Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ISSUE: W/N the respondent's evidences can be considered as proof that the lot 7454 is a private
land.
RULING: NO. Under the Regalian Doctrine 2 all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Hence it is that all applicants in
land registration proceedings have the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land thus
sought to be registered forms part of the public domain. 3 Unless the applicant succeeds in
showing by clear and convincing evidence that the property involved was acquired by him or his
ancestors either by composition title from the Spanish Government or by possessory information
title, or any other means for the proper acquisition of public lands, the property must be held to
be part of the public domain . 4 The applicant must present competent and persuasive proof to
substantiate his claim; he may not rely on general statements, or mere conclusions of law other
than factual evidence of possession and title.
2. Republic v CA 135 SCRA 156
Facts:
In 1961, the CFI of Quezon rendered a decision, ordering the registration of
885 hectares of public forestland in favor of the Maxinos. The decision became final
and executory so a decree of registration and an OCT were issued. Eight (8) years
after the decision was rendered, the Republic of the Philippines filed with the same
CFI an amended petition to annul the decision, decree, and title on the ground that
they are void because the land in question was still a part of the unclassified public
forest. The Maxinos opposed the petition.
The CFI judge denied the petition and when appealed, the same was
dismissed on the ground that the order had allegedly long become final and
unappealable so the Government was estopped thru the registration made by its
agents.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the Government was estopped in appealing the registration
order.
Ruling: No.
The Government sufficiently proved that the parcel of land involved in the
present case is a part of a forestland, thus non-registerable. As to the ruling of CA
that the government was estopped to appeal because the land was erroneously registered by its
own agency, the Court ruled otherwise basing on its decision in
Gov't. of the U. S. vs. Judge of 1st Inst. of Pampanga, (50 Phil. 975, 980), where it
held that the Government should not be estopped by the mistakes or errors of its
agents.
ISSUE: whether or not the cadastral court acting as such could likewise inquire into an
allegation that the lot subject of the decree was transferred in a simulated sale intended to avoid
such a review.
HELD: It can and accordingly reverse the appealed order. The mere mention by the law that the
relief afforded by Section 38 of Act 496 may be sought in 'the competent Court of First Instance'
is no sufficient indication that the petition must be filed in the Court of First Instance, exercising
its general jurisdiction, considering the fact that it is also the Court of First Instance that acts on
land registration cases. Upon the other hand, it has been held that the adjudication of land in a
registration or cadastral case does not become final and incontrovertible until the expiration of
one year from entry of the final decree, and that as long as the final decree is not issued and the
period of one year within which it may be reviewed has not elapsed, the decision remains under
the control and sound discretion of the court rendering the decree, which court after hearing, may
even set aside said decision or decree and adjudicate the land to another." As long as the final
decree is not issued by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office in accordance with the
law, and the period of one year fixed for the review thereof has not elapsed, the title is not finally
adjudicated and the decision therein rendered continues to be under the control and sound
discretion of the court rendering it. In Capio v. Capio, the ruling being to the effect "that the
adjudication of land in a registration or cadastral case does not become final and incontrovertible
until the expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree; that as long as the final decree
is not issued and the period of one year within which it may be reviewed has not elapsed, the
decision remains under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering the decree, which
court after hearing, may set aside the decision or decree and adjudicate the land to another
party." The order was SET ASIDE and the case remanded to the Court of First Instance for a
hearing on the merits of the petition of appellants for the reopening of the decree of registration
in favor of appellee Leon de los Santos.