Oh Cho vs Director of Lands G.R. No.

48321, August 31, 1946

Oh Cho vs Director of Lands
G.R. No. 48321, August 31, 1946
FACTS:
Oh Cho, a Chinese citizen, purchased from the Lagdameos a parcel of land in
Tayabas, which they openly, continuously and adversely possessed since 1880.
On January 17, 1940, Oh Cho applied for registration of this land. The Solicitor
General opposed on the ground that Oh Cho lacked title to said land and also
because he was an alien.
ISSUEs:
Whether or not Oh Cho had title
Whether or not Oh Cho is entitled to a decree of registration

HELD:
Oh Cho failed to show that he has title to the lot, which may be confirmed under
the Land Registration Act.
All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by
grant, belong to the public domain. An exception to the rule would be any land
that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors
in interest since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the
presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it
had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest.
The applicant does not come under the exception, for the earliest possession of
the lot by his first predecessor in interest began in 1880.
Under the Public Land Act, Oh Cho is not entitled to a decree of registration of
the lot, because he is an alien disqualified from acquiring lands of the public
domain.
Oh Cho's predecessors in interest would have been entitled toa decree of
registration had they applied for the same. The application for the registration of
the land was a condition precedent, which was not complied with by the
Lagmeos. Hence, the most they had was mere possessory right, not title. This
possessory right was what was transferred to Oh Cho, but since the latter is an
alien, the possessory right could never ripen to ownership by prescription. As an
alien, Oh Cho is disqualified from acquiring title over public land by prescription.

Director Of Lands V. IAC (1986)

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 their acquisition by private
corporations or associations applies- NO
HELD: IAC affirmed Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc
1. YES, already acquired, by operation of law not only a right to a grant, but a
grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that a certificate of title
should be issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts,
an application therefore is sufficient. it had already ceased to be of the
public domain and had become private property, at least by presumption
The application for confirmation is mere formality, the lack of which does
not affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the
patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said patent.
The effect of the proof, wherever made, was not to confer title, but simply
to establish it, as already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law
2. NO, If it is accepted-as it must be-that the land was already private land to
which the Infiels had a legally sufficient and transferable title on October 29,
1962 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

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner-appellant,

vs.
JUDGE FLORENLIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME of the Court of First Instance
of Rizal, Makati Branch XV, and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondent-appellees.
The Manila Electric Company purchased two lots (165 sqm.) at Tanay, Rizal on
August 13, 1976 from Piguing spouses. After acquisition, they subsequently filed
for judicial confirmation of imperfect title on Dec. 1, 1976. However, the court
denied the petition and the corresponding appeal was likewise rejected. It
elevates its appeal with the following arguments; firstly, the land in question had
essentially been converted to private land by virtue of acquisitive prescription as
a result of open continuous and notorious possession and occupation for more
than thirty years by the original owner, Olimpia Ramos and his predecessor in
interest, Piguing spouses, whom Meralco acquired the disputed land, and finally,
the substantial rights acquired by Ramos spouses and Peguing spouses for
judicial confirmation of imperfect title, extend to Meralco by virtue of the
provision of the Public Land Law.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Meralco as a juridical person, allowed under the law to
hold lands of public domain and apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect
title.
2. Does the possession tacked to predecessor Private Corporation
automatically guarantee its rights to possession and title of the land.
3. Whether or not it is contingent for a judicial confirmation of title before
any grant would be extended to a juridical person.
RULING:
1. No. Private corporation or juridical person is prohibited and not allowed
under the law to hold land of public domain. Article XIV Sec. 14 of the
1973 Constitution prohibits private corporations from holding alienable
lands of the public domain except for lease of lands not exceeding one
thousand hectares.
2. No. The presumption that since they bought the property from the person
who occupied the land in open, continuous and notorious possession of
the public land for more than thirty years, does not automatically amount
to rights and possession. It would cease to be public only upon the
issuance of the certificate of title to any Filipino citizen claiming it under
the law. This conclusion is anchored on the principle that "all lands that
were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant,
belong to the public domain. The exception to the rule is only when the
occupant and his predecessors-in-interest possess and occupied the same

since time immemorial. Such possessions justify the presumption that the
land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a
private property even before the Spanish conquest.
3. Yes. In this case, the court declared that it is contingent upon the issuance
of title before juridical entity may have acquired possession over the
property. That means that until the certificate of title is issued, a piece of
land, over which an imperfect title is sought to be confirmed, remains
public land. Thus, any levy and execution were void. As between the State
and the Meralco, the land in question remains a public land. The court also
took notice that the constitutional prohibition makes no distinction
between (on one hand) alienable agricultural public lands as to which no
occupant has an imperfect title and (on the other hand) alienable lands of
the public domain as to which an occupant has an imperfect title subject
to judicial confirmation. Since section 11 of Article XIV does not
distinguish, we should not make any distinction or qualification.

VALENTIN SUSI vs. ANGELA RAZON and THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS,

defendants. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS.

Facts:

A complaint filed by Valentin Susi against Angela Razon and the Director of
Lands, praying for judgement: (a) Declaring plaintiff the sole and absolute
owner of the parcel of land: (b) annulling the sale made by the Director of
Lands in favour of Angela Razon, on the ground that the land is a private
property: (c) ordering the cancellation of the certificate of title issued to
said Angela Razon.
The Director of Lands denied each and every allegation contained therein
and, as special defense, alleged that the land in question was a property
of the Government of the United States under the administration and
control of the Philippine Islands before its sale to Angela Razon, which was
made in accordance with law.
The Court of First Instance of Pampanga rendered judgement declaring the
plaintiff entitled to the possession of the land, annulling the sale made by
the Director of Lands in favour of Angela Razon, and ordering the
cancellation of the certificate of title issued to her.
The evidence shows that on December 18, 1880, Namesio Pinlac sold the
land in question, then a fish pond, to Apolonio Garcia and Basilio Mendoza.
After having been in possession thereof for about eight years, and the fish
pond having been destroyed, Apolonio Garcia and Basilio Mendoza sold it
to Valentin Susi.
Before the execution of the deed of sale, Valentin Susi had already paid its
price and sown bacawan on said land, availing himself of the firewood
gathered thereon, with the proceeds of the sale of which he had paid the
price of the property. The possession and occupation of the land in
question, first, by Apolonio Garcia and Basilio Mendoza, and then by
Valentin Susi has been open, continuous, adverse and public, without any
interruption, except during the revolution, or disturbance, except when
Angela Razon commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga to recover the possession of said land.
Having failed in her attempt to obtain possession of the land in question
through the court, Angela Razon applied to the Director of Lands for the
purchase therof.
After making the proper administrative investigation, the Director of Lands
overruled the opposition of Valentin Susi and sold the land to Angela
Razon and issued the proper certificate of title to Angela Razon.

Angela Razon required Valentin Susi to vacate the land in question.

Issue:

Who is then the rightful owner of the land?

Heid:
SC in their decision favoured Valentin Susi. According to SC there is, the
presumption juris et de jure established in paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No.
2874, amending Act No. 926, that all the necessary requirements for a grant by
the Government were complied with, for he has been in actual and physical
possession, personally and through his predecessors, of an agricultural land of
the public domain openly, continuously, exclusively and publicly since July 26,
1894, with a right to a certificate of title to said land under the provisions of
Chapter VIII of said Act. So that when Angela Razon applied for the grant in her
favour, Valentin Susi had already acquired, by operation of law, not only a right
to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that certificate
of title should be issued in order 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 a public domain and have become
a 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 the land over which he had no longer
any title or control, and the sale thus made was void, and Angela Razon thereby
did not acquire any right.