

____________________________________________________________________________
 13
12. De Los Angeles v Santos GR L-19616

FACTS: In 1959, Delos Angeles and 7 others filed an application for registration of 12 parcels of land in
San Mateo, Rizal.

OPPOSITION filed by: (1) The Province of Rizal filed an opposition claiming that Lot 11 forms part of
the Ampid river and creek; and (2) private opposition Hidalgo also opposed the registration by Delos
Angeles claiming that they already acquired Lot 11 by homestead patent. The Director of Lands also
issued a homestead patent in favor of Hidalgo over Lot 11 during the pendency of the application of
Delos Angeles to register it. Hence RTC dismissed the application for registration by Delos Angeles.

ISSUE: whether
the court lost its jurisdiction by the subsequent administrative act of the Director of
Lands of issuing a homestead patent to the opposition.

RULING: No. Applicants (Delos Angeles) should still be given the opportunity to prove registrable title
to said lot. If they can prove their lawful right over the same, the court would have to order a decree of
title for Delos Angeles et. al and declare Hidalgo’s homestead patent a nullity which vested no title in
the patentee as against the real owners.

____________________________________________________________________________________

13. Republic v. CA and Naguit GR 144057

Facts:
Corazon Naguit filed with the MCTC of Ibajay-Nabas, Aklan, a petition for registration of title of a
parcel of land situated in Brgy. Union, Nabas, Aklan. The application seeks judicial confirmation of the
respondent’s imperfect title over the aforesaid land.

The public prosecutor, appearing for the government, and Jose Angeles, representing the heirs of
Rustico Angeles, opposed the petition. The evidence on record reveals that the subject parcel of land
was originally declared for taxation purposes in the name of Ramon Urbano (Urbafrom) from 1945 until
1991.

On July 9, 1992, Urbano executed a Deed of Quitclaim in favor of the heirs of HonoratMaimingng
Maimingg), wherein he renounced all his rights to the subject property and confirmed the sale made by
his father to Maming sometime in 1955 or 1956. The heirs ofMaimingg executed a deed of absolute sale
in favor of respondent Naguit who thereupon started occupying the same. Naguit and her
predecessors-in-interest occupied the land openly and in the concept of the owner without any objection
from any private person or even the government until she filed her application for registration.
 14

MCTC rendered a decision ordering that the subject parcel is brought under the operation of the
Property Registration Decree or Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 and that the title thereto registered
and confirmed in the name of Naguit.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a motion for reconsideration. The OSG stressed that the
land applied for was declared alienable and disposable only on October 15, 1980. MCTC denied the
motion for reconsideration. RTC dismissed the appeal made by the Republic. CA affirmed in toto the
assailed decision of the RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not there is no need for the government’s prior release of the subject lot from the public
domain before it can be considered alienable or disposable within the meaning of P.D. No. 1529.

Held:
Yes.

Ratio:
This reading aligns conformably with our holding in Republic v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 127060, 19
November 2002, 392 SCRA 190.]. Therein, the Court noted that "to prove that the land subject of an
application for registration is alienable, an applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the
government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order; an administrative action;
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators; and a legislative act or a statute."15 In that case,
the subject land had been certified by the DENR as alienable and disposable in 1980, thus the Court
concluded that the alienable status of the land, compounded by the fact that therein respondents had
occupied the land even before 1927, sufficed to allow the application for registration of the said
property. In the case at bar, even the petitioner admits that the subject property was released and certified
as within the alienable and disposable zone in 1980 by the DENR.

Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. There is a consistent
jurisprudential rule that properties classified as alienable public land may be converted into private
property because of open, continuous, and exclusive possession of at least thirty (30) years. With such
conversion, such property may now fall within the contemplation of "private lands" under Section 14(2),
and thus susceptible to registration by those who have acquired ownership through prescription. Thus,
even if possession of the alienable public land commenced on a date later than June 12, 1945, and such
possession is been open, continuous, and exclusive, then the possessor may have the right to register the
land under Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree.

____________________________________________________________________________________
 15
14. Palomo v CA GR 95608

FACTS:
Diego Palomo is the owner of 15 parcels of land covered by Executive Order No. 40. In 1916, he
ordered the registration of these lands and donated the same to his heirs, Ignacio and Carmen Palomo
two months before his death in April 1937.

Claiming that the aforesaid original certificates of title were lost during the Japanese occupation, Ignacio
Palomo filed a petition for reconstitution with the Court of First Instance of Albay on May 1970. The
Register of Deeds of Albay issued Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 3911, 3912, 3913, and 3914
sometime in October 1953. Sometime in July 1954, President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation
No. 47 converting the area embraced by Executive Order No. 40 into the "Tiwi Hot Spring National
Park," under the control, management, protection, and administration of the defunct Commission of
Parks and Wildlife, now a division of the Bureau of Forest Development.

The area was never released as an alienable and disposable portion of the public domain and, therefore,
is neither susceptible to disposition under the provisions of the Public Land Law nor registerable under
the Land Registration Act. The Palomas, however, continued in possession of the property, paid real
estate taxes thereon, and introduced improvements by planting rice, bananas, pandan, and coconuts. On
April 8, 1971, petitioner Carmen de Buenaventura and spouses Ignacio Palomo and Trinidad Pascual
mortgaged the parcels of land to guarantee a loan of P200,000 from the Bank of the Philippine Islands.

ISSUE:
Whether or not forest land may be owned by private persons.

HELD:
The adverse possession which may be the basis of a grant of title in confirmation of imperfect
title cases applies only to alienable lands of the public domain. It is in the law governing natural
resources that forest land cannot be owned by private persons. It is not registerable and possession
thereof, no matter how lengthy, cannot convert into private property, unless such lands are reclassified
and considered disposable and alienable. There is no question that the lots here forming part of the forest
zone were not alienable lands of the public domain. As to the forfeiture of improvements introduced by
petitioners, the fact that the government failed to oppose the registration of the lots in question is no
justification for petitioners to plead good faith in introducing improvements on the lots.

____________________________________________________________________________________
 16
15. Susi v Razon GR 24066

Facts:
● Nemesio Pinlac owned land which he used as a fish pond.
● In 1880, he sold it to Apolonio Garcia and Basilio Mendoza for P12.
● In 1899, they sold it to Valentin Susi for P12.
● The possession and occupation of the land were open, continuous, adverse, and public, without
any interruption, except during the revolution, or disturbance.
● In 1914, the Director of Lands sold the land to Angela Razon. (The Director of Lands alleged
that the land in question was the property of the Government of the United States under the
administration and control of the Philippine Islands).

Issue:
Was the sale of the land by the Director of Lands to Angela Razon valid?

Ruling:
No.

When Angela Razon applied for the grant in her favor, Valentin Susi had already acquired, by operation
of law, not only a right to a grant but a grant of the Government, for a certificate of title doesn't need to
be issued so that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an application, therefore, is sufficient,
under the provisions of section 47 of Act No. 2874.

If by a legal fiction, Valentin Susi had acquired the land in question by a grant of the State, it had already
ceased to be the public domain and had become private property, at least by presumption, of Valentin
Susi, beyond the control of the Director of Lands. Consequently, in selling the land in question to
Angela Razon, the Director of Lands disposed of land over which he had no longer any title or control,
and the sale thus made was void and of no effect, and Angela Razon did not thereby acquire any right.

The land had already become, by operation of law, the private property of Valentin Susi, who, there
lacking only the judicial sanction of his title, has the right to bring an action to recover possession
thereof and hold it.