G.R. No.

1413 March 30, 1904

ANDRES VALENTON, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
MANUEL MURCIANO, defendant-appellee.

Facts:
Andres Valenton, et al, occupied a large part of the lands which were public, untilled and
unoccupied before they began to cultivate and improve it. From 1860 to 1892, they were
claiming that they were exclusive owners of the said lands because they have the possession of
the lands for 32 years.
Manuel Murciano, acting on behalf of Candido Capulong, petitioned the government of the
Philippines for the sale of the same lands to him since these were public, untilled and
unoccupied.
Valenton wrote a protest against the sale, however, the Secretary of Treasury of the province of
Tarlac executed a contract of purchase and sale, by which said lands were sold and conveyed by
him to Murciano as attorney in fact of Capulong. Capulong executed a contract of purchase and
sale, by which he sold and conveyed the said lands to Murciano.
Valenton refused to give the lands to Murciano since they are the one who occupied and
possessed them and filed a written protest before the court.
The court ruled in favor of Murciano because Valenton had lost all the right to the land by not
pursuing their objections to the sale. Valenton excepted to the judgment and claimed that they
had been in possession of the land for more than 30 years; that applying the extra ordinary period
of prescription of thirty years, they became the absolute owners of the lands against everyone,
including the State, and that the State cannot sell the lands.
The court finds that at the time of the entry by Valenton, et. al., in 1860 the lands were vacant
and were public lands belonging to the Government. Valenton, et. al., do not claim to have
obtained from the Government any deed for the lands, nor any confirmation of their possession.
Issue:
Whether or not Valenton, et. al., are the lawful owners of the lands which were public, untilled
and unoccupied before their occupation and possession by applying the extra ordinary period of
prescription.
Held:
NO, while the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to deed if he proves a
possession for a sufficient length of time, it has always insisted that he must make that proof
before the proper administrative officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he did that the
State remained the absolute owner. It is plain that they were required to present their claims to
the authorities and obtain a confirmation. Since the Court of First Instance found that Valenton,
et. al., do not claim to have obtained from the Government any deed for the lands, nor any
confirmation of their possession, they cannot be the lawful owners of the subject lands.
The Supreme Court also held that from 1860 to 1892 there was no law in force which Valenton
could obtain the ownership of the lands by prescription, without any action by the State, and that
the judgment declaring the Murciano the owner of the lands must be affirmed.