Spouses Ignacio Palomo and Trinidaad Pascual vs Court of no weight as they are not signed by the judge presiding

ge presiding it but
Appeals et.al merely by the Clerk.

Facts: Attention was given on the fact that the lands in questions are
inalienable land of public domain. The Court held that the
On June 1913, the Governor General issued EO No. 40 which contention of adverse possession cannot be sustained because it
reserved for provincial parks purposes some 440, 530 sq.m of applies only lands alienable lands of public domain which is not
lands situated in Barrio Naga, Ti wi, Albay. the case here as the lands were never withdrawn as forest land.
SC pronounced that elementary is the rule that forest land
However, the CFI of Albay ordered on 1916 the registration of
cannot be owned by private persons. It is not registrable and
15 parcels of land to Diego Palomo who donated the parcels of
possession thereof, no matter how lengthy cannot convert it into
land measuring 74, 872 sq.m to his heirs, petitioner herein,
private property, unless such lands are classified and considered
represented by four OCTs. Petitioner claimed that the said
disposable and alienable.
OCTs were lost. Because of that, they were able to secure
reconstitution of the same as CFI Albay issued TCTs on SC also said that the contention that the government is
October 1953. estopped because the titles were obtained without opposition
from the government is invalid because it is always a rule that
Meanwhile, on 1954, President Magsaysay issued Proclamation
estoppel does not operate the Government for the acts of its
No. 47 converting the area covered by E.O No. 40 into Tiwi
agents.
Hotspring National Park under the control of B.Forest Devt.
The area was never released as alienable and disposable portion Also, the Court added that tax declarations are not conclusive
of public domain. proof of ownership.
The Palomos however are cultivating the land and paying the
taxes thereof. In one instance, they mortgage the land for P200k
in favor of BPI. On 1974, petitoners herein filed civil case for
injunction and damages against several officials of BFD for
entering and cutting bamboo over the land. On the same year,
Republic of the Philippines commenced a case for cancellation
of the TCT over the 15 parcels of land. RTC ruled in favor of
the Republic ordering the cancellation of the CTs because
according to the trial court, the Palomos had no sufficient proof
of their property rights over the land. CA affirmed the decision
hence the present action. Petitioners contend that the Treaty of
Paris recognized the property rights of the Filipinos and Spanish
before the pact and that American (Govt during that period) has
no right to confiscate, by way of the EO, the properties from
them. They said that their predecessors-in-interest were already
in adverse possession of the land for almost 50 years prior to its
registration in 1913 further supporting it with the decisions of
the CFI of Albay.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the alleged OCTs issued by CFI Albay in 1916-

1917 and the subsequent TCTs on 1953 pursuant to the petition
for reconstitution valid?

HELD:

SC belied the assertions of the petitioners. According to the

High Court, before the Treaty of Paris, all the lands are owned
by the Spanish Crown and that private ownership could only be
acquired infour modes namely: Royal Grant, Special Grant, Title
by Purchase and, Possessory Information. The Court ruled that
neither of the following proofs were presented. SC further held
that the reliance on the alleged decisions by CFI Albay was bears