Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Person Appears and Answers Within The Time Allowed. RTC Issued The Order
Person Appears and Answers Within The Time Allowed. RTC Issued The Order
c) The lots formed part of the public domain. 1920: In Velez vs Ramas, the rule is that the defaulting defendant "loses his
standing in court, he not being entitled to the service of notices in the case,
RTC issued an ORDER OF GENERAL DEFAULT because no party appeared to nor to appear in the suit in any way. He cannot adduce evidence; nor can he
oppose the application during the hearing, and subsequently, decreed the be heard at the final hearing."
registration of the lots in the name of Martinez. RTC concluded that
Martinez and his predecessors have been in the open, continuous, public 1948: In Lim Toco v. Go Fay, the Court ruled that the defendant in default
possession of the lots for over 100 years. had no right to appeal the judgment rendered by the trial court, except
where a motion to set aside the order of default had been filed.
LRA informed RTC that only 2 lots were referred to in the Notice published
since the other lot (LOT 370) was omitted due to the lack of an approved 1964: Sec 2 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court: the right to appeal was available
survey plan. even if no petition for relief to set aside the order of default had been filed.
(The intent of 1964 Rules was to allow the defaulted defendant to file an a) Deed of Sale - not translated from the vernacular in which it was
appeal from the trial court’s decision.) executed. SC: inadmissible in evidence.
1997: Rules of Civil Procedure were amended. The old provision expressly b) White print copy of the survey plan, tracing cloth plan- NOT
guaranteeing the right of a defendant declared in default to appeal the approved by the Director of Lands. SC: Though the submission of the
adverse decision was not replicated in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. original tracing cloth plan is a mandatory statutory requirement
BUT even under the new rules, a defaulted defendant retains the right to which cannot be waived, the rule is settled that a survey plan must
appeal based on SC decisions after the promulgation of the 1997 Rules (See be approved by the Director of Lands to be admissible in evidence.
LINA DOCTRINE).
PETITION DISMISSED. Lots cannot be registered in the name of Martinez.
ISSUE: WON MARTINEZ FAILED TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCE NEEDED TO
SECURE THE REGISTRATION OF THE SUBJECT LOTS IN HIS NAME
HELD: YES! Take note that the case against Martinez was established not by
the OSG’s evidence, but by petitioner’s own insufficient evidence.
Martinez argued that he & his predecessors have been in possession of the
land since time immemorial.
It had been abandoned and had not been continued or resumed after the
war, thus, it had ceased to exist.
ISSUE:
HELD:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The March 30, 2006 Decision and the
November 20, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No.
80500, are AFFIRMED.
LASAM V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS- Possession HELD:
First, the Court ruled that Exhibit L cannot be a valid application because the
Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his identity of the land was not clearly established.
feet on every square meter of ground before it can be said that he is in
possession, however, possession is not gained by mere nominal CLAIM.
Second, although there is proof that Lasam might have possessed a portion
FACTS: of the parcel land, the proof is lacking in certainty as to the portion occupied
and the extent thereof. Although the counsel invokes the doctrine of
Lasam files a case in Court for the registration of a parcel of land, containing
constructive possession, the said application is subject to certain
an area of around 24,000,000 hectares. He presents Exhibit L as proof of his
qualifications, and this court was careful to observe that among these
possession over the land. Exhibit L is a certified copy of an application. This
qualifications is one particularly relating to the size of the tract in
application states that Lasam’s predecessor in interest, Domingo Narag, has
controversy with reference to the portion of land actually in possession of
owned the land since time immemorial. However, the property described in
the claimant. While, therefore, possession in the eyes of the law does not
Exhibit L is 15,000,000 hectares only and the property sought to be
mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of ground
registered is 24,000,000 hectares.
before it can be said that he is in possession, possession is not gained by
Furthermore, the document, mentions a fifth parcel of land which is the
mere nominal CLAIM. The mere planting of a sign or a symbol of possession
same parcel described in another Exhibit K. Apparently, the surveyor of the
cannot justify a Magellan-like claim of dominion over an immense tract of
land delineated the property based on what the possessor at that time
territory.
pointed out to him; he based his study mostly on hearsay. According to the
applicant, before his occupation of the land, only about 2 hectares were
cultivated. But then, they justified this by invoking the doctrine of
constructive possession (That a person in possession of the land does not
have to have his feet on every square meter of ground before it can be said
that he is in possession).
Thus, the Director of Lands opposed the registration on the ground that
a) it is not supported by any title fit for registration and
b) that the land sought to be registered is public land.
ISSUE: