BERNARDINO CACNIO, ET AL.

vs.
LAZARO BAENS
G.R. No. L-2116 March 16, 1906

FACTS:
Plaintiffs Cacnio and de la Cruz—now appellants—said they were the sole proprietors of the
building lots in Hulong Duhat, Tambobong, according to the borders of each individual tract. De
la Cruz has a surface area of 4 ares 60 centares and 55 square centimeters compared to Cacnio's
11ares 95 centares and 15 square centimeters.

On October 25, 1891, the defendant purchased the named deeds, which were then recorded at the
Registry of Property on November 12, 1891. Additionally, it was alleged that title deeds for a
bigger parcel of land, which includes the parcel in question, were granted by the Direccion
General de Administracion Civil on October 25, 1891, and that they were registered in the
Registry of Property on November 14, 1891.

The plaintiffs prayed that the inscription of the said land made in favor of the defendant, Baens,
be declared null and void and claimed that the defendant failed to publish the required notice.
The plaintiffs asked to be declared entitled to the ownership and possession of their respective
lots because each plaintiff inherited their individual lots and had been in possession of them for
more than 40 years.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents are the absolute owners of the lands.

DECISION:
Arts. In accordance with Sections 1216 and 1218 of the Civil Code, "Public instruments," or
those documents authorized by a notary public or by a qualified public official with all the
formalities required by law, "are admissible in evidence even against a third party as to the fact
which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter."
Despite the fact that Cacnio and Cruz did not take part in the processes pertaining to the
composition of the aforementioned land between the State and the defendant, the instruments in
issue harm the plaintiffs, Cacnio and Cruz, in accordance with Article 27 of the Mortgage Law.
Whereas, the defendant should be regarded as third parties who were harmed and/or prejudiced
by the execution of the defendant's deed or instrument and its entry in the Registry of Property.

The deed presented by the defendant to demonstrate his ownership of the property in question is
protected by Articles 23 to 26 of the Mortgage Law. It was approved by the Director of Civil
Administration of the Spanish Government, the authorized official authorized to issue such an
instrument, and was properly recorded in the Registry of Property in accordance with the law. As
a result, it is sufficient evidence and may harm third parties, which, for the purposes of this
legislation, are those who were not present during the performance of the recorded contract.

Regarding the omission of a notice, since the defendant followed all legal requirements and
formalities for the registration of the aforementioned deed, and since there is no evidence of any
flaw that would render the instrument void, it cannot be held to be so. According to section 334,
paragraph 31, of the Code of Civil Procedure, "it must be presumed that this was done in
accordance with the law until the contrary is shown."

Wherefore, judgment of the CFI is affirmed, defendant acquitted, with the costs of this instance.

Reflection/Conclusion
Reflecting to the case, I can’t help but to think how and to what extent are we going to
fight for our land. It is perceptible that this case is a preliminary injunction wherein respondent
Banes prayed for the execution for recovery of several tracts of land and judgment upon the
plaintiffs, Bernardino Cacnio and Severino de la Cruz. The Court of First Instance acquitted the
defendant and stated him as the real owner, thus this case is elevated to the higher court. In light
of the provisions of Article 27 of the Mortgage Law, there can be no doubt that the said plaintiffs
should be considered as third parties, whom the execution of the deed or instrument of the
defendant and its inscription prejudice the plaintiffs, Cacnio and Cruz, despite the fact that they
did not participate in the proceedings relating to the composition of the said land between the
State and the defendant. Government intervention in land uses, no matter how innocuous, may be
viewed as untenable. Even a gentle nudge in the form of a subsidy may violate this sense of
autonomy and good stewardship.

An action for the recovery of a piece of land alleged to have been acquired by
extraordinary prescription cannot be maintained against the person in possession thereof by
virtue of a title deed issued to him by the Government and duly recorded in the Registry of
Property. It has also not been proven that the party failed to publish the required notice regarding
the possession of the land to which the said deed refers. According to paragraph 31 of section
334 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it must be assumed that this was done in accordance with the
law until the contrary is shown. The deed or patent issued by the Direction General de
Administration Civil demonstrated that the defendant had a better right than the plaintiffs to the
subject property and that the latter had no standing to assert ownership.