Canlas v Republic

Dominador Canlas, president/general manager of Manila Pencil Company (MPC), organized

under the existing of the Philippines. Canlas became a successor of the Philippines
Consolidated Freight Lines Inc. (PCFL), and assuming the duties and responsibilities of the
latter.
PCFL ran a bus and trucking service within the compound of the Clark Field Air Base for the use
of the US authorized personnel therein.

On March 1954, Solicitor General filed a complaint with e Court of first instance against MCP
as a successor-in-interest of the PCFL and Canlas as president thereof, contending that they
failed to certain amount of income taxes. They were ordered to pay the obligation and the
penalties for delinquencies.

During the trial, RA 1125, creaing the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) pursuant to its Section 22,
was enacted. The case then was transferred to the CTA.

Motion for dismissal was filed by MCP/PCFL but denied by the court. They contended that the
operation of the freight was for the Military Bases Agreement in Clark, which was created
between Philippines and United States. Hence a petition for review.

Issue: WON the petitioner is obligated to pay the income tax?

Ruling:

They are still liable of paying the tax.

Court upheld some provision in the Military Bases Agreement that is needed to be construed
properly.

Under the Art 18 of the aforesaid agreement, “SALES AND SERVCES”, it says there: “free…..
from OTHER TAXES, or impost; including concessions such as commissaries and post
exchanges, messes and social clubs….. The merchandize or services sold or dispensed by
such agencies shall be free of all taxes, duties and inspection of the Philippine authorities…. ” It
is clear to say that the petitioner falls under the concessioners and not as an agency – which is
free from all tax. Concessioners are just exempted to “OTHER TAXES” but not “ALL TAXES”
including income taxes. The maxim of “inclusion unius exclusion est alterius” (the expression of
one thing excludes others).

Moreover, the court also upheld Art 7 “ INTERNAL REVENUE TAX EXEMPTION” of the same
agreement. “No member of the US armed forces, except Filipino Citizen….in connection with
the bases….shall be liable to pay the INCOME tax in the Philippines……” Needless to say that,
“other taxes” is intended to cover impost other than sales or excise tax on the undertaking only
and not taxes on income in which was taken care of in another provision of the same
agreement. Hence CTA affirms of the decision of the previous ruling.

Respondent, Aquilino Cariño (Cariño), Court of First Instance of

Laguna, filed a petition for registration of Lot No. 6, a sugar land with an area of 43,614 sq.m.
Cariño declared that land was originally owned by his deceased mother. Cariño on behalf of his
five brothers and sisters, became the adminitrix of the land after the death of their father in
1934.

In 1949, Cariño became sole owner of the disputed land through extra- judicial settlement.

Later on, Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands (now Bureau of Lands Management)
reported:

1. That the land (Lot no. 6) subject for registration thru judicial confirmation of imperfect
title in province of Laguna, is identical to another lot and that the same is outside any
civil or military reservation, free from claim and conflict. It is designated for Metro Manila
squatters not to any pasture lease; it is not covered by any existing public land
application and no patent or title has been issued therefor.

2. Carino has been in continuous, open and exclusive possession of the land who acquired
the same thru inheritance from his deceased mother.

Court Ruled in favor of the Cariño in possesision of the land.

Bureau of Lands went to CA and avered the ff. issues.

CA erred not finding that Cariño has not submitted proof of his fee simple title or proof of
possession in the manner and for the length of time required by the law to justify
confirmation of an imperfect title.

CA erred in not declaring that Cariño has not given up the presumption that the land is a public
domain and belongs to the Philippines.

Issue: WON the land in dispute belongs to the petitioner Cariño by the claim of an imperfect
title?

Ruling:

The Petition is impressed with merit.

Land Registration Act states that: the whoever alleges in his petition or application, ownership in
fee simple, must present muniments of title since the Spanish times, such as a titulo real (royal
grant), a concession especial (special grant), a composicion con al estado (adjustment title), or
a titulo de compra (title through purchase); and informacion possessoria (possessory
information title), which would become a "titulo gratuito" (gratuitous title).

Here, the Cariño has not produced a single document/muniment title substantiate his claim of
ownership.

Petitioner relies on the Sec. 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 that states:

“…….Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,

continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years
immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of the title….

Possession of public lands, however long, never confers title upon the possessor, unless the
occupant can prove possession or occupation of the same under claim of ownership for the
required period to constitute a grant from the State.

The court upheld Director of Lands vs. Agustin to show that a person has burden of proving the
imperfect right or title sought to be confirmed, and the

It was alas raised by the court case of Republic vs. Lee the all lands that were not acquired from
the government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the state as part of the public domain.
And if a person is claiming it, they must show a well-nigh incontrovertible evidence.

Additionally, Cariño has possessed the property for only 26 years as of 1975, when he filed his
petition for the registration thereof. While it was clearly stated on Sec. 48(b) of Commonwealth
Act No. 141 that it requires 30 years aforementioned above.

Carino forwarded the tax declaration evidence Exhibit "E" to the court. He avers, that it was
mention therein that the disputed land is under the names of his parents. But the said Exhibit
"E" shows that Lot No. 6 is in the name of private respondent and not in the name of his
parents.

Tax receipts and tax declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership. They are mere
indicia of claim of ownership. In Director of Lands vs. Santiago

Solicitor General, the contention of private respondent that his mother had been in possession
of subject land is self-serving, hearsay, and inadmissible in evidence.

Addtionally, the court mentioned Director of Lands vs. Datu the application for confirmation of
imperfect title which was not not appirved by the court for lack of substantial evidence.

Thus, the Court cannot apply here the

juris et de jure presumption that the lot being claimed by
the private respondent ceased to be a public land and has become private property. To
reiterate, under the Regalian doctrine all lands belong to the State. WHEREFORE, the Petition
of the is GRANTED