Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
________________
* THIRD DIVISION.
215
216
_______________
217
"x x x with the exception of the three (3) houses erected therein
owned and possessed by her predecessorsininterest, who are
claimed (sic) to be tenants of the property, namely: Macario Cruz,
Juan Reyes and Mariano Castillo. x x x subject, however, to the
payment of real property taxes in arrears since 1971 as well as to
the provisions of Presidential Decree Nos. 65 and 296, with
respect to those portions of the perimeter bounded by the river,
barrio and provincial roads, respectively."
"x x x That the subject parcel of land was declared for taxation
purposes in the name of Angelina Sarmiento as early as 1965,
under Tax Declaration No. 8388 (Exhibit J), with an assessed
value of
_____________
6 Rollo, 1112.
7 Id., 86.
8 Exhibit "X".
9 Rollo, op cit, 91.
218
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
P10,350.00. That the real property taxes from 1965 to 1970 were
paid in full (Exhibit K). That a small portion of the subject parcel
of land consisting of 94,000 sq. m. is devoted to agriculture while
the rest is cogonland. That the subject parcel of land was acquired
by applicant Angelina Sarmiento from:
219
"The lower court gravely erred in holding that the applicant and
her predecessorsininterest have been in open, continuous, and
adverse possession in the concept of owner of the land applied 11
for
for more than 30 years prior to the filing of the application."
10 Rollo, 8790.
11 Brief for OppositorAppellant, Id., 45, et seq.
220
"We find no merit in the appeal. While it may be true that the
vendors of the portion of the land in question to the herein
applicant did not show tax declaration, it has been clearly
established that Macario Cruz and spouses Juan Reyes and
Avelina Sarmiento (sic) and also spouses Mariano Castillo and
Petronila Robes were in possession of the land in 1928 and 1948,
respectively in concept of owners, without anybody molesting
them. They introduced improvements by planting different kinds
of trees and constructing houses thereon. When a person occupied
(sic) a parcel of land under a claim of ownership making
improvements and generally held (sic) himself out as owner of the
land, it is only upon the most convincing testimony, in the
absence of any competent documentary evidence, that the courts
would be justified in declaring him to be the real owner thereof. A
person in the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of a certain lands (sic) for more than thirty years,
in the concept of owner, is entitled to a confirmation of his title to
said land. (Molina vs. De Bacud, L20195, April 27, 1967, 19
SCRA 956).
Accordingly, herein applicant continued the possession in
concept of owner from her predecessorsininterest.
Moreover, the land in question was surveyed as Lot 1005 for
the herein applicant for the cadastral survey of San Jose del
Monte, without anybody else claiming ownership of said land. It
further appears that the land in question is within the alienable
and disposable land as certified to by the officials of the Bureau of
Forest Development. It is for this reason that the oppositor
Director of Lands did not introduce any evidence opposition (sic)
and merely submitted the case for decision.
We reiterate what we have said in previous decisions in similar
cases that unless the government has serious grounds of
opposition such as the fact that the land applied for is within a
forest zone or government reservation, registration of agricultural
lands within the alienable or disposable area should be
encouraged to give more value to the land and this12
promotes their
development rather than remain as idle lands."
Undaunted by this second defeat, the Director filed on 5
December 1984 this petition asserting that the respondent
Court has decided a question of substance in a way not in 13
accord with law and the applicable decisions of this Court.
_______________
12 Rollo, 35.
13 Rollo, 9, et seq.
221
xxx
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately
preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except
when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively
presumed to
_______________
14 Chan vs. Court of Appeals, 33 SCRA 737 [1970], citing several cases.
15 Samson vs. Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 194 [1986] Republic vs. IAC, 144
SCRA 705 [1986] Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 640
[1988] Lim vs. Court of Appeals, 158 SCRA 307 [1988].
16 Commonwealth Act No. 141.
17 Approved on 22 June 1957 and took effect upon its approval.
222
chapter."
_______________
18 Per Section 4 of P.D. No. 1073, promulgated on 25 January 1977, this
paragraph was amended to make it applicable only to alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain which have been in the open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the
applicant himself or thru his predecessorsininterest, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition of ownership, since 12 June 1945.
19 126 SCRA 69 [1983].
223
"x x x Counsel for the applicant invokes the doctrine laid down by
us in Ramos vs. Director of Lands (39 Phil. 175, 180). (See also
Roales vs. Director of Lands, 51 Phil. 302, 304). But it should be
observed that the application of the doctrine of constructive
possession in that case is subject to certain qualifications, and
this court was careful to observe that among these qualifications
is 'one particularly relating to the size of the tract in controversy
with reference to the portion actually in possession of the
claimant.' While, therefore, 'possession in the eyes of the law does
not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of
ground before it can be said that he is in possession', possession
under paragraph 6 of section 54 of Act No. 926, as amended by
paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874, is not gained by mere
nominal claim. The mere planting of a sign or symbol of
possession cannot justify a Magellanlike claim of dominion over
an immense tract of territory, Possession as a means of acquiring
ownership, while it may be constructive, is not a mere 21
fiction. x x
x" Earlier, in Ramirez vs. The Director of Lands, this Court
noted:
_______________
224
225
31
meters. No deed of sale was presented to prove this
acquisition. There is no proof as to the area of the property
allegedly purchased from Santos.
None of private respondent's predecessorsininterest
declared for taxation purposes their alleged landholdings.
Accordingly, they had never paid taxes thereon. It was only
the private respondent who declared them in one (1) tax
declaration,
32
Tax Declaration No. 8388, on 18 September
1969. Per this tax declaration, the land covered is located
at Gayagaya, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, with an area of
37.6 hectares, of which 9.4 hectares are ricelands while the
remaining 28.2 hectares are cogonal.
Juan Reyes, Mariano Castillo, Macario Cruz and
Feliciano Santos were not presented by private respondent
as witnesses during the hearing of her application. There
can be no question that they were the best witnesses to
identify the parcels they sold to the private respondent and
prove the character of their possession thereof. Instead, she
presented Victor Jarvina and Enrique Buco, whose
testimonies on direct and cross examinations are partly
summarized by the petitioner as follows:
______________
31 Id., 88.
32 Exhibit "J" Id., 15.
226
227
_______________
33 Rollo, 1821.
34 Exhibit "Y2" Id., 17.
35 Director of Lands vs. Reyes, 68 SCRA 177,194 [1975].
228
_______________
36 Rollo, 89.
229
teen (17) years since they sold the same to the private
respondent in 1965. Tacking this possession to that of the
latter as of the time the application was filed on 13 August
1970, it is obvious that the 30year possession required by
paragraph (b), Section 48 of the Public Land Act was not
satisfied.
Further, if indeed private respondent has a genuine
claim of possession over the property in question, We find
no reason why, as reflected37 in the Land Classification
Report dated 8 August 1971, or barely a year after the
filing of the application, only onehalf (1/2) hectare of the
vast area applied for was in fact planted with nothing but
banana and fruit trees while thirtysix (36) hectares thereof
are "grass land". These fruit trees are not identified. If the
testimony of private respondent is.to be believed, these
could be kamias, santol and mangoes which, according to
her, were existing at the time she bought the property.
Also, if the testimony of Enrique Buco is to be believed,
these fruit trees could be mango trees allegedly planted by
Mariano Castillo and his parents or, mango, kaimito,
avocado and langka trees planted by Juan Reyes and his
parents. This Court can not accept these testimonies at
face value. The respondent Court and the trial court should
not have been credulous enough to have given them full
faith and credit. In her own Tax Declaration No, 8388
dated 18 September 1966 and which she secured sometime
after she allegedly purchased the property and almost a
year before she filed the application, private respondent
merely declared that the property is comprised of riceland
with an area of 9.4 hectares and cogonal land with an area
of 28,2 hectares. The existence of this 9.4hectare riceland
is even doubtful. Private respondent herself admitted38 that
the land is not conducive to the planting of palay, the
portions cultivated by her vendors Castillo, Reyes and Cruz
were scattered in different places and the area 39
each
cultivated could not be more than one (1) hectare. Upon
the other hand, as earlier mentioned, Enrique Buco only
mentioned two (2)
_______________
230
________________
40 Exhibit "K".
41 Exhibit "J".
231
o0o
232
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.