DIRECTOR OF LAND MANAGEMENT, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF the Spouses Lina amended their opposition that they had
APPEALS (SEVENTH DIVISION) and POMPEYO MALIWAT and
AMELIA G. MALIWAT -
Facts:
The Land Investigator/Inspector of the Bureau of Lands
verified that Feliciano Juco and his predecessors-in-interest had
been in open, exclusive, adverse, peaceful, and continuous
possession of the land in question for the past 20 years. Feliciano
erected a house on Lot 3 and lived there, while his brother-in-law
Gelacio de la Cruz owned and lived on the adjacent Lot 4.
March 1957, Nieves Naval de Roldan caused the whole tract
of land in Cumbay, Tanay, Rizal to be resurveyed. Her children
Desiderio Roldan and Mariano Roldan both filed an application to
purchase Lots 3 and 4 respectively. Feliciano was informed of such
posting but did not have the means to participate in the bidding,
thus the titles were issued in the name of Roldans. In 1963,
Feliciano was able to obtain financial assistance from the Spouses
Lina to protest against Marianos acquisition of Lot 3. Feliciano
executed a Conditiona Sale and Transfer of Right to Land. The
Lina spouses fenced Lots 3 and 4 and subsequently planted trees.
Feliciano executed a Bilihang Tuluyan in favour of the Spouses
Lina. Feliciano lost his protest in the Bureau of Lands but was
adjudged to have preferential right to buy the property within
60 days, upon appeal with the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. Unfortunately he died shortly after he filed his own
application to purchase Lot 3.
Pacita Ressurection, Felicianos widow and their children
offered to sell the land to one Pompeyo Maliwat. He purchased the
land from Felicianos widow and placed men in the land to take care
of it. Claiming to be owners of the land, Maliwat filed an
application with the RTC (1977) to register the land in his
name under the Torrens System. This was opposed by the
Director of Lands on the ground that the land is public land,
and by the Minister of Agrarian Reform on the ground that
it is reserved agricultural land.
Two other oppositions to the filing of Maliwat:
1. In 1972, the Spouses Lina opposed the application for the
registration of the title on the ground the the land is covered
by a homestead application filed by Lina in 1970. In 1973
Habawel
bought the land from Feliciano, thus the title must be
registered in their names.
2. Cesar Roldan, claiming to be the actual occupant of the
land said that the possession was passed on to him by
Feliciano who died wile awaiting the ction of the Dir. Of
Lands on Felicianos application for a free patent, and that
Roldan filed the same in substitution of Fleliciano.
The Trial Court ordered the issuance of the Title to the Spouses
Maliwat. Director of Lands Appealed this decision to the CA which
affirmed the TC decision. MR denied.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the land in question is Public land or Private Land?
Private.
RULING:
1. The CA correctly held that Lot 3 had become private land
because of Feliciano Jucos open, continuous, and
exclusive occupation and cultivation since 1939, which
when tacked to Maliwats possession after Feb 1972,
exceeds the 30 year period for conversion of public land into
private property. It is converted by mere lapse or completion
of the said period, ipso jure or by operation of law.
The above doctrine is an affirmation of the principle
In Carino vs Inuslar Government, that open, exclusive and
undisputed possession of alienable public land for the period
prescribed by law creates the legal fiction whereby the land,
upon completion of required period ipso jure and without the
need for judicial or other sanction, ceases to be public land
and becomes private property.
Jucos admission in his free patent application that
the land was public land did not divest the title which had
already vested in him, even before the application in 1971.
The CA was correct in saying that the land, having become
private property by virtue of his open, exclusive and
continuous use, was beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau
of lands.
 The order giving Juco 60 days to file the
corresponding land application was null and void and WHEREFORE, the petition for review is denied for lack of merit. The
without any legal effect. decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 12601 is affirmed
in toto.

Habawel