FINAL CASE LANDTI DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs IAC 1

G.R. No. 68946. May 22, 1992 with an area of 376,397 square meters, located in San Jose
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE del Monte, Bulacan, in favor of private respondent.
APPELLATE COURT and ANGELINA SARMIENTO,
respondents After the filing of private respondent's Comment, this Court,
in its resolution of 27 February 1985,[2] gave due course to
Civil Law; Property; In confirmation of imperfect title the petition, considered the Comment as the Answer and
cases, the applicant shoulders the burden of proving that he required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda.
meets the requirements of Section 48, Commonwealth Act The petitioner moved for leave to adopt the petition as his
No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 1942. —This Memorandum[3] which this Court noted in its resolution of
section is the law on judicial confirmation of imperfect or 17 April 1985.[4] Private respondent filed her Memorandum
incomplete titles. By its very nature, the burden of proof is only on 8 December 1986,[5] after her attorneys were held in
on the applicant to show that he has an imperfect or contempt of court and fined in the amount of P300.00.
incomplete title. Such is the duty of one who holds the
affirmative side of an issue. In Heirs of Jose Amunategui vs. The pleadings of the parties disclose the following factual
Director of Forestry, this Court, speaking through Mr. antecedents in this case:
Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., held: "In confirmation of
imperfect title cases, the applicant shoulders the burden of
On 13 August 1970, private respondent and the spouses
proving that he meets the requirements of Section 48,
Placer A. Velasco and Socorro Busuego filed with the then
Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act
Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of
No. 1942.
Bulacan, Branch V, at Sta. Maria, Bulacan, an application
for the registration of title over Lot No. 1005 of the Cadastral
Same; Same; Possession; Under the law, the only kind of
Survey of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, with an area of
interruption which does not affect the continuity of
376,397 square meters.
possession is that caused by war or force majeure. —Under
the law, the only kind of interruption which does not affect
the continuity of possession is that caused by war or force On 18 January 1971, private oppositors Angeles and Cirilo
majeure. Same; Same; Same; While it is true that tax Amador filed their opposition on the ground that the land
receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence belongs to them.
of ownership, they constitute at least proof that the holder
has a claim of title over the property.—From the foregoing, On 19 January 1971, an Order of special default against the
serious doubts are cast on the claim of open, continuous, whole world, with the exception of oppositors Angeles and
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the Cirilo Amador and the municipal mayor of San Jose del
predecessors-in-interest of private respondent. As earlier Monte, was issued by the trial court.
stated, none of them even thought of declaring their
respective areas for taxation purposes. While it is true that Upon the filing of an Opposition by the petitioner and upon
tax receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible motion by the Provincial Fiscal for the lifting of the order of
evidence of ownership, they constitute at least proof that the special default and for the admission of the Opposition, the
holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary trial court issued an Order on 24 August 1971 granting the
declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes motion and admitting said Opposition.[6] Separate
manifests not only one's sincere and honest desire to obtain oppositions filed by Feliciano Santos, Ciriaco Maningas and
title to the property and announces his adverse claim against Simeon Albarico were also admitted by the court after the
the State and all other interested parties, but also the lifting of the order of special default.[7]
intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government.
Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition Subsequently, private respondent moved to drop as co-
of ownership. applicants spouses Placer Velasco and Socorro Busuego on
the ground that they were made co-applicants because of a
Note. —Tax declaration and receipts are not conclusive contract of services[8] between her and the spouses under
evidence of ownership or right of possession over a piece of which the latter agreed to shoulder all the litigation expenses
land (San Miguel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 185 and the cost of survey and attorney's fees in this case; the
SCRA 722). spouses failed to comply with their commitment. The trial
court deemed said agreement validly rescinded by private
DAVIDE, JR., J.: respondent and considered her as "the only applicant in this
case."[9]
Petitioner urges this Court to review and set aside the
decision of 12 October 1984 of the then Intermediate After hearing the application on its merits, the trial court
Appellate Court[1] (now Court of Appeals) in A.C.-G.R. CV handed down on 2 June 1982 a decision in favor of private
No. 00126 which affirmed the decision of 2 June 1982 of the respondent granting the registration of the lot in question,
Regional Trial Court of Bulacan in Land Registration Case together with all the improvements thereon, in her name:
No. (SM) N-167 granting the registration of a parcel of land
 FINAL CASE LANDTI DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs IAC 2
"x x x with the exception of the three (3) houses erected The testimonial evidence shows that the subject parcel of
therein owned and possessed by her predecessors-in-interest, land was originally owned and possessed by Macario Cruz,
who are claimed (sic) to be tenants of the property, namely: spouses Juan Reyes and Avelina Emocling, and spouses
Macario Cruz, Juan Reyes and Mariano Castillo. x x x Mariano Castillo and Petronila Robes, the two latter sets of
subject, however, to the payment of real property taxes in spouses having been in possession as early as 1928 and
arrears since 1971 as well as to the provisions of Presidential 1948, respectively, during which time they possessed,
Decree Nos. 65 and 296, with respect to those portions of the occupied and cultivated their respective portions unmolested,
perimeter bounded by the river, barrio and provincial roads, openly, continuously, and in the concept of owners. That by
respectively." virtue of the aforesaid deeds of sale (Exhibits G, G-1, H-1, I
and I-1), possessions over the same were transferred to the
The decision is based on the trial court's findings of fact, to herein applicant. That, thereafter, said spouses remained in
wit: the same property, maintaining their houses and acting as
tenants for the new owner, applicant Angelina Sarmiento.
"x x x That the subject parcel of land was declared for That applicant likewise introduced improvements on the
taxation purposes in the name of Angelina Sarmiento as property by fencing the same with barbed wire, planting
early as 1965, under Tax Declaration No. 8388 (Exhibit J), crops and other fruit trees, and by constructing there a house
with an assessed value of P10,350.00. That the real property of her own. The oral testimony of applicant Angelina
taxes from 1965 to 1970 were paid in full (Exhibit K). That a Sarmiento, insofar as location, possession and ownership
small portion of the subject parcel of land consisting of over the said parcel of land is concerned, was corroborated
94,000 sq. m. is devoted to agriculture while the rest is by the testimony (sic) of Victor Jarvinia and Enrique Buco,
cogonland. That the subject parcel of land was acquired by both claiming that they were with the group who conducted
applicant Angelina Sarmiento from: the survey of the subject property; and said Enrique Buco
also declaring that he had known the subject land since 1932,
he being the owner of an adjoining titled property. Witness
1) Juan Reyes, married to Avelina Emocling, who had been Enrique Buco likewise claimed that the subject land is way
in possession of a portion of the subject land consisting of beyond the perimeter of the titled property of oppositor 2nd
168,000 sq. m. for 41 years prior to the transfer of their Manila Newtown City Development Corporation, the latter's
rights, interests, and participation over the same in favor of land being situated far from the subject land. x x x
applicant Angelina Sarmiento, which transfer was made
through a deed of absolute sale (Bilihang Lampasan at
Patuluyan -- Exhibits G and G?1), executed on April 7, The subject parcel of land appears not to be within any
1969, for and in consideration of P42,000.00. military, naval, civil or government reservation; nor is it
traversed by any road, river or creek, except that it is
bounded on the North and East, along lines 4 to 33 by the
Katitinga River; and on the Southeast, along lines 34 to 40
by Dean Kabayo Barrio Road; on the South by Igay
2) Mariano Castillo, married to Petronila Robes, who had Provincial Road, along lines 40 to 44."[10]
been in possession of a portion of the subject land, consisting
of 14 hectares since 1948, until on August 16, 1965 said The Director of Lands, through the Office of the Solicitor
spouses transferred their rights, interests and participation General, seasonably appealed from said decision to the then
over the eastern ½ portion of said 14-hectare property, in Intermediate Appellate Court which docketed the appeal as
favor of applicant Angelina Sarmiento, for and in A.C.-G.R. CV No. 00126. The Director raised before it the
consideration of P1,500.00 (Exhibits I and I-1 -- Bilihang following assignment of error:
Lampasan at Patuluyan).
"The lower court gravely erred in holding that the applicant
3) Mariano Castillo, married to Petronila Robes, who, by and her predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
virtue of a deed if (sic) absolute sale executed by them on continuous, and adverse possession in the concept of owner
November 15, 1965, sold the remaining 7-hectare property of the land applied for more than 30 years prior to the filing
covered by Exhibits I and I-1, to applicant Angelina of the application."[11]
Sarmiento, for and in consideration of P21,000.00; which
deed of absolute sale, having been lost, was confirmed by
vendor Mariano Castillo thru a Confirmatory Deed of Sale In its decision promulgated on 12 October 1984, the
executed on April 18, 1969 (Exhibits H and H-1). Intermediate Appellate Court found no merit in the appeal
and dismissed the same. It held as follows:
4) Macario Cruz, married to Antonia Guilalas, who had been
in possession of a portion of the subject land, consisting of "We find no merit in the appeal. While it may be true that the
73,000 sq. m. more or less prior to the transfer of their rights, vendors of the portion of the land in question to the herein
interest and participation in favor of applicant Angelina applicant did not show tax declaration, it has been clearly
Sarmiento on March 31, 1969, for and in consideration of established that Macario Cruz and spouses Juan Reyes and
P18,750.00.x x x Avelina Sarmiento (sic) and also spouses Mariano Castillo
and Petronila Robes were in possession of the land in 1928
 FINAL CASE LANDTI DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs IAC 3
and 1948, respectively in concept of owners, without It is not disputed that private respondent seeks registration of
anybody molesting them. They introduced improvements by the questioned lot on the basis of paragraph (b), Section 48
planting different kinds of trees and constructing houses of the Public Land Act, [16] as amended by R.A. No.1942,
thereon. When a person occupied (sic) a parcel of land under [17] which reads as follows:
a claim of ownership making improvements and generally
held (sic) himself out as owner of the land, it is only upon "SECTION 48. The following described citizens of the
the most convincing testimony, in the absence of any Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or
competent documentary evidence, that the courts would be claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but
justified in declaring him to be the real owner thereof. whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may
apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the
A person in the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious land is located for confirmation of their claims and the
possession and occupation of a certain lands (sic) for more issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land
than thirty years, in the concept of owner, is entitled to a Registration Act, to wit: x x x
confirmation of his title to said land. (Molina vs. De Bacud,
L-20195, April 27, 1967, 19 SCRA 956). (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors
in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
Accordingly, herein applicant continued the possession in notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of
concept of owner from her predecessors-in-interest. the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding
Moreover, the land in question was surveyed as Lot 1005 for the filing of the application for confirmation of title except
the herein applicant for the cadastral survey of San Joe del when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be
Monte, without anybody else claiming ownership of said conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions
land. essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a
certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter."[18]
It further appears that the land in question is within the
alienable and disposable land as certified to by the officials This section is the law on judicial confirmation of imperfect
of the Bureau of Forest Development. It is for this reason or incomplete titles. By its very nature, the burden of proof is
that the oppositor Director of Lands did not introduce any on the applicant to show that he has an imperfect or
evidence opposition (sic) and merely submitted the case for incomplete title. Such is the duty of one who holds the
decision. affirmative side of an issue. In Heirs of Jose Amunategui vs.
Director of Forestry,[19] this Court, speaking through Mr.
We reiterate what we have said in previous decisions in Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., held:
similar cases that unless the government has serious grounds
of opposition such as the fact that the land applied for is "In confirmation of imperfect title cases, the applicant
within a forest zone or government reservation, registration shoulders the burden of proving that he meets the
of agricultural lands within the alienable or disposable area requirements of Section 48, Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
should be encouraged to give more value to the land and this amended by Republic Act No. 1942. x x x"
promotes their development rather than remain as idle
lands."[12] Specifically, under paragraph (b) thereof, the applicant must
prove that: (a) he or his predecessors-in-interest have been in
Undaunted by this second defeat, the Director filed on 5 open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
December 1984 this petition asserting that the respondent occupation of an agricultural land of the public domain; (b)
Court has decided a question of substance in a way not in such possession and occupation must be for at least thirty
accord with law and the applicable decisions of this Court. (30) years preceding the filing of the application; and (c)
[13] such possession and occupation must be under a bona fide
claim of acquisition of ownership.
The petition is impressed with merit. This Court will have
to overturn the challenged decision, as well as that of the It must be underscored that the law speaks of "possession
trial court. and occupation." Since these words are separated by the
conjunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to make
While the rule is well settled that findings of fact of the one synonymous with the other. Possession is broader than
appellate court are conclusive upon this Court,[14] there are occupation because it includes constructive possession.
recognized exceptions thereto, among which is where the When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks
findings of fact are not supported by the record or are so to delimit the all-encompassing effect of constructive
glaringly erroneous as to constitute a serious abuse of possession. Taken together with the words open, continuous,
discretion.[15] This exception is present in this case insofar exclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to
as the findings of the respondent Court and the trial court on highlight the fact that for one to qualify under paragraph (b)
the character of possession are concerned. of the aforesaid section, his possession of the land must not
be mere fiction. As this Court stated, through then Mr.
 FINAL CASE LANDTI DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs IAC 4
Justice Jose P. Laurel, in Lasam vs. The Director of Lands: located in Karahumi, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, with an
[20] area of 168,000 square meters as evidenced in a deed of sale
executed on 7 April 1969.[28] From Mariano Castillo, she
"x x x Counsel for the applicant invokes the doctrine laid first acquired a portion, consisting of 7 hectares, of a parcel
down by us in Ramos vs. Director of Lands (39 Phil. 175, of land located in Licau-licau, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan,
180). (See also Roales vs. Director of Lands, 51 Phil. 302, per a deed of sale executed on 16 August 1965.[29] She
304). But it should be observed that the application of the purchased the remaining portion thereof, with an area of 7
doctrine of constructive possession in that case is subject to hectares, allegedly on 15 November 1965, but she lost the
certain qualifications, and this court was careful to observe deed of sale; however, Mariano Castillo subsequently
that among these qualifications is 'one particularly relating to executed a so-called Confirmatory Deed of Sale on 8 April
the size of the tract in controversy with reference to the 1969.[30] Per the findings of the trial court, the property
portion actually in possession of the claimant.' While, purchased from Cruz on 31 March 1969 for P18,750.00
therefore, 'possession in the eyes of the law does not mean consists of 73,000 square meters.[31] No deed of sale was
that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of presented to prove this acquisition. There, is no proof as to
ground before it can be said that he is in possession', the area of the property allegedly purchased from Santos.
possession under paragraph 6 of section 54 of Act No. 926,
as amended by paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874, None of private respondent's predecessors-in-interest
is not gained by mere nominal claim. The mere planting of a declared for taxation purposes their alleged landholdings.
sign or symbol of possession cannot justify a Magellan-like Accordingly, they had never paid taxes thereon. It was only
claim of dominion over an immense tract of territory. the private respondent who declared them in one (1) tax
Possession as a means of acquiring ownership, while it may declaration, Tax Declaration No. 8388, on 18 September
be constructive, is not a mere fiction. x x x" 1969.[32] Per this tax declaration, the land covered is located
at Gaya-gaya, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, with an area of
Earlier, in Ramirez vs. The Director of Lands,[21] this Court 37.6 hectares, of which 9.4 hectares are ricelands while the
noted: remaining 28.2 hectares are cogonal.

"x x x The mere fact of declaring uncultivated land for Juan Reyes, Mariano Castillo, Macario Cruz and Feliciano
taxation purposes and visiting it every once in a while, as Santos were not presented by private respondent as witnesses
was done by him, does not constitute acts of possession." during the hearing of her application. There can be no
question that they were the best witnesses to identify the
In the case of The Director of Lands vs. Reyes,[22]this Court parcels they sold to the private respondent and prove the
also stated: character of their possession thereof. Instead, she presented
Victor Jarvina and Enrique Buco, whose testimonies on
direct and cross examinations are partly summarized by the
"A mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the petitioner as follows:
claimant, and the raising thereon of cattle, do not constitute
possession under claim of ownership. In that sense,
possession is not exclusive and notorious so as to give rise to "Victor Jarvina testified that he knew the applicant (p. 4, tsn,
a presumptive grant from the State." June 20, 1977) who bought a parcel of land with an area of
more than 37 hectares, located in Licau-Licau, San Jose del
Monte, Bulacan, from Macario Castillo and Juan Reyes (pp.
Possession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, 5-6, ibid); that he was with the surveyor when the survey
notorious and not clandestine.[23] It is continuous, when was done; no person contested the survey; he identified the
uninterrupted, unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; survey plan, Exhibit "F", the deed of sale executed by Juan
[24] exclusive when the adverse possessor can show Reyes, Exhibits "G" and "G-1", the deeds of sale executed by
exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it Mariano Castillo, Exhibits "H" and "H-1" and Exhibits "I"
to his own use and benefit;[25] and notorious when it is so and "I-1" (pp. 7-11, ibid); the land was declared for taxation
conspicuous that it is generally known and talked of by the purposes by Angelina Sarmiento and the taxes were paid; he
public or the people in the neighborhood.[26] identified Exhibit "J", the tax declaration, and Exhibit "K",
the tax receipt (pp. 12-13, ibid); after the properties were
Use of land is adverse when it is open and notorious.[27] purchased by the applicant, her possession was never
disturbed by any other person (pp. 4-7, tsn, July 29, 1977).
Under the law, the only kind of interruption which does not On cross-examination, Victor Jarvina stated that he could no
affect the continuity of possession is that caused by war or longer recall the date when the survey was made (pp. 14-19,
force majeure. ibid); the land was bought by the applicant from different
persons, including Mariano Castillo, Juan Reyes, Macario
Private respondent does not pretend to be the original Cruz and Feliciano Santos; he was present when the sales
possessor of the property in question. She relies on the were made, and the vendors did not show any written
alleged possession of her predecessors-in-interest, namely: document to prove that they owned the property, but they
Juan Reyes, Mariano Castillo, Macario Cruz and Feliciano claimed to have been in possession of the same for ten (10)
Santos. From Juan Reyes, she acquired a parcel of land years (pp. 14-16, tsn, Sept. 16, 1977); the property is hilly
 FINAL CASE LANDTI DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs IAC 5
and rolling and full of cogon, but a portion was planted with It was further established that from the Land Classification
camote, corn and seasonal crops by the vendors; he came to Report dated 8 August 1971,[34] only one-half (.5) of a
know the (sic) property three (3) years before Angelina hectare is planted with banana and fruit trees, while 36
Sarmiento bought it in 1969 (pp. 20-22, ibid); Castillo had a hectares are "grass land."
house on the land but it was wrecked by a storn (sic), so that
there was no more house existing on the land (p. 25, ibid). From the foregoing, serious doubts are cast on the claim of
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
Enrique Buco testified that he had known the land subject of occupation by the predecessors-in-interest of private
the case since 1932 because he owned a parcel of land respondent. As earlier stated, none of them even thought of
adjoining it; he had known Angelina Sarmiento since 1950; declaring their respective areas for taxation purposes. While
since 1932, the land was in the possession of the parents of it is true that tax receipts and declarations are not
Juan Reyes, Luis Pascual, Macario Cruz, Feliciano Santos, incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute at
Mariano Castillo, and a certain Arsenio, whose family name least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the
he did not know; the possession by the parents of Mariano property.[35] The voluntary declaration of a piece of
Castillo and Juan Reyes was never disturbed by anyone; property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's
Mariano Castillo and his parents planted bananas, mango sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and
trees, palay and sweet potatoes, but he did not know how announces his adverse claim against the State and all other
many hectares were cultivated (pp. 2-7, tsn, October 24, interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed
1977); Juan Reyes and his parents planted two (2) hectares revenues to the Government. Such an act strengthens one's
with palay, and the rest of the area with mango, caimito, bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership. Added to this,
avocado and langka trees, some of which were already fruit as certified to by Jarvina, who claimed to have been present
bearing; Mariano Castillo and Juan Reyes sold their rights when the sales were made to private respondent, none of the
over the land to Angelina Sarmiento; the land was surveyed vendors could show any written document to prove their
by the cadastral team, and Mariano Castillo and Juan Reyes ownership of the land; they merely alleged that they have
were present during the survey; and Castillo and Reyes been in possession of the same for ten (10) years. In the case
remained in possession of the land as tenants of Angelina of the 73,000 square meters (7.3 hectares) purportedly
Sarmiento (pp. 7-13, ibid). On cross-examination, he purchased from Macario Cruz, no deed of sale from the latter
admitted that in 1932, he and the parents of Mariano Castillo was presented. Interestingly enough, without this acquisition,
and Juan Reyes were just starting to clear up the area, and private respondent would only have more or less 308,000
that only around three (3) hectares were cleared up by the square meters, or 30.8 hectares, which she acquired from
parents of Castillo and Reyes (pp. 13-16, ibid); that Feliciano Juan Reyes and Mariano Castillo, and not the 376,397 square
Santos was still in possession of a small portion of the land meters, or 37.6 hectares which she, applied for. No plausible
in question; they were not able to take possession of the land explanation was offered as to why Macario Cruz did not or
in question because it was already occupied by the Japanese could not execute a deed of sale. There is as well no
forces; they returned to the land only after liberation (pp. 16- evidence concerning the area of the property purchased from
18, ibid); that his land adjoined the land in question on the Feliciano Santos and no explanation why no deed of sale was
east, adjoining the property of Isidro Cabacang and Roman executed by him. Then too, there is absolutely no credible
Reyes, who were the ones appearing as adjoining owners in testimony describing the boundaries and extent of the areas
Exhibit "F", the plan of lot 1005; that he left his land and each vendor had allegedly occupied before the sale to the
stayed in Quezon City in 1973 because the security men of private respondent. On the contrary, the testimony of
Puyat Enterprises were mauling many persons in the Enrique Buco throws more doubts thereon. He claims that
community; to avoid trouble he transferred his family to the land applied for was, since 1932, in the possession of the
Quezon City (pp. 19-23, ibid); that the parents of Juan Reyes parents of Juan Reyes, Luis Pascual, Macario Cruz,
and Mariano Castillo cleared up a portion of the wooded area Feliciano Santos, Mariano Castillo and a certain Arsenio. If
in 1932 and that was how they came into possession of their that be so, then the parents of Luis Pascual and Arsenio have
respective portions of the property; that he did not know the a claim on portions of the property applied for. Private
extent, in terms of square meters, of the land possessed by respondent miserably failed to show that she also acquired
Castillo and Reyes; that the subject land was no longer such portions or that they were earlier sold to any of her
occupied since two years ago because the people ran away vendors.
(pp. 27-30, ibid). On redirect examination, Enrique Buco
stated that at present only Mariano Castillo is staying on the Respondent Court considered the year 1932 as the starting
land in question as an overseer of Angelina Sarmiento; and point of the possession of the predecessors-in-interest of
that the last time he went there was in April, 1978 (pp. 3-5, private respondent. In the light of the aforesaid testimony of
tsn, August 18, 1978). On re-cross-examination, he admitted Enrique Buco, such a conclusion has no basis. As a matter of
that when he went to the land in question in April, 1978, he fact, the trial court itself found and so held as follows:
did not see anyone cultivating the property, and that Puyat
Enterprises had built a factory near the property (pp. 6-7, "The testimonial evidence shows that the subject parcel of
ibid)."[33] land was originally owned and possessed by Macario Cruz,
spouses Juan Reyes and Avelina Emocling, and spouses
Mariano Castillo and Petronila Robes, the two latter sets of
 FINAL CASE LANDTI DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs IAC 6
spouses having been in possession as early as 1928 and that the court would award the property to her. Such an
1948, respectively, during which time they possessed, attitude is an execration of good faith.
occupied and cultivated their respective portions unmolested,
openly continuously, and in the concept of owners. x x One last point which bears heavily against the claim of
x"[36] private respondent is the fact that she had the temerity to
make it appear in the application that she and the spouses
If the Castillo spouses' possession actually commenced in Placer Velasco and Socorro Busuego are co-owners of the
1948, as found by the trial court, it goes without saying that property who have registerable title thereto and who must,
their possession of the 14-hectare portion was only for therefore, be awarded the property. This claim is of course a
seventeen (17) years since they sold the same to the private deliberate falsehood for, as private respondent later revealed
respondent in 1965. Tacking this possession to that of the when she decided to drop the spouses as co-applicants, the
latter as of the time the application was filed on 13 August latter do not have any claim of either possession or
1970, it is obvious that the 30-year possession required by ownership over the property. They were made co-applicants
paragraph (b), Section 48 of the Public Land Act was not only because they agreed to shoulder all the expenses of
satisfied. litigation, including the cost of survey and attorney's fees.
Even granting, for the sake of argument, that such an
Further, if indeed private respondent has a genuine claim of agreement was in fact made with the spouses, it was not
possession over the property in question, We find no reason necessary that they be made co-applicants. The interest of
why, as reflected in the Land Classification Report dated 8 the spouses could still be effectively protected without
August 1971,[37] or barely a year after the filing of the sacrificing the truth. To this Court's mind, there was a clear
application, only one-half (½) hectare of the vast area attempt on the part of the private respondent and the spouses
applied for was in fact planted with nothing but banana and to deceive the trial court. Unfortunately, the trial court
fruit trees while thirty-six (36) hectares thereof are "grass glossed over this point and impliedly declared as validly
land". These fruit trees are not identified. If the testimony of rescinded the contract with the said spouses.
private respondent is to be believed, these could be kamias,
santol and mangoes which, according to her, were existing at The foregoing disquisitions sufficiently prove that private
the time she bought the property. Also, if the testimony of respondent is a smart land speculator who saw in the land
Enrique Buco is to be believed, these fruit trees could be applied for not just the blades of cogon grass, the color of
mango trees allegedly planted by Mariano Castillo and his which changes from green during the rainy season to brown
parents or, mango, kaimito, avocado and langka trees planted during summer, but huge profits as business, industry and
by Juan Reyes and his parents. This Court can not accept the general population move outward from the metropolitan
these testimonies at face value. The respondent Court and the area. It is incumbent upon land registration courts to exercise
trial court should not have been credulous enough to have extreme caution and prudent care in deciding so-called
given them full faith and credit. In her own Tax Declaration applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect titles over
No. 8388 dated 18 September 1966 and which she secured lands of the public domain; if they are lax in these
sometime after she allegedly purchased the property and proceedings, they may, wittingly or unwittingly, be used by
almost a year before she filed the application, private unscrupulous land speculators in their raid of the public
respondent merely declared that the property is comprised of domain.
riceland with an area of 9.4 hectares and cogonal land with
an area of 28.2 hectares. The existence of this 9.4-hectare More deserving citizens should be given priority in the
riceland is even doubtful. Private respondent herself acquisition of idle lands of the public domain. These could
admitted that the land is not conducive to the planting of serve as relocation sites for the urban poor. They may be
palay,[38] the portions cultivated by her vendors Castillo, distributed to landless farm workers. In so doing, the ends of
Reyes and Cruz were scattered in different places and the social justice, appropriately the centerpiece of the 1987
area each cultivated could not be more than one (1) hectare. Constitution, could be further enhanced.
[39] Upon the other hand, as earlier mentioned, Enrique
Buco only mentioned two (2) hectares planted to palay by WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision
Juan Reyes and his parents. of the respondent Court of 12 October 1984 in A.C.-G.R. CV
No. 00126 is hereby REVERSED. The decision of the trial
Another factor which impairs the bona fides of private court of 2 June 1982 in Land Registration Case No. (SM) N-
respondent is her failure to pay the real estate taxes after the 167, LRC Record No. N-39192 is likewise REVERSED and
filing of the application. She made a payment on 26 said case is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Costs against
September 1969[40] after declaring the property for taxation private respondent. SO ORDERED.
purposes on 18 September 1969,[41] and only for the taxable
years 1965 to 1969. Evidently, such payment was made only
for purposes of the application. A picayune amount was
involved annually. For the period beginning in 1965 and
ending in 1969, she paid P517.50 only. She did not want to
part with any sum thereafter until it would become certain