Florencia Diaz vs.

Republic

Facts:
 This is a letter-motion
letter-motion praying
praying for reconsideration
reconsideration for the third
third time of the resolution of the Supreme
Supreme Court
denying the petition for review led by petitioner Florencia Diaz

 The petitioner led an application for registration

registration of a vast tract of land in !ueva "ci#a She alleged that
she possessed the land as owner
owner and wor$ed%
wor$ed% developed and harvested
harvested the agricultural
agricultural products and
benets of the same continuously% publicly and adversely for more than &' years

(S) opposed the applicat

application
ion because the land in *uestion
*uestion was within
within the Fort
Fort +agsaysa
+agsaysay
y +ilitar
+ilitary
y
,eservation Thus% it was inalienable as it formed part of the public domain

rior
rior to this case% the Supreme
Supreme Court already
already ruled in the case of Director of Lands vs. Reyes 
Reyes   that the
property was inalienable as it formed part of a military reservation and the e.istence of a ossessory
/nformation Title !o &0' 1registered in the name of a certain +elecio adilla2 which the respondent in the
sited case anchored its claim on the land% was not proven

CF/ ruled in favor of the petitioner 3pon appeal% the C4 ruled in favor of the ,epublic

Subse*uently% C4 encouraged the parties to reach an amicable settlement on the matter The parties
entered into one 5owever% (S) bac$ed out from the settlement and informed the C4 that the trac$ of land
sub#ect of the amicable settlement was still within the military reservation

C4 ruled in favor of the ,epublic

etitioner moved for reconsideration and assailed the decision of 6ustice +endoza saying that +endoza
should have inhibited himself when the case reached C4 since he was also the assistance Sol)en during
the initial stages of the land registration proceedings
proceedings etitioner then led for a review on certiorari which
the SC denied The +, was also denied The petitioner then wants the case referred to the SC en banc
which was li$ewise denied SC then issued a directive that no further pleadings would be entertained

etitio
etitioner
ner then wrote letters addressed
addressed to 6ustice
6ustice 7uisumbi
7uisumbing
ng and 6ustice uno allegin
alleging
g there
there was a
miscarriage of #ustice and that the petitioner was tempted to go to media regarding the situation

/ssue:
8(! the land in dispute can be registered to the petitioner

,uling:
0 The ruling in the case of Director of Lands vs. Reyes is
Reyes  is applicable in this case and thus constitutes res
 #udicata The Supreme Court ruled that in registration
registration cases led under the provisions
provisions of the ublic 9and
4ct for the #udicial conrmation of an incomplete and imperfect title% an order dismissing an application for
registration and declaring the land as part of the public domain constitutes res judicata%
judicata % not only against
the adverse claimant but also against all persons

& efore the military reservation was established% the evidence is inconclusive as to possession% for is is
shown by the evidence that the land involved is largely mountainous and forested 4s a matter of fact% at
the time of the hearing% it was conceded that appro.imately 0;%<=> hectares hectares of said land consist of public
forest /t is well-settled that forest land is incapable of registration? and its inclusion in a title% whether such
title be one issued using the Spanish sovereignty or under the present Torrens system of registration%
nullies
nullies the title 5owever% it is true that forest lands may be registered
registered when they have been reclassied
reclassied
as alienable by the resident in a clear and categorical manner 1upon the recommendation of the proper
departme
department nt head who has the authorit
authorityy to classify
classify the lands
lands of the public
public domain into alienab
alienable
le or
disposable% timber and mineral lands2 coupled with possession by the claimant as well as that of her
predecessors-in-
predecessors-in-interes
interest
t 3nfortunately for the petitioner% she was not able to produce
produce such evidence 5er
occupation thereof could not have ripened into ownership of the sub#ect land

; The compromise agreement is null and void The land in *uestion could not have been a valid sub#ect
matter of a contract because% being forest land% it was inalienable