7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

1/374

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. L-18209 June 30, 1966THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plainti and appellee,vs.EN!NCIO SULL!NO,defendant and appellant.M. M. Magsalin as counselde ociofor defendant and appellant.Oce of the Solicitor General for plainti and appellee."ENG#ON, J.P.,J.:

This is an appeal direct to s fro! the Court of "irst #nstance of #loilo$s decision%ndin& the accused &uilt' ofestafaand conde!nin& hi! to suer an indeter!inatesentence of not less than t(o )*+ !onths and one )+ da' ofarresto mayorand not!ore than one )+ 'ear and one )+ da' ofprision correccional, to inde!nif' theoended part' )ACC"A+ in the a!ount of P-,/.01, (ith subsidiar' i!prison!ent incase of non2pa'!ent, and to pa' the costs.1wph1.t3n "ebruar' *4, 4-5, the 6anta Barbara "ar!ers Cooperative Mar7etin&

Association (as for!all' or&ani8ed. A!on& the ocers elected therein (as9enancio 6ullano, herein appellant, as 6ecretar'2Treasurer. The Articles of#ncorporation and the B'2:a(s of the 6anta Barbara "AC3MA (ere re&istered onMa' , 4-5 in the 6ecurities and E;chan&e Co!!ission. Also on that date said"AC3MA aliated (ith the A&ricultural Credit and Cooperative "inancin&Ad!inistration )ACC"A+About ten !onths after or speci%call' on March *, 4-/, Restituto

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

2/374

#n this connection, # hu!bl' re=uest for an e;tension of a considerable ti!e, to raisethe necessar' a!ount to cover the real shorta&e after re=uest for furtherveri%cation is conducted.Personall', # (ould li7e to e!plo' all possible !eans to settle this case e;tra2

Dudiciall'.# hope for 'our 7ind consideration.

3n ?ul' -, 4-/, the ACC"A Ad!inistrator, b' tele&ra! )E;h. C+, ordered itsAuditin& Tea! :eader in #loilo to send Restituto

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

3/374

thin&, in his notice of appeal %led in the court belo(, appellant e;pressl' speci%edthat he (as appealin& the case to the 6upre!e Court. And it is the rule that anappellant (ho ta7es his appeal to the 6upre!e Court is dee!ed to have (aived hisri&ht to dispute an' %ndin& of fact !ade b' the trial court. *

And, for another, the principal ar&u!ents raised b' appellant in his brief areactuall' in the nature of =uestions of la(, (hich (e no( proceed to discuss.

#t is %rst contended b' appellant that the court a !uoerred in holdin& that the fundsinvolved in the cash shorta&e are ACC"A funds. There is no dispute that the 6antaBarbara "AC3MA aliated (ith the ACC"A on Ma' , 4-5. There is also no disputethat prior to said date, or on "ebruar' *> and */, 4-5, funds of the proposed"AC3MA I i.e., the P,**-, the P> and the P0/- appearin& under E;hibits , *and 0, respectivel' I (ere deposited (ith the !unicipal treasurer of 6anta Barbara,#loilo. And that said deposited funds (ere included b' Restituto , and */,4-5 (ith the !unicipal treasurer.

The receipt and (ithdra(al of said deposits b' the accused hi!self are clearl'ad!itted. "or in theocial!unicipal voucher )E;h. H+, said accused si&ned a

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

4/374

certi%cation to the eect that he received said a!ounts fro! the !unicipaltreasurer of 6anta Barbara, #loilo, on Ma' *4, 4-5. #t is true that there (erecerti%cations si&ned b' Alfredo 6onalan at the reverse side of the ocial receipts forsaid deposits, statin& that 6onalan received the! fro! said !unicipal treasurer. #t!ust be re!e!bered, ho(ever, that 6onalan (as the one (ho !ade thesedeposits, prior to the establish!ent of the 6anta Barbara "AC3MA. "or (hich reason

it is not surprisin& that, re&ardless of (hoactually(ithdre( said a!ount, 6onalan(as li7e(ise !ade to ac7no(led&e said (ithdra(al. At the ti!e said deposits (ere(ithdra(n, on Ma' *4, 4-5, the 6anta Barbara "AC3MA (as alread' le&all'e;istin&. 6ullano, bein& then its 6ecretar'2Treasurer, is (ithout doubt the one (hoactuall' received, for 7eepin& in his custod', the said funds. 6tandin& unrebutted tothis eect is the testi!on' of 6i!plicio Aranda, a cler7 in the Provincial Auditor$s3ce of #loilo, statin& that said deposits (ere in fact (ithdra(n b' 6ullano and notb' 6onalan )Tsn., avan, pp. 10, 1-+.Hherefore, the Dud&!ent appealed fro! is hereb' ar!edin toto, (ith costsa&ainst the appellant. 6o ordered.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. L-2$%96 June 28, 1968&IRECTOR OF FORESTR', FOREST ST!TION (!R&EN, &ISTRICT 13, "URE!UOF FORESTR', "O!R& OF &IRECTORS, N!TION!L (!TER(OR)S !N&SE(ER!GE !UTHORIT' 1 *n+ CHIEF OF ST!FF, !RME& FORCES OF THEPHILIPPINES,petitioners,vs.HON. EMM!NUEL M. MUO#, * Ju+e o/ e Cou o/ F In*n4e o/"u5*4*n, "*n4 I, e SHERIFF OF THE PROINCE o/ "UL!C!N, *n+PIN!GC!M!LIG!N IN&O-!GRO &EELOPMENT CORPOR!TION,INC.,respondents.22222222222222222222222222222G.R. No. L-2$9 June 28, 1968PIN!GC!M!LIG!N IN&O-!GRO &EELOPMENT CORPOR!TION,INC.,petitioner,vs.HON. M!C!RIO PER!LT!, JR., n 4*7*4 * e Se4e* o/ N*on*5&e/eneHON. ENETERIO &E JESUS, n 4*7*4 * Un+ee4e* o/ N*on*5&e/eneGENER!L RIGO"ERTO !TIEN#!, n 4*7*4 * e Ce/ o/ S*: 2!;e+ Fo4e o/ e P577ne,COLONEL M!NUEL . RE'ES, n 4*7*4 * e Ju+e !+

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

5/374

#n the %rst, :2*>/45, the correspondin& &overn!ent ocials see7 Ioncertiorariand prohibition I to annul the order and (rit of e;ecution issued b'the Court of "irst #nstance of Bulacan in its Civil Case 00-2M allo(in&Pina&ca!ali&an #ndo2A&ro -4, it (as Piadeco$s turn to as7 I on prohibition and inDunction

I for a rulin& that respondent &overn!ent ocials are @(ithout authorit' andDurisdiction to stop lo&&in& operations, construction of the roads, cuttin&, &atherin&and re!ovin& of ti!ber and other forest products@ fro! said corporation$s private(oodland area.Because of their interrelation, the t(o case are here Dointl' considered.

The follo(in& undisputed facts controlPiadeco clai!s to be the o(ner of 6o!e /*, hectares of land 0 located in the!unicipalities of An&at, Nor8a&ara' and 6an ?ose del Monte, province of Bulacan,and in Antipolo and Montalban, province of Ri8al. Piadeco$s evidence of o(nershipconsists of-itulo de (ropiedadNo. >05, dated April *-, 14>,>and a deed ofabsolute sale of ?ul' *, 45*, in its favor. Piadeco applied for re&istrationaspri,ate(oodland so!e , hectares of this land. The Bureau of "orestr', on

, 450, issued in Piadeco$s na!e Certi%cate of Private HoodlandRe&istration No. PHR *5-2Ne(, coverin& but a portion of the land an a&&re&atearea of >,> hectares and an avera&e stand of 1/.* cubic !eters, situated in the!unicipalities of An&at, Nor8a&ara', and 6an ?ose del Monte, all of the province ofBulacan, and Montalban, in Ri8al. #t (as to e;pire on . B' virtueof the re&istration certi%cate, Piadeco conducted lo&&in& operations..

The controvers' in the these cases be&an on April , 45>, (hen Actin& , 45>, "orest 6tation Harden Reinaldo B. Mar=ue8, , 45>, over the

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

6/374

and e;ecutin& the April , 45> revocation b' Na(asa of Piadeco$s ri&ht of (a',the April , 45> order of the , 45>, actin& on the aforesaid !otion for reconsideration and opposition

thereto, the Dud&e belo( ruled that althou&h Piadeco is entitled to inDunction, thecontinuance thereof (ould cause &reat da!a&e to the &overn!ent, (hile Piadecocan be full' co!pensated for an' da!a&es Piadeco !a' suer because of thedissolution thereof. That bond, ho(ever, (as not %led b' the forestr' ocials.3n ?ul' 0, 45>, upon Piadeco$s Ma' - !otion earlier adverted to, the forestr'ocials (ere declared in default.3n ?ul' *>, 45>, said forestr' ocials %led a veri%ed !otion to set aside thedefault order and to ad!it their ans(er thereto attached. The' pleaded e;cusablene&lect andGor oversi&ht of the cler7 of the records of the Records section of theBureau of "orestr'.3n ?ul' *4, 45>, the court shunted aside the fore&oin& !otion for the reason thattheir si; da's$ dela' (as not e;cusable and their ans(er (as prepared onl' afterthree da's fro! their receipt of the order of default. A !otion for reconsiderationre&istered b' the forestr' ocials on Au&ust *, 45> (as unavailin&. The courtbelo( struc7 do(n that !otion on 6epte!ber >, 45>.

Thus it is, that Piadeco sub!itted evidencee parteto the court belo( a&ainst the

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

7/374

laid do(n inSantiago ,s. /asilan 0um%er &o., :2--0*, 3ctober 0, 450, even ifPiadeco$s private (oodland (as unre&istered, it still retains its inherent @ri&hts ofo(nership, a!on& (hich are )its+ ri&hts to the fruits of the land and to e;clude an'persons fro! the enDo'!ent and disposal thereof@, its onl' liabilit' bein& thepa'!ent of surchar&es on the ti!ber severed fro! the land. Thereupon, the courtreinstated the (rit of preli!inar' inDunction earlier issued and !ade it per!anent,

(ith costs..Mean(hile, on , one da' before the rendition of the Dud&!ent

Dust !entioned, Piadeco applied for the rene(al of its Certi%cate of PrivateHoodland Re&istration PHR *5-2Ne(, (hich (ould e;pire on the last da' of that!onth. 3n ?anuar' *, 45-, in repl' thereto, Assistant

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

8/374

lo&s that after , the decision of the courtbelo( beca!efunctus ocioand could no lon&er be e;ecuted. Piadeco$s reDoinderof ?ul' , 45- (as that its re&istration certi%cate is not e;pirable and that it is not alicense.3n ?ul' 1, 45-, the Dud&e ca!e out (ith an order declarin& that not(ithstandin&@the e;piration of petitioner$s Piadeco$sF license )+ on , their

said propert' re!ains re&istered (ith the Bureau of "orestr' subDect onl' torene(al, in (hich case it can still pursue its lo&&in& operations, conditioned uponthe pa'!ent b' it of forest char&es.@ The Dud&e too7 into consideration a certi%cateissued on Ma' >, 45- b' Assistant /45, no( at bar+ forcertiorariand prohibition (ith preli!inar' inDunctionto annul the ?une ,45- order of e;ecution, the ?une 0, 45- (rit of e;ecution andthe ?ul' 1, 45- order allo(in& Piadeco to haul its lo&s. Na!ed respondents (erePiacedo, ?ud&e E!!anuel M. MuLo8 of the Bulacan court, and the Provincial 6heriof Bulacan..3n ?ul' 0, 45-, this Court issued a (rit of preli!inar' inDunction, as pra'ed for b'the aforena!ed &overn!ent ocials. 3n Au&ust 0, 45-, Piadeco sou&ht thedissolution thereof for the reason, a!on&st others, that Mr. ?. :. tle&, Assistant, 45> in Civil Case 00-2M is still enforceable and has not 'et been

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

9/374

dissolved because the forestr' ocials have not %led their P,.2bond asre=uired b' the trial court in its order of Ma' >, 45>.3n 3ctober 1, 45-, this Court denied the t(o !otions of Piadeco, declared that the(rit of preli!inar' inDunction it issued stands enforced and is eective untilother(ise lifted, and authori8ed the 6olicitor eneral to eect the re!oval of all thelo&s subDect of his !otion of Au&ust /, 45- fro! the lo& ponds but onl' for the

purpose of turnin& the! over to the Ar!ed "orces for safe7eepin& and custod'pendin& %nal resolution of the case.3n 3ctober >, 45-, Piadeco traversed the aver!ents of the forestr' ocials$petition before this Court, thru an ans(er dated 3ctober *, ad!ission of (hich (asho(ever denied for bein& late. The case (as sub!itted (ithout further !e!oranda.Mean(hile, a co!panion case ):2*->-4, also at bar+e!er&ed fro! subse=uentevents hereunder related.3n 3ctober *, 45-, pendin& this Court$s resolution of the fore&oin& petition of theforestr' ocials ):2*>/45+, Piadeco (rote the

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

10/374

Barrio An&inan, Montalban, Ri8al, outside the (atershed reservations. The' !ade aportion of the land their private =uarters. The' prevented Piadeco$s ocers )a+ fro!continuin& its lo&&in& operations, especiall' the construction of the road inside thelandJ )b+ fro! cuttin&, &atherin& and re!ovin& ti!ber and other forest productstherefro!J and )c+fro! livin& and !ovin& in freedo! and en&a&in& in the pursuit ofhappiness on said land. Piadeco as7s principall' that respondent ocials be

declared @(ithout authorit' and Durisdiction to stop lo&&in& operations, constructionof the roads, cuttin&, &atherin& and re!ovin& of ti!ber and other forest productsfro! the Private Hoodland area@ of the for!er.

There (as a pra'er for the issuance of a (rit of preli!inar' inDunction (hich thisCourt, ho(ever, denied on 45, as a!ended+ or under the Cadastral Act )Act No. **-4, as a!ended+.

The a!end!ent of "orestr' Ad!inistrative 3rder *2 b' "orestr' Ad!inistrative3rder *2* consisted in theomissionof one para&raph, para&raph )c+, (hichparticulari8ed as one of the titles re&istrable pursuant to 6ection 1*4 of theRevised Ad!inistrative Code, @tFitles &ranted b' the 6panish soverei&nt' in theislands and dul' reco&ni8ed as valid titles under the e;istin& la(s.@Piadeco$s position is that such a!end!ent contravenes said 6ection 1*4, (hichdoes not specif' the titles that are re&istrable thereunderJ and that it isdia!etricall' opposed to the 3pinion of the Attorne' eneral of 3ctober -, 44,(hich ruled that a ro'al title @issued in 6epte!ber, 145, and inscribed in theRe&istr' of Propert' (ithin a 'ear after its issuance is valid, and therefore its o(neris entitled to the bene%ts@ of 6ection 1*4 aforesaid. Also cited are the 3pinion ofthe 6ecretar' of the #nterior of Nove!ber /, 45, statin& that re&istration under

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

11/374

6ection 1*4 is not subDect to chan&e and revocation unless title is established in adierent person b' Dudicial declarationJ the 3pinion of the

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

12/374

land.>Possession of forest lands, ho(ever lon&, cannot ripen into privateo(nership.-

#n this case, it is undisputed that Picadeco$s title (hich it sou&ht to re&ister (asissued b' the 6panish soverei&nt' I-itulo de (ropiedadNo. >05, dated April *- or*4, 14>. #t is un!ista7abl' not one of those enu!erated in 6ection / aforesaid. #tshould not have been allo(ed re&istration in the %rst place. 3bviousl', re&istration

thereof can never be rene(ed.*. Piadeco is nonetheless insistent in its plea that it can still cut, &ather, and re!oveti!ber fro! its alle&ed private (oodland, upon pa'!ent of forest char&es andsurchar&es.

The purposes of re&istration, as succinctl' stated in 6ection 5, "orestr'Ad!inistrative 3rder *2 dated ?ul' , 4>, are5.O%6ects of registrationI )a+ to e;e!pt the o(ners of private (oodlands fro! thepa'!ent of forest products &athered therefro! for co!!ercial or industrialpurposes.)b+ To re&ulate the transportation of forest products &athered or collected therefro!and to avoid fraud (hich !a' be co!!itted in connection (ith utili8ation of suchforest products (ith respect to their ori&in.

)c+ To deter!ine the le&alit' of private clai!s for the protection of the interest of theo(ners as (ell as of the overn!ent, and to e;clude all land clai!ed under validtitles fro! the !ass of the public forest in order to facilitate the protection,ad!inistration, and supervision of the latter.

The fore&oin& has in part &ained Dudicial approval inSantiago ,s. /asilan 0um%er&ompany, :2--0*, 3ctober 0, 450, (here (e pronounced @3bviousl', thepurpose of the re&istration re=uired in 6ection 1*4 of the Ad!inistrative Code is toe;e!pt thetitled ownerof the land fro! the pa'!ent of forestr' char&es asprovided for under 6ection *55 of the National #nternal Revenue Code.@5And6ection *55 of the Ta; Code, therein !entioned, provides in full6EC. *55.&harges collecti%le on forest products cut$ gathered and remo,ed fromunregistered pri,ate lands. I The char&es above prescribed shall be collected on allforest products cut, &athered and re!ovedfrom any pri,ate landthe title to (hichis not re&istered (ith the and *5-of the Ta; Code, because @he still retain)s+ his ri&hts of o(nership, a!on& (hich are

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

13/374

his ri&hts to the fruits of the land and to e;clude an' person fro! the enDo'!entand disposal thereof )Art. >*4, Ne( Civil Code+.@1Ko(ever, as provided in 6ection*55 above2=uoted, if an o(ner does not re&ister his title, but he desires to cut,&ather and re!ove ti!ber and other forest products fro! his land, he !a' @securea license fro! the inscribed in the 3ce of the Re&istr' ofPropert' of Bulacan, on pa&es */ and *4 of Boo7 #, for Nor8a&ara', as Ta;

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

14/374

bounded, on the North, b' 6ierra Madre Mountains and Rio rande ):ao& toinaba'unan+J on the East, b' Maputi, !ira' and Cali(atcanan )#bona Estate andPublic :and+J on the 6outh b' 6uson&

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

15/374

, 14> of the eneral in the sa!e case, it described the land as containin& /*,hectares.00Hhich is (hich This but accentuates the nebulous identit' of Piadeco$sland. Piadeco$s o(nership thereof then e=uall' suers fro! va&ueness, fatal at leastin these proceedin&s.

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

16/374

Piadeco asserts that +, published in theGaceta de Manilaon April /, 14>.01That decree re=uired asecond petition for adDust!ent (ithin si; !onths fro! publication, for those (hohad not 'et secured their titles at the ti!e of the publication of the la(.046aid la(also abolished the provincial boards for the adDust!ent of lands established b'Ro'al

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

17/374

other factors herein pointed out, cast &reat clouds of doubt that han& !ostconspicuousl' over Piadeco$s title.

The standin& presu!ption, (e !ust not for&et, is that land pertains to the 6tate,and an' person see7in& to establish o(nership over land !ust conclusivel' sho(that he is the o(ner. >* And his presu!ption clin&s (ith &reater force here (here @aportion@ of the land Piadeco clai!s is, as Piadeco itself ad!its, directl' aected b'

Procla!ation No. / dated March , 4*/ of the then overnor2eneral :eonardHood of the Philippines, (hich reserved for (atershed purposes an area of5*,04.4-* hectares of land located in Montalban, Province of Ri8al, in 6an ?ose delMonte, Nor8a&ara', An&at, 6an Rafael, and 6an Mi&uel, Province of Bulacan, inPeLaranda, Province of Nueva EciDa, and in #nfanta, Province of Ta'abas )no(ue8on+,subDect to @private ri&hts if an' there be.@ Private ri&hts !ust then have tobe proved. #t (ill be re!e!bered that, b' Article 9### of the Treat' of Paris of. Hh'Hhen the 0To hi!, a condition e;pressl' (ritten into the re&istration certi%cate (asbein& violated. Piadeco (as found to be cuttin& trees (ithin the An&at and Mari7inaHatershed Reservations in direct contravention of a speci%c prohibition in thecerti%cate. And this, upon the basis of positive and actual %ndin&s of =uali%ed andco!petent forestr' ocers.uite revealin& is Piadeco$s ad!ission>>before the court belo( that @it !adecuttin&s on that portion of its o(n private landwithin the +ngat and Mari5ina>atershed 3eser,ation where it was constructing its access road to the areaco,ered %y (.>.(. ?o. :@ABto the construction of (hich no obDection (as interposed

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

18/374

b' ... Na(asa as per its resolution No. *5, 6eries of 45>.@>-5

>. True it is that the Dud&!ent belo( virtuall' reinstated Piadeco$s re&istrationcerti%cate. Ko(ever, as shall be discussed later on in this opinion, that Dud&!enthas no( no le&al eect. "or, said certi%cate, b' its ver' ter!s, e;pired on . Piadeco cannot be heard to protest further.But Piadeco still insists that it obDected to the e;pir' date of the re&istrationcerti%cate, (hen it (as issued that certi%cate. rantin& the truth of this aver!ent,Piadeco nonetheless accepted the certi%cate, did not follo( up its obDection to itslo&ical conclusion, sat supinel' until the certi%cate (as cancelledJ onl' then did itrene( the bid that its re&istration certi%cate is non2e;pirable.At all events, Piadeco$s sub!ission is inaccurate. "orestr' Ad!inistrative 3rder *2

*, pro!ul&ated pursuant to la(, a!ended 6ection of "orestr' Ad!inistrative3rder *2, the pertinent part of (hich reads)b+"uration of the certi9cate. I The certi%cate of re&istration issued under this3rder shall be !ade to e;pire on the last da' of the *th !onth fro! the date of itsissuance.

This re&ulation is not (ithout rational basis. This Court had occasion to sa'once>/that @:and !a' be classi%ed as forestr' or !ineral toda', and, b' reason ofthe e;haustion of the ti!ber or !ineral, be classi%ed as a&ricultural land to!orro(.And vice2versa, b' reason of the rapid &ro(th of ti!ber or the discover' of valuable!inerals, land classi%ed as a&ricultural toda' !a' be dierentl' classi%edto!orro(.@ "orestr' Ad!inistrative 3rder *2* veril' declares that certi%cates @arerene(able for as lon& as there are substantial a!ounts of forestr' in the area, upon%lin& of the necessar' application therefor@ and that those @cancelled for causes!a' be rene(ed upon sub!ission of application for re&istration b' the o(ner and ifthe cause of cancellation is e;plained satisfactoril'.@>1#f onl' for purposes ofeective re&ulation, annual re&istration of private (oodlands cannot be successfull'assailed.-. He cannot place our sta!p of approval on Piadeco$s clai! that it should beper!itted to re!ove fro! the pre!ises those lo&s that have alread' been cutbefore , the e;pir' date of its re&istration certi%cate. He havealread' said that its re&istration certi%cate is a nullit'. Even if it is not, the facts andthe la( (ill not support its plea.#t is not alto&ether clear (hether the 5 pieces of unscaled and the , pieces of!i;ed )scaled and unscaled+ti!ber sou&ht to be hauled b' Piadeco, (ere cut before. Piadeco could present onl' one au;iliar' invoice thereon, (hichbut covers *-5 lo&s and that ver' invoice stated that those lo&s (ere @cut orordered cut@ in the area covered b' P.H.R. No. *5-2Ne(, @afterits e;piration on.@>4

Horse, a factual assu!ption that the lo&s (ere cut before that date, is !eanin&lessin la(. A contrar' vie( (ould easil' lend itself to !isuse and !ischief. "or, loopholescould then be bored throu&h (hich an unscrupulous lo&&er !a' cra(l. 6uch that aholder of a re&istration certi%cate could be at co!plete libert' to Dust cut and cut

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

19/374

durin& the lifeti!e of that certi%cate and leave the haulin& for later, as he pleases,even lon& after e;pir' thereof. This, (e !ust sa', should not be allo(ed to pass.5. Absent a valid re&istration certi%cate under 6ection 1*4 of the RevisedAd!inistrative Code, or a license to cut, &ather and re!ove ti!ber, and !orei!portant, credible evidence of private o(nership over the forestr' land in =uestion,Piadeco$s lo&&in& operations lo&icall' descend to the level of unla(ful cuttin& fro!

public forests.6ei8ure !ade b' the &overn!ent authorities here of lo&s ille&all' cut cannot bebranded as ille&al. #t (as but in obedience to Bureau of #nternal Revenue eneralCircular No. 9200/ of Ma' *>, 45, (hich prescribed rules on the disposition ofille&all' cut lo&s, pursuant to a directive fro! the 3ce of the President to the6ecretar' of "inance on March **, 45. 6ection 0 of Circular 9200/ declares asfollo(s0. :o&s ille&all' cut fro! public forests, such as ti!berlands, forest reserves otherthan national par7s,0co!!unal forests and co!!unal pastures shall be subDectto sei8ure and delivered to the nearest Bureau of #nternal Revenue 3cer (ho inturn shall deliver the! to the dul' authori8ed representative of the Ar!ed "orces ofthe Philippines for use in the !anufacture of prefabricated school houses. The

ille&al cutter shall not be allo(ed to pa' the forest char&es and surchar&es andother fees on the lo&s cut. Ko(ever, if such forest char&es and fees have alread'been paid, the sa!e shall be retained b' the Bureau of #nternal Revenue 3cerconcerned as part of the collection for forest char&es, but shall not be the basis forthe release of such lo&s. 3n the other hand, such pa'!ent shall be used asevidence should the ille&al cutter be prosecuted in court for the violation of thecorrespondin& forest la(s.-

Could this Court then Dusti%abl' order the deliver' to Piadeco of the lo&s i!poundedri&ht there on the land The ans(er !ust certainl' have to be in the ne&ativeJ acontrar' posture is tanta!ount to abettin& a (ron&. The lo&s belon& to the 6tate.

The' are not Piadeco$s. Piadeco cannot later on co!e bac7 to clai! the! b' curin&defects in the proof of its o(nership over the land. #t has sub!itted the controvers'over the lo&s for decision to this Court. An' rulin& thereon should bind Piadeco. #tcannot be overturned b' fresh convincin& proof of o(nership, (hich it should haveoered in the %rst place.He hold that &overn!ent sei8ure of Piadeco$s lo&s here co!plained of is valid./. The vie( this Court ta7es of the cases at bar is but in adherence to public polic'that should be follo(ed (ith respect to forest lands. Man' have (ritten !uch, and!an' !ore have spo7en, and =uite often, about the pressin& need for forestpreservation, conservation, protection, develop!ent and reforestation. Not (ithout

Dusti%cation. "or, forests constitute a vital se&!ent of an' countr'$s naturalresources. #t is of co!!on 7no(led&e b' no( that absence of the necessar' &reencover on our lands produces a nu!ber of adverse or ill eects of seriousproportions. Hithout the trees, (atersheds tr' upJ rivers and la7es (hich the'suppl' are e!ptied of their contents. The %sh disappear.

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

20/374

To be sure, the validit' of the e;ercise of police po(er in the na!e of the &eneral(elfare cannot be seriousl' attac7ed. 3ur overn!ent has de%nite instructions fro!the Constitution$s prea!ble to @pro!ote the &eneral (elfare.@ ?urisprudence hasti!e and a&ain upheld the police po(er over individual ri&hts, because of the&eneral (elfare. "ive decades a&o, Mr. ?ustice Malcol! !ade it clear that the @ri&htof the individual is necessaril' subDect to reasonable restraint b' &eneral la( for the

co!!on &ood@ and that the @libert' of the citi8en !a' be restrained in the interestof public health, or of the public order and safet', or other(ise (ithin the properscope of the police po(er.@-*Mr. ?ustice :aurel, about t(ent' 'ears later, ar!edthe precept (hen he declared that @the state in order to pro!ote the &eneral(elfare !a' interfere (ith personal libert', (ith propert', and (ith business andoccupations@ and that@pFersons and propert' !a' be subDected to all 7inds ofrestraints and burdens, in order to secure the &eneral co!fort, health, andprosperit' of the state.@-0Recentl', (e =uoted fro! a leadin& A!ericancase,->(hich pronounced that @neither propert' ri&hts nor contract ri&hts areabsoluteJ for &overn!ent cannot e;ist if the citi8en !a' at (ill use his propert' tothe detri!ent of his fello(, or e;ercise his freedo! of contract to (or7 the! har!,@and that, therefore, @eF=uall' funda!ental (ith the private ri&ht is that of the

public to re&ulate in the co!!on interest.--

These precepts !ore than suce to sustain the validit' of the &overn!ent$s action(ith respect to Piadeco$s lo&&in& operations.1. He co!e to consider the eects of the Dud&!ent in Civil Case 00-2M, (here theCourt of "irst #nstance of Bulacan adDud&ed Piadeco$s operation not to be in violationof forestr' rules and re&ulations and !ade per!anent the (rit of preli!inar'inDunction issued a&ainst the defaultin& forestr' authorities, upon Piadeco$s e*

parteevidence. That Dud&!ent, it should be re!e!bered, is sou&ht to be e;ecutedb' Piadeco and the e;ecution proceedin&s in that case are not before this Court onrevie(.6aid Dud&!ent enDoined the forestr' ocials fro! carr'in& out and e;ecutin& theorder of April , 45> and the i!ple!entin& letter of April >, 45>, cancellin&Piadeco$s re&istration certi%cate, PHR *5-2Ne(. But (hen e;ecution (as orderedon ?une , 45-, and the (rit of e;ecution issued on ?une 0, 45-, and (hen thecourt ordered on ?ul' 1, 45- that Piadeco be allo(ed to haul its lo&s, there&istration certi%catehad already epiredon . #t is, therefore,not inappropriate for us to sa' that Dud&!ent had alread' beco!e functusocio-5and can no lon&er be e;ecuted.

The over2all position (e have here ta7en should dispose of all other issues raised b'the partiesJ hence, unnecessar' is a discussion thereof."or the reasons &iven I

The petition forcertiorariand prohibition in :2*>/45 is hereb' &rantedJ the ?une ,45- order of e;ecution, the ?une 0, 45- (rit of e;ecution issued pursuant thereto,and the ?ul' 1, 45- order, allo(in& respondent Pina&ca!ali&an #ndo2A&ro

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

21/374

The petition of Pina&ca!ali&an #ndo2A&ro -4 is hereb' denied.Costs in both cases a&ainst Pina&ca!ali&an #ndo2A&ro

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

22/374

absolute o(ner of the land in =uestion, his title thereto bein& evidenced b' TituloReal No. *>/4 and that the' ac=uired the propert' fro! Rellera$s le&al heirs. "ro!this the' concluded that the land (as private propert' and that therefore the freepatent and ori&inal certi%cate of title issued in favor of the Barro&as (ere voidbecause the , but neither the alle&ation !ade in hisans(er that his aforesaid predecessor in interest (as the absolute o(ner of thepropert' covered b' said Titulo Real nor his i!plied ad!ission of the latter$sinvalidit' or insucienc' are &rounds for the annul!ent of the free patent andori&inal certi%cate of title in =uestion. Evidentl', it (as Barro&a$s privile&e to rel' ornot to rel' upon his clai! of private o(nership in favor of his predecessor in interestand of (hatever the latter$s Titulo Real (as (orth. Ke decided notto rel' upon the!and to consider instead that the propert' covered b' the Titulo Real (as still part ofthe public do!ain. Actin& accordin&l' he applied for a free patent and (assuccessful. #t !ust be borne in !ind that the Titulo Real (as not an indefeasible titleand that its holder still had to prove that he had possessed the and covered b' it(ithout interruption durin& a period of ten 'ears b' virtue of a &ood title and in&ood faith )Ro'al

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

23/374

HKERE"3RE, the order appealed fro! is ar!ed, (ith costs.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

TK#R<

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

24/374

issued b' the Court a =uo e;cept for the

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

25/374

4>+ have been open, public, continuous, peaceful, adverse a&ainst the (hole(orld, and in the concept of o(ner.Accordin&l', the court ordered the re&istration of the four parcels to&ether (ith thei!prove!ents thereon @in the na!e of the R3MAN CATK3:#C B#6K3P 3" :CENA,#NC., a reli&ious corporation sole dul' re&istered and e;istin& under the la(s of theRepublic of the Philippines.@

A&ainst this decision, the 6olicitor eneral %led a Motion for reconsideration on thefollo(in& &rounds. Article U#9, 6ection of the Ne( Constitution)4/0+ dis=uali%es a privatecorporation fro! ac=uirin& alienable lands for the public do!ain.*. #n the case at bar the application (as %led after the eectivit' on the Ne(Constitution on ?anuar' /, 4/0.(hich (as denied b' the lo(er court for lac7 of !erit.6till insistin& of the alle&ed unconstitutionalit' of the re&istration )a point (hich,incidentall', the appellant never raised in the lo(er court prior to its Motion forReconsideration+, the Republic elevated this appeal. )3ollo, pp. *-2*1+3n Ma' 0, 415, the %rst Civil Cases 6CRA1/-, ?une *4, 41*+J and Republic vs. ?ud&e onon& and #&lesia ni Cristo, 1 6CRA/*42/00 )Nove!ber *-,41*+J "irector of 0ands ,s. 2ermanos y 2ermanas$ )nc. >6CRA *2*- )?an. /,415+.*. The lands applied for re&istration (ere the subDect of a previous re&istration case(here a decree of re&istration (as alread' issued.0. Respondent corporation failed to establish the indentit' of the lands applied for.)Rollo, pp. >2-+

The issue raised in this case involves the =uestion of (hether the Ro!an CatholicBishop of :ucena, as a corporation sole is =uali%ed to appl' for con%r!ation of itstitle to the four )>+ parcels of land subDect of this case.Corollar' thereto is the =uestion of (hether or not a corporation sole should betreated as an ordinar' private corporation, for purpose of the application of Art. U#9,6ec. of the 4/0 Constitution.Article U#9, 6ec. of the 4/0 Constitution, in part provides

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

26/374

6ec. . .... No private corporation or association !a' hold alienable lands of thepublic do!ain e;cept b' lease not to e;ceed one thousand hectares in areaJ nor!a' an' citi8en hold such lands b' lease in e;cess of %ve hundred hectares....6ec. >1 of the Public :and Act, in part, provides6ec. >1. The follo(in& described citi8ens of the Philippines occup'in& lands of thepublic do!ain or clai!in& to o(n an' such lands or an interest therein, but (hose

titles have not been perfected or co!pleted, !a' appl' to the Court of "irst#nstance of the province (here the land is located for con%r!ation of their clai!sand the issuance of a Certi%cate of title therefor, under the :and Re&istration Act, to(it)a+ ...)b+ Those (ho b' the!selves or throu&h their predecessor2in2interest have been inopen, continuous, e;clusive, and notorious possession and occupation ofa&ricultural lands of the public do!ain under a bona %de clai! of ac=uisition ofo(nership for at least thirt' 'ears i!!ediatel' precedin& the %lin& of theapplication for con%r!ation of title e;cept (hen prevented b' (ar or force !aDeure.

These shall be conclusivel' presu!ed to have perfor!ed all the conditions essentialto a overn!ent &rant and shall be entitled to a certi%cate of title under the

provisions of this chapter.)c+ ...#n its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner contends that the Ro!an CatholicBishop of :ucena )private respondent herein+ (hich is ad!ittedl' a corporation soleis dis=uali%ed to o(n and re&ister its title over the parcels of land involved herein.)Rollo, p. >+#n its petition it li7e(ise ar&ued that bein& a Duridical entit', private respondentcannot avail of the bene%ts of 6ec. >1)b+ of the public land la( (hich applies to"#:#P#N3 citi8ens or NATRA: persons. 3n the other hand, private respondent in itsMEM3RAN+ have been open, public, continuous, peaceful,adverse a&ainst the (hole (orld, and in the concept of o(ner.Bein& disputed before this Court is the !atter of the applicabilit' of Art. U#9 6ec. of the 4/0 Constitution to the case at bar.Petitioner ar&ues that considerin& such constitutional prohibition, privaterespondent is dis=uali%ed to o(n and re&ister its title to the lots in =uestion."urther, it ar&ues that since the application for re&istration (as %led onl' on"ebruar' *, 4/4, lon& after the 4/0 Constitution too7 eect on ?anuar' /, 4/0,the application for re&istration and con%r!ation of title is ineectual because at theti!e it (as %led, private corporation had been declared ineli&ible to ac=uirealienable lands of the public do!ain pursuant to Art. U#9, 6ec. of the saidconstitution. )Rollo, p. >+

The =uestioned posed before this Court has been settled in the case of ")38&-O3O# 0+?"S ,s. )ntermediate +ppellate &ourt)>5 6CRA -4 415F+ (hich reversedthe rulin& %rst enunciated in the 41* case of Manila 8lectric &o. ,s. &+S-3O

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

27/374

/+3-O0OM8, )> 6CRA /14 41*F+ i!posin& the constitutional ban on public landac=uisition b' private corporations (hich rulin& (as declared e!phaticall' as res

6udicata on ?anuar' /, 415 in"irector of 0ands ,s. 2ermanos y 2ermanas de Sta.&ru' de Mayo$ )nc., )> 6CRA * 415F+.EreFFanH1IwJ #n said case, )

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

28/374

#n 3oman &atholic +postolic +dministration of "a,ao$ )nc. ,s. 0and 3egistration&ommission$ et al. ):21>-, 5+.Pertinent to this case is the provision of 6ec. 0 Batas Pa!bansa Bl&. 51 (hichreads as follo(s6ec. 0.+c!uisition and alienation of property. I An' corporation sole !a'

purchase and hold real estate and personal propert' for its church, charitable,benevolent or educational purposes, and !a' receive be=uests or &ifts for suchpurposes. 6uch corporation !a' !ort&a&e or sell real propert' held b' it uponobtainin& an order for that purpose fro! the Court of "irst #nstance of the province(here the propert' is situatedJ but before the order is issued, proof !ust be !adeto the satisfaction of the Court that notice of the application for leave to !ort&a&eor sell has been &iven b' publication or other(ise in such !anner and for such ti!eas said court !a' have directed, and that it is to the interest of the corporation thatleave to !ort&a&e or sell should be &ranted. The application for leave to !ort&a&eor sell !ust be !ade b' petition, dul' veri%ed b' the chief archbishop, bishop,priest, !inister, rabbi or presidin& elder actin& as corporation sole, and !a' beopposed b' an' !e!ber of the reli&ious deno!ination, sect or church representedb' the corporation sole Provided, That in cases (here the rules, re&ulations anddiscipline of the reli&ious deno!ination, sect or church reli&ious societ' or orderconcerned represented b' such corporation sole re&ulate the !ethod of ac=uirin&,holdin&, sellin& and !ort&a&in& real estate and personal propert', such rules,re&ulations and discipline shall control and the intervention of the courts shall notbe necessar'.

There is no doubt that a corporation sole b' the nature of its #ncorporation is vested(ith the ri&ht to purchase and hold real estate and personal propert'. #t need nottherefore be treated as an ordinar' private corporation because (hether or not it beso treated as such, the Constitutional provision involved (ill, nevertheless, be notapplicable.#n the li&ht of the facts obtainin& in this case and the rulin& of this Court in "irectorof 0ands ,s. )+&, )supra, -0+, the lands subDect of this petition (ere alread' privatepropert' at the ti!e the application for con%r!ation of title (as %led in 4/4. Thereis therefore no co&ent reason to disturb the %ndin&s of the appellate court.HKERE"3RE, the petition is dis!issed for lac7 of !erit and the appealed decisionand Resolution of the #nter!ediate Appellate Court is hereb' A""#RME

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

29/374

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila"#R6T , reversin& the decision of theCourt of "irst #nstance of :a&una and 6an Pablo Cit', 1th ?udicial den'in& the !otion for reconsideration%led thereof.

The undisputed facts of this case as found b' the Trial Court and the #nter!ediateAppellate Court are as follo(s

3n , the Provincial 6heri caused the issuance of the notice of sale ofthe propert' in =uestion, schedulin& the public auction sale on ?une *1, 4/>. Thepetitioner (as the hi&hest and successful bidder so that a Certi%cate of 6ale (asissued in its favor on the sa!e date b' the Provincial 6heri.3n ?ul' , 4/>, the petitioner in its capacit' as attorne'2in2fact of the !ort&a&orsold the subDect real propert' in favor of itself. B' virtue of the deed of absolutesale, TCT No. T2/-/ of the Re&ister of

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

30/374

issued in the na!e of the petitioner on ?ul' 5, 4/>. #t (as onl' in ?ul' 4/>, thatprivate respondents learned that a title in the na!e of the 9ivas spouses had beenissued coverin& the propert' in =uestion and that the sa!e propert' had been!ort&a&ed in favor of the petitioner. Private respondent Nena Ma&ca!it oered topa' the petitioner NA the a!ount of P>,. (hich is the balance of thea!ount due the 9ivas spouses under the ter!s of the absolute deed of sale but the

petitioner refused to accept the pa'!ent. 3n ?ul' 0, 4/>, counsel for privaterespondents !ade a for!al de!and on the spouses 9ivas and :i8ardo to co!pl'(ith their obli&ation under the ter!s of the absolute deed of saleJ and soon afterreiterated to the NA, the oer to pa' the balance of P>,. due under theabsolute deed of sale. 3n Au&ust 0, 4/> petitioner in its repl' infor!ed counsel ofprivate respondents that petitioner is no( the o(ner of the propert' in =uestion andhas no intention of disposin& of the sa!e.

The private respondents, (ho as previousl' stated, are in possession of subDectpropert' (ere as7ed b' petitioner to vacate it but the for!er refused. Petitioner%led a suit for eDect!ent a&ainst private respondents in the Municipal Court of9ictoria, :a&una, but the case (as dis!issed.3n ?une >, 4/-, private respondents %led a co!plaint before the then Court of "irst

#nstance of :a&una and 6an Pablo Cit', Branch ###, 6an Pablo Cit', a&ainst thepetitioner and the spouses 9ivas and :i8ardo, pra'in&, a!on& others, that the' bedeclared the o(ners of the propert' in =uestion and entitled to continue inpossession of the sa!e, and if the petitioner is declared the o(ner of the saidpropert', then, to order it to reconve' or transfer the o(nership to the! under suchter!s and conditions as the court !a' %nd Dust, fair and e=uitable under thepre!ises. )Record on Appeal, pp. *2+.#n its ans(er to the co!plaint, the petitioner )defendant therein+ !aintained that it(as never a priv' to an' transaction bet(een the private respondents )plaintistherein+ and the spouses Paulino 9ivas and En&racia :i8ardo that it is a purchaser in&ood faith and for value of the propert' for!erl' covered b' 3CT No. /*1J and thatthe title is no( indefeasible, hence, private respondents$ cause of action has$alread' prescribed. )Record on Appeal, pp. 52**+.After due hearin&, the trial courtrendered its decision on March /, 41, in favorof the petitioner, the dispositive portion of said Dud&!ent readin& as follo(sHKERE"3RE, Dud&!ent is hereb' rendered as follo(s)+ declarin& defendant National rains Authorit' the la(ful o(ner of the propert'in =uestion b' virtue of its indefeasible title to the sa!eJ)*+ orderin& plaintis to turn over possession of the land to defendant Nationalrains Authorit'J)0+ orderin& defendants2spouses Paulino 9ivas and En&racia :i8ardo to pa' plaintisthe su! of P-5,. representin& the a!ount paid pursuant to the asulatan N&Bilihan& Tulu'an !ar7ed E;hibit @0@, (ith le&al interest thereon fro! ?anuar' 0,4/* until the a!ount is paid, to pa' an additional a!ount of P-,. for and asattorne'$s fees, an additional a!ount of Pl,. as !oral da!a&es, anothera!ount of P-,. b' (a' of e;e!plar' da!a&es and to pa' the costs of thissuit. )Rollo, P. 0-+.

The private respondents interposed an appeal fro! the decision of the trial court tothe #nter!ediate Appellate Court.After proper proceedin&s, the appellate court rendered its decision on ?anuar' 0,41>, reversin& and settin& aside the decision of the trial court as follo(s

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

31/374

HKERE"3RE, the decision of the lo(er court is hereb' reversed and set aside andanother one is rendered orderin& the National rains Authorit' to e;ecute a deed ofreconve'ance sucient in la( for purposes of re&istration and cancellation oftransfer Certi%cate of Title No. T2/-/ and the issuance of another title in thena!es of plainti2appellants, and orderin& defendants2appellees Paulino 9ivas andEn&racia :i8ardo to pa' the National rains Authorit' the su! of P/1,0/-. )E;h.

0+ (ithin thirt' )0+ da's fro! the receipts of the (rit of e;ecution. No da!a&es andcosts. )Rollo, p. 4+.

The petitioner %led a !otion for reconsideration of the said decision but the sa!e(as denied. )Rollo, p. *5+.Kence, this petition.#n the resolution of Ma' *, 41-, the petition (as &iven due course and the parties(ere re=uired to sub!it si!ultaneous !e!oranda )Rollo, p. *1+. The!e!orandu! for the petitioner (as %led on ?ul' 0, 41- )Rollo, p. *4+ (hile the!e!orandu! for the private respondents (as %led on Au&ust *5, 41- Rollo p.4*+.

The !ain issue in this case is (hether or not violation of the ter!s of the a&ree!entbet(een the spouses 9ivas and :i8ardo, the sellers, and private respondents, the

bu'ers, to deliver the certi%cate of title to the latter, upon its issuance, constitutes abreach of trust sucient to defeat the title and ri&ht ac=uired b' petitioner NA, aninnocent purchaser for value.#t is undisputed that )+ there are t(o deeds of sale of the sa!e land in favor ofprivate respondents, na!el' )a+ the conditional sale (ith ri&ht to repurchase or the$asulatan N& Bilihan& Mabibilin& Muli@ (hich (as re&istered under Act 00>> and )b+the deed of absolute sale or @asulatan n& Bilihan& Tulu'an@ (hich (as notre&isteredJ )*+ the condition that the Certi%cate of Title (ill be delivered to thebu'ers upon its issuance and upon pa'!ent of the balance of P>,. iscontained in the deed of absolute saleJ and )0+ the land in =uestion at the ti!e ofthe e;ecution of both sales (as not 'et covered b' the Torrens 6'ste! ofre&istration.#t is a;io!atic, that (hile the re&istration of the conditional sale (ith ri&ht ofrepurchase !a' be bindin& on third persons, it is b' provision of la( @understood tobe (ithout preDudice to third part' (ho has better ri&ht@ )6ection 4> of theAd!inistrative Code, as a!ended b' Act No. 00>>+. #n this case, it (ill be noted thatthe third part' NA, is a re&istered o(ner under the Torrens 6'ste! and hasobviousl' a better ri&ht than private respondents and that the deed of absolute sale(ith the suspensive condition is not re&istered and is necessaril' bindin& onl' onthe spouses 9ivas and :i8ardo and private respondents.#n their co!plaint at the Re&ional Trial Court, private respondents pra'ed a!on&others, for t(o alternative reliefs, such as )a+ to be declared the o(ners of thepropert' in =uestion or )b+ to order the declared o(ner to reconve' or transfer theo(nership of the propert' in their favor.Private respondents clai! a better ri&ht to the propert' in =uestion b' virtue of theConditional 6ale, later chan&ed to a deed of Absolute 6ale (hich althou&hunre&istered under the Torrens 6'ste! alle&edl' transferred to the! the o(nershipand the possession of the propert' in =uestion. #n fact, the' ar&ue that the' havebeen and are still in possession of the sa!e openl', continuousl', publicl' under aclai! of o(nership adverse to all other clai!s since the purchase on

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

32/374

plainti learn that a title had been issued coverin& the propert' in =uestion )Rollo,p. -+.

Ti!e and ti!e a&ain, this Court has ruled that the proceedin&s for the re&istrationof title to land under the Torrens 6'ste! is an actionin remnotin personam, hence,personal notice to all clai!ants of the res is not necessar' in order that the court!a' have Durisdiction to deal (ith and dispose of theres. Neither !a' lac7 of such

personal notice vitiate or invalidate the decree or title issued in a re&istrationproceedin&, for the 6tate, as soverei&n over the land situated (ithin it, !a' providefor the adDudication of title in a proceedin&in remor one in the nature of or a7in ato proceedin&in rem(hich shall be bindin& upon all persons, 7no(n or un7no(n)Moscoso vs. Court of appeals, *1 6CRA /4 41>F, citin& Cit' of Manila vs. :ac7,et al., 4 Phil. 0*>, 00/J Ro;as vs. Enri=ue8, *4 Phil. 0J Phil. *J A&uilar vs. Cao&dan, - Phil. 55+. #t isthus evident that respondents$ ri&ht over the propert' (as barred b'res

6udicata(hen the decree of re&istration (as issued to spouses 9ivas and :i8ards. #tdoes not !atter that the' !a' have had so!e ri&ht even the ri&ht of o(nership,BE"3RE the &rant of the Torrens Title.

Thus, under 6ection >> of P.> of P.>> 401F, e!phasissupplied+.

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

33/374

#t (ill be noted that the spouses 9ivas and :i8ardo never co!!itted an' fraud inprocurin& the re&istration of the propert' in =uestion. 3n the contrar', theirapplication for re&istration (hich resulted in the issuance of 3CT No. /*1 (as (ithco!plete 7no(led&e and i!plied authorit' of private respondents (ho retained aportion of the consideration until the issuance to said spouses of a certi%cate of titleapplied for under the Torrens Act and the correspondin& deliver' of said title to

the!. The =uestion therefore, is not about the validit' of 3CT No. /*1 but in thebreach of contract bet(een private respondents and the 9ivas spouses. PetitionerNA (as never a priv' to this transaction. Neither (as it sho(n that it had an'7no(led&e at the ti!e of the e;ecution of the !ort&a&e, of the e;istence of thesuspensive condition in the deed of absolute sale !uch less of its violation. Nothin&appeared to e;cite suspicion. The 6pecial Po(er of Attorne' (as re&ular on its faceJthe 3CT (as in the na!e of the !ort&a&or and the NA (as the hi&hest bidder inthe public auction. n=uestionabl', therefore, the NA is an innocent purchaser forvalue, %rst as an innocent !ort&a&ee under 6ection 0* of P.

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

34/374

Authorit' is the la(ful o(ner of the propert' in =uestion b' virtue of its indefeasibletitle.As to private respondents$ alternative pra'er that the declared o(ner be ordered toreconve' or transfer the o(nership of the propert' in their favor, it is clear thatthere is absolutel' no reason (h' petitioner, an innocent purchaser for value,should reconve' the land to the private respondents.

PREM#6E6 C3N6#>.3n or about 3ctober **, 4>/, Potenciano Rosillosa instituted said civil case No.>1* in the Court of "irst #nstance of ue8on a&ainst Ma;i!o Alpa' and Eu&eniaPere&rina to redee! the said propert' under the provisions of the Public :and Act.

The co!plaint (as a!ended on 3ctober *, 4>1. #n the !eanti!e the plaintias7ed for the dis!issal of the case a&ainst the defendant Ma;i!o Alpa' on the&round that the latter had ceased to have an' interest in the propert' sou&ht to beredee!ed.3n , 4>1, upon petition of the plainti Potenciano Rosillosa, (hoalle&ed that the defendant Eu&enia Pere&rina could not found and served (ithsu!!ons at her 7no(n address, the respondent Dud&e ordered that said defendantbe served (ith su!!ons b' publication in-he Manila &hronicle. Thereafter saiddefendant, havin& failed to appear (ithin the period %;ed in the su!!ons, (asdeclared in defaultJ and the court, after hearin& the evidence for the plainti,rendered a decision on April *, 4>4, orderin& the defendant Eu&enia Pere&rina toe;ecute a deed of resale of the land in =uestion in favor of the plainti Potenciano

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

35/374

Rosillosa upon pa'!ent to her of the su! P-, (hich the court found as thee=uivalent in Philippines currenc' of the ori&inal price of P, in ?apanese!ilitar' notes )(hich the ori&inal bu'er Ma;i!o Alpa' had paid to the said plainti+at the rate of P, Philippine currenc', for ever' P* of ?apanese %at !one'.#t turned out, ho(ever, that the defendant Eu&enia Pere&rina had died in the Cit' ofManila as earl' as April , 4>-, that is to sa', several 'ears before said civil case

No. >1* (as co!!enced. 3n 6epte!ber **, 4>4, the present petitioner An&:a!, (ho alle&ed under oath that on 6epte!ber *, 4>4, he (as appointed b' theCourt of %rst #nstance of Manila ad!inistrator of the estate of the deceased Eu&eniaPere&rina, %led a petition in said civil case No. >1*, pra'in& that the Dud&!enttheretofore rendered therein be set aside on the &round that the &round that thecourt had not ac=uired Durisdiction over the person of the deceased defendantEu&enia Pere&rina. That petition (as denied b' the respondent Dud&e on the&rounds )+ that plainti$s action (as b' its nature onein remJ )*+ that thepetitioner An& :a! is the survivin& husband of the defendant Eu&enia Pere&rina andhad the ad!inistration of the land in liti&ationJ and )0+ that the decision of the court(as handed do(n on April *, 4>4, (hereas the petition to set it aside (aspresented onl' on 6epte!ber *5, 4>4, that is to sa', after the lapse )sc.+ of the

periods !entioned in section 0 of Rule 01 of the Rules of Court.He are of the opinion and so hold that the Dud&!ent in =uestion is null and void of

Durisdiction over person of the defendant. At the ti!e the action (as co!!encedsaid defendant had lon& passed to another (orld. Kence the publication of thesu!!ons a&ainst her (as absolutel' vain and no validit' (hatsoever.

The atte!pt of the respondent Dud&e to hold the said su!!ons b' publicationbindin& upon the petitioner An& :a! on the theor' that the action (as one inremand that said petitioner is the survivin& husband of the defendant and is thead!inistrator of the propert' in =uestion, is, in our opinion, untenable. An action toredee!, or to recover title to or possession of, real propert' is not an actioninremor an action a&ainst the (hole (orld, li7e a land re&istration proceedin& or theprobate of a (illJ it is an actionin personam, so !uch so that a Dud&!ent therein isbindin& onl' upon the parties properl' i!pleaded and dul' heard or &iven anopportunit' to be heard. )SeePatriarca,s. 3rate, / Phil., 04, 0402040.+@Actionsin personamand actionsin remdier in that the for!er are directeda&ainst speci%c and see7 personal Dud&!ents, (hile the latter are directed a&ainstthe thin& or propert' or status of a person and see7 Dud&!ents (ith respect theretoas a&ainst the (hole (orld.@ ) C.?.6., >1.+An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action, but it is an actionin personam,for it binds a particular individual onl' althou&h it concerns the ri&ht to a tan&iblethin&. An action for resolution of a contract of sale of real propert' is an actionin

personam)6andeDas,s. Robles, >5 3, a8., 6upp. to No. F, *0+. if, on the otherhand, the obDect is to bar indierentl' all (ho !i&ht be !inded to !a7e anobDection of an' sort a&ainst the ri&ht sou&ht to be established, and if an' one inthe (orld has a ri&ht to be heard on an alle&ation of facts (hich, if true, sho(s aninconsistent interest, the proceedin& isin rem)re' Alba,s. Cru8, / Phil., >4, 5*+."or instance, an applicationin rem, for the Dud&!ent (hich !a' be rendered thereinis bindin& upon the (hole (orld )Re'es,s. Ra8on, 01 Phil., >1, >1*+. The probateof a (ill is a proceedin&in rem, because the order of probate is eective a&ainst allpersons (herever residin& ))n reEstate of ?ohnson, 04 Phil., -5+. )SeeMoran, Rulesof Court, *d Ed., 9ol. , p. 4.+

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

36/374

Hith re&ard to the other reason adduced b' the respondent Dud&e, that the petitionto set aside the Dud&!ent (as presented after the lapse of the si; !onths, periodprovided in Rule 01, (e thin7 said rule is not applicable. *That rule provides for relieffro! a Dud&!ent, order or other proceedin& ta7en a&ainst a part' to the case, (ho@b' fraud, accident, !ista7e, or e;cusable ne&li&ence, has been unDustl' deprived ofa hearin& therein, or has been prevented fro! ta7in& an appeal.@ The petitioner

herein (as not a part' to the ori&inal case, and he did not see7 relief fro! theDud&!ent upon an' of the &rounds !entioned in section of Rule 01, but sou&htthe annul!ent of said Dud&!ent for lac7 of Durisdiction over the person of thedefendant, (ho had lon& been deceased before the action (as co!!enced. A

Dud&!ent rendered b' a court (hich had not ac=uired Durisdiction either over thesubDect !atter or over the person of the defendant, is void. A void Dud&!ent !a' beassailed or i!pu&ned at an' ti!e either directl' or collaterall', b' !eans of apetition %led in the sa!e case or b' !eans of a separate action, or b' resistin& such

Dud&!ent in an' action or proceedin& (herein it is invo7ed.The order of the respondent Dud&e of Nove!ber 1, 4>4, is set aside and thedecision rendered in civil case No. >1* on April *, 4>4, is declared null and void,(ith costs a&ainst the respondent Potenciano Rosillosa.

TK#R<

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

37/374

A tract of land 0/ hectares in area, is lar&er than is cultivated b' the Christian"ilipinos. #n the Oa!boan&a cadastral case of thousands of parcels no( on trialbefore this court, the avera&e si8e of the parcels is not above 0 or > hectares, andthe court doubts ver' !uch if a Moro (ith all his fa!il' could cultivate as e;tensivea parcel of land as the one in =uestion.

The court therefore %nds that the applicant

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

38/374

)p. -4, 3ollo.+Thus, the lo(er court accepted the a!ended petition and heard it as one for re2issuance of the decrees.#n their @Consolidated Ans(er andGor 3pposition@ to the a!ended petition,respondents Republic of the Philippines and N6C raised the defenses that thepetition suered fro! Durisdictional in%r!itiesJ that petitioner (as not the real part'

in interestJ that petitioner (as &uilt' of lachesJ that

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

39/374

"ro! the fore&oin& environ!ental facts, the Court %nds that the e;istence of thedecrees have been established sucientl' and indubitabl' b' the evidencesub!itted b' the petitioner, and therefore, said a!ended petition has to be&ranted.HKERE"3RE, pre!ises considered, Dud&!ent is hereb' rendered as follo(s. The a!ended petition is hereb' &ranted and approved.

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

40/374

As to the second issue, (e can not do other(ise but hold that and 1454 (ere issued in :R3 Record No. 541 and :R3 Record No. 544, onMa' 4, 40 and ?ul' 1, 4-, respectivel', accordin& to the Record Boo7 of

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

41/374

(hich to base the area and technical description of the parcel of land in Case No.544.6econd. Hhile a person !a' not ac=uire title to re&istered propert' throu&hcontinuous adverse possession, in dero&ation of the title of the ori&inal re&isteredo(ner, the heir of the latter, ho(ever, !a' lose his ri&ht to recover bac7 thepossession of such propert' and the title thereto, b' reason of laches.

Accordin& to appellee, appellants failed to provea. an' conduct on their part that (ould have i!pelled appellee to act earlierJb. that the' (ere !isled b' appellee$s inaction into believin& that appellee (ouldnot assert the ri&ht on (hich he bases his suitJc. the nature of e;tent of inDur' or preDudice that (ould accrue to the! in the eventthat relief is accorded to the appellee or that the suit is not held barredJ andd. that their clai!s fall (ithin the !etes and bounds of the propert' covered b' thedecree.

The above need not be proven b' appellants. nder the Re&alian doctrine, all landsof (hatever classi%cation belon& to the state.

The rule applies even to privatel' o(ned unre&istered lands (hich, unless thecontrar' is sho(n, are presu!ed to be public lands, under the principle that all

@lands belon& to the Cro(n (hich have not been &ranted b' )the in&+, or in hisna!e, or b' the 7in&s (ho preceded hi!."inall', petitioner failed to establish his identit' and e;istence and that he is a realpart' interest. To =ualif' a person to be a real part' in interest in (hose na!e anaction !ust be prosecuted, he !ust appear to be the present real o(ner of the ri&htsou&ht to be enforced.)pp. -2-0, 3ollo.+Petitioner$s !otion for reconsideration havin& been denied, he %led the presentpetition because alle&edl', the Court of Appeals decided =uestions of substance in a(a' not in accord (ith the la( and applicable decisions of this Court"irst Respondent Court of Appeals erroneousl' e!bar7ed upon a reopenin& of and 1454 issued on Ma' 4, 40 and ?ul' 1, 4-, respectivel',(hen it re=uired proof of co!pliance (ith conditions for their issuance. Theseconditions are conclusivel' presu!ed to have been co!plied (ith before theori&inal decrees (ere issued and can no lon&er be in=uired into.6econd Respondent Court of Appeals contravened settled and standin& doctrinespronounced in 6ta. Ana ,. Menla, 6CRA *4/ and Keirs of Cristobal Marcos ,. deBanuvar, *- 6CRA 0-, (hen it applied laches as a bar to the reissuance of decrees.

Third Respondent Court of Appeals i&nored standin& decisions of this KonorableCourt (hen it applied laches despite the total absence of proof to establish there=uisite ele!ents for its application."ourth Respondent Court of Appeals erroneousl' applied the @Re&alian doctrine@ todispense (ith proof of the essential ele!ents of laches."ifth Respondent Court of Appeals abDured the Dudicial responsibilit' to uphold thestabilit' and inte&rit' of the Torrens s'ste!.6i;th Respondent Court of Appeals i&nored uncontroverted proof on the identit'and e;istence of petitioner and allo(ed itself to be s(a'ed b' (ild and &ratuitousallusions to the contrar'.)pp. *2**, 3ollo.+

The petition havin& been &iven due course and the parties havin& %led theirrespective !e!oranda, (e shall no( resolve the case.He vote to &rant the petition.

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

42/374

A land re&istration proceedin& is @in rem,@ and, therefore, the decree of re&istrationis bindin& upon and conclusive a&ainst all persons includin& the overn!ent and itsbranches, irrespective of (hether or not the' (ere personall' noti%ed of the %lin& ofthe application for re&istration or have appeared and %led an ans(er to saidapplication, because all persons are considered as noti%ed b' the publicationre=uired b' la(.

"urther!ore, a decree of re&istration that has beco!e %nal shall be dee!edconclusive not onl' on the =uestions actuall' contested and deter!ined but alsoupon all !atters that !i&ht be liti&ated or decided in the land re&istrationproceedin&s. Hith the certi%cation dul' issued b' the then :and Re&istrationCo!!ission, no( National :and Titles and

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

43/374

a&ainst the losin& part'. #n special proceedin&s the purpose is to establish a status,condition or factJ in land re&istration proceedin&s, the o(nership of a parcel of landis sou&ht to be established. After the o(nership has been proved and con%r!ed b'

Dudicial declaration, no further proceedin& to enforce said o(nership is necessar',e;cept (hen the adverse or losin& part' had been in possession of the land and the(innin& part' desires to oust hi! therefro!.

. . . There is nothin& in the la( that li!its the period (ithin (hich the court !a'order or issue a decree. The reason is . . . that the Dud&!ent is !erel' declarator' incharacter and does not need to be asserted or enforced a&ainst the adverse part'."urther!ore, the issuance of a decree is a !inisterial dut' both of the Dud&e and ofthe :and Re&istration Co!!ission ...)p. *4/2*41+

Thus, it (as held in Keirs of Cristobal Marcos ,. de Banuver )*- 6CRA 05 451F+that a %nal decision in land re&istration cases can neither be rendered inecaciousb' the statute of li!itations nor b' laches. This (as reiterated in 9da.

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

44/374

HONOR!"LE M!RI!NO M. UM!LI, n 4*7*4 * Pe+n Ju+e,Reon*5 T*5 Cou, Fou Ju+4*5 Reon, "*n4 23, Te4e M*e C,REME&IOS MICL!T, JU!N C. PULI&O, ROS!LIN! N!!L, *n+ e REGISTEROF &EE&S OF C!ITE,respondents.CRU#,J.:

The petitioner see7s reversion of a parcel of land on the &round that the ori&inalsale thereof fro! the &overn!ent (as tainted (ith fraud because based on afor&er' and therefore voida% initio. The present holders of the propert' clai!in& tobe innocent purchasers for value and not priv' to the alle&ed for&er', contend thatthe action cannot lie a&ainst the!.

The land in =uestion is situated in Tan8a, Cavite, and consists of /1,15- s=uare!eters.1#t (as ori&inall' purchased on install!ent fro! the &overn!ent on ?ul' ,4 b' "lorentina Bobadilla, (ho alle&edl' transferred her ri&hts thereto in favor ofMartina, To!asa, re&orio and ?ulio, all surna!ed Ceni8al, in 4**.2To!asa and

?ulio assi&ned their shares to Martina, Maria and re&orio.3#n 4/ these threeassi&nees purportedl' si&ned a Doint adavit (hich (as %led (ith the Bureau of:ands to support their clai! that the' (ere entitled to the issuance of a certi%cate

of title over the said land on (hich the' said the' had alread' !ade fullpa'!ent.$3n the basis of this adavit, the 6ecretar' of A&riculture and NaturalResources e;ecuted .%The' (ere na!ed as defendants and as7ed to return thepropert' to the 6tate on the aforestated &rounds of for&er' and fraud. The plainticlai!ed that re&orio Ceni8al havin& died on "ebruar' *-, 4>0, and Maria Ceni8alon ?anuar' 1, 4-4, the' could not have si&ned the Doint adavit dated Au&ust 4,4/, on (hich

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

45/374

in the Bureau of :ands (ho processed the papers of this case and !ade possiblethe fraudulent transfer of the land.But &iven such deception, (ould the sale itself be considered null and void fro! thestart, as the petitioner insists, so as to !a7e all titles derived therefro! alsoineectuala% initioHe a&ree (ith the contention that there is no alle&ation in the co!plaint13%led b'the petitioner that an' one of the defendants (as priv' to the for&ed Doint adavitor that the' had ac=uired the subDect land in bad faith. Their status as innocenttransferees for value (as never =uestioned in that pleadin&. Not havin& beendisproved, that status no( accords to the! the protection of the Torrens 6'ste!and renders the titles obtained b' the! thereunder indefeasible and conclusive.

The rule (ill not chan&e despite the Sa( in TCT No. -->>.6ection 04 of the :and Re&istration Act clearl' provided6ec. 04. Ever' person receivin& a certi%cate of title in pursuance of a decree ofre&istration, and ever' subse=uent purchaser of re&istered land (ho ta7es acerti%cate of title for value in &ood faith shall hold the sa!e free of all encu!brancee;cept those noted on said certi%cate.

The rulin&s on this provision are indeed as nu!erous as the' are consistent

Thus, under 6ection >> of P.

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

46/374

the ori&inal sale thereof to Bobadilla in 4. The presu!ption is that the' areinnocent transferees for value in the absence of evidence to the contrar'. Thepetitioner contends that it (as Pedro Miclat (ho caused the falsi%cation of the Dointadavit, but that is a bare and hardl' persuasive alle&ation, and indeed, even iftrue, (ould still not prove an' collusion bet(een hi! and the private respondents.

The !ere fact that Re!edios Miclat (as the dau&hter and heiress of Miclat, (ithout

!ore, (ould not necessaril' visit upon her the alle&ed sins of her father.The 6olicitor eneral also ar&ues that Re!edios is an e;tension of the Duridicalpersonalit' of her father and so cannot clai! to be an innocent purchaser for valuebecause she is char&ed (ith 7no(led&e of her father$s deceit. 6uch conclusion hasno basis in fact or la(. Moreover, there is evidence that Re!edios did not !erel'inherit the land but actuall' purchased it for valuable consideration and (ithout7no(led&e of its ori&inal defect. The a&ree!ent to subdivide, 18(hich shepresented to sho( that she had ac=uired the land for valuable confederation, is!ore acceptable than the conDectures of the petitioner. #t is also consonant (ith thepresu!ption of &ood faith.

The land bein& no( re&istered under the Torrens s'ste! in the na!es of the privaterespondents, the &overn!ent has no !ore control or Durisdiction over it. #t is no

lon&er part of the public do!ain or, as the 6olicitor eneral contends I as if it!ade an' dierence I of the "riar :ands. The subDect propert' ceased to be publicland (hen 3CT No. 1 (as issued to "lorentina Bobadilla in 4 or at the latestfro! the date it (as sold to the Ceni8als in 4/ upon full pa'!ent of the purchaseprice. As private re&istered land, it is &overned b' the provisions of the :andRe&istration Act, no( deno!inated the Propert' Re&istration

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

47/374

A certi%cate of title fraudulentl' secured is not null and void a% initio$unless thefraud consisted in !isrepresentin& that the land is part of the public do!ain,althou&h it is not. #n such case the nullit' arises, not fro! the fraud or deceit, butfro! the fact that the land is not under the Durisdiction of the Bureau of :ands.#nas!uch as the land involved in the present case does not belon& to suchcate&or', 3CT No. *1*2A (ould be !erel' voidable or revie(able )9da. de Cua'con&

vs. 9da. de 6en&ben&co, Phil. 0+ )+ upon proof of actual fraudJ )*+ althou&hvalid and eective, until annulled or revie(ed in a direct proceedin& therefor):e&arda vs. 6aleeb', 0 Phil. -4+, not collaterall' )6oron&on vs. Ma7alintal, 1 Phil.*-4, *5*J J Kenderson vs. arrido, 4Phil. 5*>,50J 6a!onte vs. 6a!bilon, / Phil. 41,*+J )0+ (ithin the statutor'period therefor )6ec. 01, Act >45J 9elasco vs. ochuico 00 Phil. 050J

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

48/374

of titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid do(n b' the la( are satis%ed. Asin this case.He %nd that the private respondents are transferees in &ood faith and for value ofthe subDect propert' and that the ori&inal ac=uisition thereof, althou&h fraudulent,did not aect their o(n titles. These are valid a&ainst the (hole (orld, includin& the&overn!ent.

ACC3R

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

49/374

#n dis!issin& the petition, the trial court reasoned/F

@; ; ;. Ko(ever, the Court noted that applicants failed to co!pl' (ith the provisionsof 6ection *0 )+ of P< -*4, re=uirin& the Applicants to publish the notice of #nitialKearin& )E;h. VE$+ in a ne(spaper of &eneral circulation in the Philippines. E;hibit VE$(as onl' published in the 3cial a8ette )E;hibits V"$ and V$+. Conse=uentl', theCourt is of the (ell considered vie( that it has not le&all' ac=uired Durisdiction over

the instant application for (ant of co!pliance (ith the !andator' provisionre=uirin& publication of the notice of initial hearin& in a ne(spaper of &eneralcirculation.@

The trial court also cited Ministr' of ?ustice 3pinion No. >1, 6eries of 41*, (hich inits pertinent portion provides1F

#t bears e!phasis that the publication re=uire!ent under 6ection *0 of P< -*4Fhas a t(o2fold purposeJ the %rst, (hich is !entioned in the provision of theafore=uoted provision refers to publication in the 3cial a8ette, and is

DurisdictionalJ (hile the second, (hich is !entioned in the openin& clause of thesa!e para&raph, refers to publication not onl' in the 3cial a8ette but also in ane(spaper of &eneral circulation, and is procedural. Neither one nor the other isdispensable. As to the %rst, publication in the 3cial a8ette is indispensabl'

necessar' because (ithout it, the court (ould be po(erless to assu!e Durisdictionover a particular land re&istration case. As to the second, publication of the noticeof initial hearin& also in a ne(spaper of &eneral circulation is indispensabl'necessar' as a re=uire!ent of procedural due processJ other(ise, an' decision thatthe court !a' pro!ul&ate in the case (ould be le&all' in%r!.nsatis%ed, private respondents appealed to Respondent Court of Appeals (hich, asearlier e;plained, set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered there&istration of the title in the na!e of Teodoro Abistado.

The subse=uent !otion for reconsideration (as denied in the challen&ed CAResolution dated Nove!ber 4, 44.

The - because he isappealin& a %nal disposition of the Court of Appeals. Kence, (e shall treat hispetition as one for revie( under Rule >-, and not for certiorari under Rule 5-. 4F

Te IuePetitioner alle&es that Respondent Court of Appeals co!!itted &rave abuse ofdiscretionFin holdin&; ; ; that publication of the petition for re&istration of title in :RC Case No. 15 neednot be published in a ne(spaper of &eneral circulation, and in not dis!issin& :RCCase No. 15 for (ant of such publication.Petitioner points out that under 6ection *0 of P< -*4, the notice of initial hearin&shall be published %othin the 3cial a8ette andin a ne(spaper of &eneralcirculation. Accordin& to petitioner, publication in the 3cial a8ette is necessar' toconfer Durisdiction upon the trial court, and ;;; in ;;; a ne(spaper of &eneralcirculation to co!pl' (ith the notice re=uire!ent of due process.F

Private respondents, on the other hand, contend that failure to co!pl' (ith there=uire!ent of publication in a ne(spaper of &eneral circulation is a !ereprocedural defect. The' add that publication in the 3cial a8ette is sucient toconfer Durisdiction.*F

#n reversin& the decision of the trial court, Respondent Court of Appeals ruled 0F

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm#_edn13

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

50/374

; ; ; althou&h the re=uire!ent of publication in the 3cial a8ette and in ane(spaper of &eneral circulation is couched in !andator' ter!s, it cannot be&ainsaid that the la( also !andates (ith e=ual force that publication in the 3ciala8ette shall be sucient to confer Durisdiction upon the court."urther, Respondent Court found that the oppositors (ere aorded the opportunit'to e;plain !atters full' and present their side. Thus, it Dusti%ed its disposition in this

(ise>F; ; ; He do not see ho( the lac7 of co!pliance (ith the re=uired procedurepreDudiced the! in an' (a'. Moreover, the other re=uire!ents of publication in the3cial a8ette, personal notice b' !ailin&, and postin& at the site and otherconspicuous places, (ere co!plied (ith and these are sucient to notif' an' part'(ho is !inded to !a7e an' obDection of the application for re&istration.Te Cou Ru5nHe %nd for petitioner.Newspaper Publication Mandatory

The pertinent part of 6ection *0 of Presidential

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

51/374

Court throu&h Mr. ?ustice Kilario .

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

52/374

(HEREFORE, the petition is G3+?-8"and the assailed and 5, 14>, that durin&the cadastral surve' b' the Bureau of :ands of the lands in Barrio 6an ?ose in 4006i;to Benin and herein plaintis clai! the o(nership over said parcels of landJ thatthe' declared said lands for ta;ation purposes in 4> under Ta; *4J that after the outbrea7 of the last Horld Har, or so!eti!e in 4>* and

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

53/374

subse=uentl' thereafter, evacuees fro! Manila and other places, after havin&secured the per!ission of the plaintis, constructed their houses thereon and paid!onthl' rentals to plaintis.#n Civil Case No. 05** the plaintis alle&ed that the' (ere the o(ners andpossessors of t(o parcels of a&ricultural land, described in para&raph 9 of theco!plaint, located in the Barrio of :a :o!a )no( Barrio 6an ?ose+ in the !unicipalit'

of Caloocan, province of Ri8al, havin& an a&&re&ate area of appro;i!atel' >1,1s=uare !etersJ that these parcels of land (ere inherited b' the! fro! theirdeceased father Bonoso Alcantara, (ho in turn inherited the sa!e fro! his father,

?uan AlcantaraJ that plaintis ?uan Alcantara and ?ose Alcantara (ere the children ofBonoso AlcantaraJ that these t(o brothers inherited the land fro! their father, andthe' and their predecessors in interest had been in open, adverse and continuouspossession of the sa!e, plantin& therein pala' and other a&ricultural products ande;clusivel' enDo'in& said productsJ that on March *1, 14> plaintis$ &randfather,

?uan Alcantara, had said lands surve'edJ that durin& the cadastral surve' b' theBureau of :ands of the lands in Barrio 6an ?ose in 400 Bonoso Alcantara and theplaintis %led and re&istered their clai!s of o(nership over said landsJ thatplaintis had said lands declared for ta;ation purposes under Ta; 1s=uare !etersJ that this parcel of land (as inherited b' plaintis fro! their ancestorCandido Pili (ho in turn inherited the sa!e fro! his parentsJ that Candido Pili andhis predecessors in interest o(ned, possessed, occupied and cultivated the saidparcel of land fro! ti!e i!!e!orialJ that upon the death of Candido Pili hischildren :uisa Pili, Pascual Pili, * and subse=uentl' thereafter, evacueesfro! Manila and other places, after securin& per!ission fro! plaintis, settled andconstructed their houses in said land and plaintis collected !onthl' rentals fro!their lessees or tenants.

The plaintis in these three civil cases unifor!l' alle&ed, in their respectiveco!plaint, that so!eti!e in the 'ear 4- (hile the' (ere enDo'in& the peacefulpossession of their lands, the defendants, particularl' the defendant ?.M. Tuason andCo. #nc., throu&h their a&ents and representatives, (ith the aid of ar!ed !en, b'force and inti!idation, usin& bulldo8ers and other de!olishin& e=uip!ent, ille&all'entered and started defacin&, de!olishin& and destro'in& the d(ellin&s andconstructions of plaintis$ lessees, as (ell as the i!prove!ents consistin& of rice

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

54/374

paddies )pilapiles+, ba!boos and fruit trees, and per!anent i!prove!ents such asold roads, old brid&es and other per!anent land!ar7s (ithin and outside the landsin =uestion, disre&ardin& the obDections of plaintis, and as a result plaintis (eredeprived of the rentals received fro! their lesseesJ that plaintis !ade in=uiriesre&ardin& the probable clai! of defendants, and in 4-0 the' discovered for the%rst ti!e that their lands, as described in their respective co!plaint, had either

been fraudulentl' or erroneousl' included, b' direct or constructive fraud, in (hatappears as Parcel No. )7no(n as 6anta Mesa Estate+ in 3ri&inal Certi%cate of TitleNo. /0- of the :and Records of the province of Ri8al in the na!es of the ori&inalapplicants for re&istration, no( defendants, Mariano 6evero Tuason ' de la Pa8,

Teresa Eriberta Tuason ' de la Pa8, ?uan ?ose Tuason ' de la Pa8,

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

55/374

Certi%cate of Title No. /0- the defendants had tacitl' reco&ni8ed the o(nership ofthe plaintis over their respective lands because said defendants had neverdisturbed the possession and cultivation of the lands b' the plaintis until the 'ear4-J and that all transfer certi%cates of title issued subse=uentl', based on3ri&inal Certi%cate of Title No. /0-, are also null and void. 3

The plaintis in each of the three cases pra'ed the court )+ to declare the!

o(ners and entitled to the possession of the parcel, or parcels, of land described intheir respective co!plaint, as the case !a' beJ )*+ to revo7e the decision of theCourt of :and Re&istration, dated March /, 4> in :RC No. /51, and to declare0, dated ?ul' 5, 4> null and void fro! the be&innin& (ith respectto Parcel No. )6anta Mesa Estate+ in 3ri&inal Certi%cate of Title No. /0- (hichinclude the lands of the plaintisJ )0+ to declare 3ri&inal Certi%cate of Title No. /0-,particularl' as it refers to Parcel No. )6anta Mesa Estate+ also null and voidJ )>+ todeclare null and void all transfer certi%cates of titles issued b' the Re&ister of ,.pursuant to the order of the court of 6epte!ber *5, 4--.3n Au&ust , 4-- defendant ?.M. Tuason Co., #nc. %led in the three cases a!otion for reconsideration of the order of ?ul' *, 4-- den'in& the !otion todis!iss. This !otion for reconsideration (as denied b' order of the court of6epte!ber *5, 4--.3n Nove!ber *4, 4-- defendant ?.M. Tuason Co., #nc. %led an ans(er in each ofthe three cases. #n its ans(er, this defendant, a!on& others, speci%call' deniedplaintis$ clai! of o(nership of the lands involved in each case. The ans(ercontains special and ar!ative defenses, to (it )+ that the plaintis$ cause ofaction is barred b' prior Dud&!ent andres 6udicatain vie( of the Dud&!ent of theCourt of "irst #nstance of Ri8al in its Civil Case No. 2-5 (hich (as subse=uentl'elevated to the 6upre!e Court as .R. No. :2>441, in (hich latter case the 6upre!eCourt ar!edin totothe order of the lo(er court dis!issin& the caseJ )*+ that the

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

56/374

co!plaints failed to state facts sucient to constitute a cause of action a&ainst thedefendantsJ )0+ that the plaintis$ action, assu!in& that their co!plaints statesucient cause of action, had prescribed either under Act No. >45 or under statutes&overnin& prescription of actionJ )>+ that defendant ?.M. Tuason Co., #nc. is a bu'erin &ood faith and for valuable consideration of the parcels of land involved in thethree casesJ )-+ that the re&istration proceedin&s had in :RC No. /51 instituted b'

the defendant$s predecessors in interest (as in accordance (ith la(, and there=uire!ents for a valid re&istration of title (ere co!plied (ith. B' (a' ofcounterclai! the defendant pra'ed that the plaintis be ordered to pa' da!a&es astherein speci%ed.

The plaintis, a!ended their co!plaints in the three cases, b' includin& additionalparties as plaintis, and the a!ended co!plaints (ere ad!itted b' the trial court.

The defendant, ?.M. Tuason Co., #nc., %led a !anifestation that it (as reproducin&and realle&in& its ans(ers to the ori&inal co!plaints as its ans(ers to the a!endedco!plaints in vie( of the fact that the a!end!ents to the co!plaints consist!erel' in the inclusion of additional indispensable as (ell as necessar' parties2plaintis.$

3n ?une /, 45*, after the plaintis had presented their evidence, defendant ?.M.

Tuason Co., #nc. presented a !otion to dis!iss the cases upon &rounds that )+the actions (ere barred b' the statute of li!itationsJ )*+ that the actions barred b' aprior Dud&!entJ and )0+ that plaintis had not presented an' evidence to prove theirclai! of o(nership. The defendant later %led a !otion to (ithdra( the third &roundof its !otion to dis!iss. The plaintis %led their opposition to the !otion to dis!iss,as (ell as to the !otion of defendant to (ithdra( its third &round to dis!iss. Thetrial court, in an order dated

7/26/2019 Cases 1 LTD

57/374

I 3rderin& the 41/)E;h. @ and E;h. @99@+JK I 3rderin& the defendants to pa' plaintis in Civil Case No. 05* the su! ofP5. a !onth as actual da!a&es for uncollected rentals fro! 4- until such

possession is restored to the!J# I 3rderin& the defendants to pa' the plaintis in Civil Case No. 05*0 the su! ofP5. a !onth, as actual da!a&es for uncollected rentals fro! 4- until suchpossession is restored to the!J.

? I 3rderin& the defendants to pa' the plaintis in Civil Case No. 05*0 the su! ofP-. a !onth as actual da!a&es for uncollected rentals fro! 4- until suchpossession is restored to the!J . I 3rderin& the defendants to pa' the costsJ .: I The defendants$ counterclai! is hereb' declared dis!issed for lac7 of !erit.@ 6

A !otion for ne( trial (as %led b' defendant ?.M. Tuason Co., #nc. on ?anuar' 0,45-. Ko(ever, before the !otion for ne( trial (as resolved b' the court, saiddefendant, on "ebruar' , 45-, %led a notice of appeal to this Court and an

appeal bond, and on "ebruar' *, 45- he %led the record on appeal.%The recordon appeal, after it had been corrected and a!ended, as ordered andGor authori8edb' the trial court, (as approved on 6epte!ber *4, 45-. 8

Appellant ?.M. Tuason Co. #nc., in this appeal, contends that the trial courtco!!itted the follo(in& errors#. The lo(er court erred in holdin& that the :and Re&istration Court in :R3 No./51 lac7ed or (as (ithout Durisdiction to issue decree No. />0 for the alle&edreason that)+ The a!end!ent to the ori&inal plan (as not publishedJ)*+ The description of Parcel in the decree is not identical (ith the description ofParcel as applied for and as published in the 3cial a8etteJ)0+ Parcel as decreed is bi&&er in area than Parcel as applied forJ)>+ A. Bonifacio Road is the onl' boundar' on the Hest of Parcel .##. The trial court erred in %ndin& that the transcription of the decree No. />0 (asnot in accordance (ith the la( and that, therefore, said 3CT /0- (as a co!pletenullit' and the land re!ains unre&istered.###. The trial court erred in ta7in& co&ni8ance of these cases despite its lac7 of

Durisdiction to hear and decide the sa!e.#9. The trial court erred in not dis!issin& these cases on the &rounds of prescriptionand laches, and in den'in& the !otions to dis!iss %led on said &rounds.9. The trial court erred in not dis!issin& these cases on the &round ofres

6udicataand in den'in& the !otion to dis!iss %led on said &round.9#. The trial court erred in declarin& null and void all certi%cates of title e!anatin&fro! 3CT /0-.9##. The trial court erred in holdin& that ?.M. Tuason Co., #nc. is not a purchaser in&ood faith and for value.9###. The trial court erred in a(ardin& o(nership of the lands clai!ed b', and ina(ardin& da!a&es to, the appellees.#U. The trial court erred in den'in& and in dis!issin& appellant$s counterclai! and insentencin& appellant to pa' the costs of these