Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Digest Sam
Digest Sam
Director of Lands continue to be part of the public domain, not available for
108 Phil 335, 1960 private appropriation or ownership.
FACTS: 4) Ignacio said that he had acquired the parcel of land through
Ignacio filed an application for the registration of a parcel of land acquisitive prescription, having possessed the same for over ten
(mangrove), situated in barrio Gasac, Navotas, Rizal. Later, Ignacio years. BUT the land of the public domain is not subject to
amended his application by alleging that he owned the parcel applied ordinary prescription.
for by RIGHT OF ACCRETION.
Ignacio:
He had occupied the land since 1935, planting it with api-api trees,
and that his possession had been continuous, adverse and public for a
period of 20 years until the possession was distributed by oppositor
Valeriano.
OPPOSITIONS
Director of Lands:
a) Claimed the parcel applied for as a portion of the public
domain, for the reason that neither the applicant nor his
predecessor- in-interest possessed sufficient title.
b) Petitioner not acquired it either by composition title from the
Spanish government or by possessory information title under
the royal decree of February 13, 1894;
c) That he had not possessed the same openly, continuously and
adversely under a bona fide claim of ownership since July 26,
1894.
Valeriano:
Alleged that he was holding the land by virtue of a permit granted
him by the Bureau of Fisheries, issued on January 13, 1947, and
approved by the President.
ISSUE:
WON the subject land is owned by Ignacio?
HELD:
NO.
OPPOSITION
Director of Lands:
Represented by the Assistant Solicitor General, stated that neither
Pascual nor his predecessors-in-interest possessed sufficient title to
the subject property, the same being a portion of the public domain
and, therefore, it belongs to the Republic of the Philippines.
NAVARRO’S CONTENTION
Navarro claimed that the land sought to be registered has always
been part of the public domain, it being a part of the foreshore of
Manila Bay; that he was a lessee and in possession of a part of the
subject property by virtue of a fishpond permit issued by the Bureau
of Fisheries and confirmed by the Office of the President; and that he
had already converted the area covered by the lease into a fishpond.
PASCUAL’S CONTENTION
Pascual claimed that the land was formed through accretion. He
claimed the accretion as the riparian owner.
ISSUE:
WON the accretion taking place on property adjacent to the sea be
registered in favor of the petitioner?
HELD:
NO.
In the case at bar, the land claimed by Pascual and his Heirs is not
adjacent to the rivers of Talisay and Bulacan. The accretion formed
at said portion of appellants' titled land was not caused by the current
of the two rivers but by the action of the Manila Bay into which the
rivers empty. The law is clear on this. Accretion of land along the
river bank may be registered while the accretion of land along
the sea always belongs to the State and cannot be a subject of
private acquisition. Moreover, Accretion on a sea bank is foreshore
Director of Lands vs. IAC and Acme Plywood already converted to private land. And there is no prohibition
and Veneer Co. Inc. whether in the 1935 or 1973 Constitution on the acquisition of
GR. No. 73002, Dec. 29, 1986 private corporations over private lands. The 1973 Constitution and
the present 1987 Constitution only gives a prohibition on private
FACTS: corporations in their acquiring lands of the public domain,
This case started when ACME Plywood, sought to register 5 parcels meaning your agricultural lands.
of land. The Director of Land opposes the registration.
Now the INFIELS in the evidence that was presented by Acme
Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., a corp. represented by Mr. proved that the INFIELS were already in possession since time
Rodolfo Nazario, acquired from Mariano and Acer Infiel, members immemorial, even before Magellan discovered the Philippines. So
of the Dumagat tribe 5 parcels of land even before the Spaniards discovered the Philippines, it was already
private property. So if the land has already been converted to private
Possession of the Infiels over the land dates back before the land, then the private corporation may own that land because there is
Philippines was discovered by Magellan no prohibition on the acquisition of a private corporation on private
lands.
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.
OPPOSITION
Director of Lands:
a) The land is of public domain.
b) Corporations are prohibited by the 1973 Constitution (the
Constitution in effect that time) to lands of public domain
except in lease not exceeding 1,000 hectares.
ISSUE:
1) WON the land is already a private land.
HELD:
1) YES
The land is already private land not only in right to a grant but by
operation of law. The SC further said that for the grant to be
honored by the court, it is not necessary that they have a certificate
of title, an application for registration is sufficient for the grant to be
honored.
“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
The SC held in this case that the constitutional prohibition does not
apply because the land was already a private land to which the
Infiels, who are members of the Dumagat Tribe, have a legal,
sufficient and transferrable title over the land on October 29, 1962
when ACME acquired it from them.
The SC said that there is no need to dwell on the 1935 or the 1973
Constitution as contended by the Director of Land because the land is
Republic vs. Iglesia ni Cristo and Manalo
GR. No. 180067, June 30, 2009
FACTS:
The subject of the case is a lot of the Currimao Cadastre located in
Ilocos Norte.
ISSUE:
WON a judicial confirmation of imperfect title will prosper when the
subject property has been declared as alienable only after June 12,
1945?
HELD:
It is well-settled that no public land can be acquired by private
persons without any grant, express or implied, from the
government, and it is indispensable that the persons claiming
title to a public land should show that their title was acquired
from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by
law.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that the subject lot has already
been declared alienable and disposable by the government on May
16, 1993 or a little over five years before the application for
registration was filed by INC.
The possession of INC has been established not only from 1952 and
1959 when it purchased the respective halves of the subject lot, but is
also tacked on to the possession of its predecessors-in-interest,
Badanguio and Sabuco, the latter possessing the subject lot way
before June 12, 1945, as he inherited the bigger lot, of which the
subject lot is a portion, from his parents. These possessions and
occupation from Sabuco, including those of his parents, to INC; and
from Sabuco to Badanguio to INC had been in the concept of
owners: open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
property. These had not been disturbed as attested to by
respondent’s witnesses.
Susi vs. Razon No. 2874.
48 Phil 424
If by a legal fiction, Valentin Susi had acquired the land in question
FACTS: by a grant of the State, it had already ceased to be the public domain
A complaint filed by Valentin Susi against Angela Razon and the and had become private property, at least by presumption, of
Director of Lands, praying for judgment: Valentin Susi, beyond the control of the Director of Lands.
a) Declaring plaintiff the sole and absolute owner of the parcel of
land; Consequently, in selling the land in question to Angela Razon,
b) Annulling the sale made by the director of lands in favor of the Director of Lands disposed of a land over which he had no
Angela Razon, on the ground that the land is a private property; longer any title or control, and the sale thus made was void and
c) Ordering the cancellation of the certificate of title issued to said of no effect, and Angela Razon did not thereby acquire any right.
Angela Razon.
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, when Angela Razon
commenced an action in the CFI of Pampanga to recover the
possession of said land.
ISSUE:
Who is then the rightful owner of the land?
HELD::
SC in their decision favoured VALENTIN SUSI.
So that 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 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