1/23/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 39

VOL. 39, NOVEMBER 19, 1918. 175

Ramos vs.. Director of Lands.

[No. 13298. November 19, 1918.]

CORNELIO RAMOS, petitioner and appellant, vs. THE

DIRECTOR OF LANDS, objector and appellee.

1. PROPERTY; LAND; POSSESSION.—Actual possession of

land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over
it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise
over his own property.

2. ID.; ID.; CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION.—The

possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract of land,
under claim of ownership of all, is a constructive
possession of all, if the remainder is not in the adverse
possession of another.

3. ID. ; ID. ; ID.—One who has color of title, has acted in

good f aith, and has had open, peaceable, and notorious
possession of a portion of the property sufficient to apprise
the community and the world that the land was for his
enjoyment, Held: To be entitled to a title to the entire
tract of land for which he asks registration.

4. ID.; CLASSES.—The Philippine Bill in sections 13 to 18

recognizes three classes of land. The first is "Public Land,"
the second is "Mineral Land,'' and the third is "Timber
Land."

5. ID.; "AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC LAND;" DEFINED.—

The phrase "agricultural public lands" as used in Act No.
926 means "those public lands acquired from Spain which
are not timber or mineral lands." (Mapa vs. Insular
Government [1908], 10 Phil., 175.) The idea would appear
to be to determine, by exclusion, if the land is forestal or
mineral in nature, and if not so found to consider it to be
agricultural land.

6. ID.; "FOREST," DEFINED BY LEXICOGRAPHERS.—

Lexicographers define "forest" as "a large tract of land
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687a06c4d6a32ebd9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
1/23/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 39

covered with a natural growth of trees and underbrush; a

large wood."

176

176 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramos vs. Director of Lands.

7. ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; BY LEGAL AUTHORITIES.—The

authorities say that the word "forest" has a significant, not
an insignificant meaning, and that it does not embrace
land only partly woodland. It is a tract of land covered
with trees, usually of considerable extent.

8. ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; BY FORESTERS.—The foresters say that

no legal definition of "forest" is practicable or useful.

9. ID.; ID.; POLICY OF BUREAU OF FORESTRY.—The

policy of the Bureau of Forestry of the Philippine Islands
is set out in the opinion.

10. ID.; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL, RESOURCES.—

There should be conservation of the natural resources of
the Philippines. The idea should be "the control of nature's
powers by man for his own good."

11. ID.; PUBLIC POLICY.—On the other hand, the

presumption should be, in lieu of contrary proof, that land
is agricultural in nature. One very apparent reason is that
it is for the.good of the Philippine Islands to have the large
public domain come under private ownership.

12. ID. ; REMEDIES OF GOVERNMENT AS AGAINST

PRIVATE CLAIMANTS.—When the claim of the citizen
and the claim of the Government as to a particular piece of
property collide, if the Government desires to demonstrate
that the land is in reality a forest, the Director of Forestry
should submit to the court convincing proof that the land
is not more valuable for agricultural than for forest
purposes. Great consideration, it may be stated, should,
and undoubtedly will be, paid by the courts to- the opinion
of the technical expert who speaks with authority on
forestry matters.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Nueva Ecija. Nepomuceno, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687a06c4d6a32ebd9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
1/23/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 39

Basilio Aromin for appellant.

Solicitor-General Paredes for appellee.

MALCOLM, J..:

This is an appeal by the applicant and appellant from a

judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija,
denying the registration of the larger portion of parcel No.
1 (Exhibit A of the petitioner), marked by the letters A, B,
and C on the plan, Exhibit 1, of the Government.
177

VOL. 39, NOVEMBER 19, 1918. 177

Ramos vs. Director of Lands.

One Restituto Romero y Ponce apparently gained

possession of a considerable tract of land located in the
munic-ipality of San Jose, Province of Nueva Ecija, in the
year 1882. He took advantage of the Royal Decree of
February 13, 1894, to obtain a possessory information title
to the land, registered as such on February 8, 1896. Parcel
No. 1, included within the limits of the possessory
information title of Restituto Romero, was sold in
February, 1907, to Cornelio Ramos, the instant petitioner,
and his wife Ambrosia Salamanca.
Ramos instituted appropriate proceedings to have his
title registered. Opposition was entered by the Director of
Lands on the ground that Ramos had not acquired a good
title from the Spanish government and by the Director of
Forestry on the ground that the first parcel was forest land.
The trial court agreed with the objectors and excluded
parcel No. 1 from registration. So much for the facts.
As to the law, the principal argument of the
SolicitorGeneral is based on the provisions of the Spanish
Mortgage Law and of the Royal Decree of February 13,
1894, commonly known as the Maura Law. The Solicitor-
General would emphasize that for land to come under the
protective ægis of the Maura Law, it must have been shown
that the land was cultivated for six years previously, and
that it was not land which pertained to the "zonas
forestales." As proof that the land was, even as long ago as
the years 1894 to 1896, forestal and. not agricultural in
nature is the fact that there are yet found thereon trees
from 50 to 80 years of age.
We do not stop to decide this contention, although it
might be possible, following the doctrine laid down by the
United States Supreme Court with reference to Mexican
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687a06c4d6a32ebd9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
1/23/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 39

and Spanish grants within the United States, where some

recital is claimed to be false, to say that the possessory

178

178 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATE

Ramos vs. Director of Lands.

information, apparently having taken cognizance of the

requisites for title, should not now be disturbed. (Hancock
vs. McKinney [1851], 7 Tex., 192; Hornsby and Roland vs.
United States [1869], 10 Wall., 224.) It is sufficient, as will
later appear, merely to notice that the predecessor in
interest to the petitioner at least held this tract of land
under color of title.
Subsection 6 of section 54, of Act No. 926, entitled The
Public Land Law, as amended by Act No. 1908, reads as
follows:
"6. All persons who by themselves or their predecessors
in interest have been in the open, continuous, exclusive,
and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural
public lands, as defined by said Act of Congress of July
first, nineteen hundred and two, under a bona fide claim of
ownership except as against the Government, for a period
of ten years next preceding the twenty-sixth day of July,
nineteen hundred and four, except when prevented by war
or force majeure, shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a government
grant and to have received the same, and shall be entitled
to a certificate of title to such land under the provisions of
this chapter."
There are two parts to the above quoted subsection
which must be discussed. The first relates to the open,
continous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of what, for present purposes, can be conceded
to be agricultural public land, under a bona fide claim of
ownership.
Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation
of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would
naturally exercise over his own property. Relative to
actuality of possession, it is admitted that the petitioner
has cultivated only about one fourth of the entire tract.
This is graphically portrayed by Exhibit 1 of the
Government, following:
179

VOL. 39, NOVEMBER 19, 1918. 179

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687a06c4d6a32ebd9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
1/23/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 39

Ramos vs. Director of Lands.

The question at once arises: Is the actual occupancy of a

part of the land described in the instrument giving color of
title sufficient to give title to the entire tract of land?

180

180 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramos vs. Director of Lands..

The doctrine of. constructive possession indicates the

answer. The general rule is that the possession and
cultivation of a portion of a tract under claim of ownership
of all is a constructive possession of all, if the remainder is
not in the adverse possession of another. (Barr vs. Gratz's
Heirs [1819], 4 Wheat., 213; Ellicott vs. Pearl [1836], 10
Pet., 412; Smith vs. Gale [1892], 144 U. S., 509.) Of course,
there are a number of qualifications to the rule, one
particularly relating to the size of the tract in controversy
with reference to the portion actually in possession of the
claimant. It is here only necessary to apply the general
rule.
The claimant has color of title; he acted in good faith;
and he has had open, peaceable, and notorious possession
of a portion of the property, sufficient to apprise the
community and the world that the land was for his
enjoyment. (See arts. 446, 448, Civil Code.) 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. Ramos and his predecessor in
interest fulfilled the requirements of the law on the
supposition that the premises consisted of agricultural
public land.
The second division of the law requires consideration of
the term "agricultural public land." The law affirms that
the phrase is defined by the Act of Congress of July 1st,
,1902, known as the Philippine Bill. Turning to the
Philippine Bill, we find in sections 13 to 18 thereof that
three classes of land are mentioned. The first is variously
denominated "public land" or "public domain," the second
"mineral land," and the third "timber land." Section 18 of
the Act of Congress comes nearest to a precise definition,
when it makes the determination of whether the land is
more valuable for agricultural or for forest uses the test of
its character. ,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687a06c4d6a32ebd9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
1/23/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 39

Although these sections of the Philippine Bill have come

before the courts on numerous occasions, what was said in
the case of Jones vs. Insular Government ([1906], 6

181

VOL. 39, NOVEMBER 19, 1918. 181

Ramos vs. Director of Lands.

Phil., 122), is still true, namely: "The meaning of these

sections is not clear and it is difficult to give to them a
construction that will be entirely free from objection." In
the case which gave most serious consideration to the
subject (Mapa vs. Insular Government [1908], 10 Phil.,
175), it was found. that there does exist in the Act of
Congress a definition of the phrase "agricultural public
lands." It was said that the phrase "agricultural public
lands" as used in Act No. 926 means "those public lands
acquired from Spain which are not timber or mineral
lands."
The idea would appear to be to determine, by exclusion,
if the land is forestal or mineral in nature and, if not so
found, to consider it to be agricultural land. Here, again,
Philippine law is not very helpful. For instance, section
1820 of the Administrative Code of 1917 provides: "For the
purposes of this chapter, 'public forest' includes, except as
otherwise specially indicated, all unreserved public land,
including nipa and mangrove swamps, and all forest
reserves of whatever character." This definition of "public
forest," it will be noted, is merely "for the purposes of this
chapter." A little further on, section 1827 provides: "Lands
in public forests, not including forest reserves, upon the
certification of the Director of Forestry that said lands are
better adapted and more valuable for agricultural than for
forest purposes and not required by the public interests to
be kept under forest, shall be declared by the Department
Head to be agricultural lands." With reference to the last
section, there is no certification of the Director of Forestry
in the record, as to whether this land is better adapted and
more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes.
The lexicographers define "forest" as "a large tract of
land covered with a natural growth -of trees and
underbrush; a large wood." The authorities say that the
word "forest" has a significant, not an insignificant
meaning, and that it does not embrace land only partly
woodland.
182

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687a06c4d6a32ebd9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
1/23/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 39

182 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramos vs. Director of Lands.

It is a tract of land covered with trees, usually of

considerable extent. (Higgins vs. Long Island R. Co. [1908],
114 N. Y. Supp., 262; People vs. Long Island R. Co. [1908],
110 N. Y. Supp., 512.)
The foresters say that no legal definition of "forest" is
practicable or useful. B. H. Baden-Powell, in his work on
Forest Law of India, states as follows:
"Every definition of a forest that can be framed for legal
purposes will be found either to exclude some cases to
which the law ought to apply, or on the other hand, to
include some with which the law ought not to interfere. It
may be necessary, for example, to take under the law a
tract of perfectly barren land which at present has neither
trees, brushwood, nor grass on it, but which in the course of
time it is hoped will be 'reboise;' but any definition wide
enough to take in all such lands, would also take in much
that was not wanted. On the other hand, the definition, if
framed with reference to tree-growth, might (and indeed
would be almost sure to) include a garden, shrubbery,
orchard, or vineyard, which it was not designed to deal
with."
B. E. Fernow, in his work on the Economics of Forestry,
states as f ollows:
"A forest in the sense in which we use the term, as an
economic factor, is by no means a mere collection of trees,
but an organic whole in which all parts, although
apparently heterogeneous, jumbled together by accident as
it were and apparently unrelated, bear a close relation to
each other and are as interdependent as any other beings
and conditions in nature."
The Director of Forestry of the Philippine Islands has
.said:
"During the time of the passage of the Act of Congress of
July 1, 1902, this question of forest and agricultural lands
was beginning to receive some attention and it is clearly
shown in section 18 of the above mentioned Act; it leaves to
the Bureau of Forestry the certification as to

183

VOL. 39, NOVEMBER 19, 1918. 183

Ramos vs. Director of Lands.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687a06c4d6a32ebd9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
1/23/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 39

what lands are for agricultural or forest uses. Although the

Act states timber lands, the Bureau has in its
administration since the passage of this act construed this
term to mean forest lands in the sense of what was
necessary to protect, for the public good; waste lands
without a tree have been declared more suitable for
forestry; in many instances in the past. The term 'timber'.
as used in England and in the United States in the past
has been applied to wood suitable for construction purposes
but with the increase in civilization and the application of
new methods every plant producing wood has some useful
purpose and the term timber lands is generally thought of
as synonymous with forest lands or lands producing wood,
or able to produce wood, if agricultural crops on the same
land will not bring the financial return that timber will or
if the same land is needed for protection purposes.

*      *      *      *      *      *      *

"The laws in the United States recognize the necessity of

technical advice of duly appointed boards and leave it in
the hands of these boards to decide what lands are more
valuable for forestry purposes or for agricultural purposes.
"In the Philippine Islands this policy is followed to as
great an extent as allowable under the law. In many cases,
in the opinion of the Bureau of Forestry, lands without a
single tree on them are considered as true forest land. For
instance, mountain sides which are too steep for cultivation
under ordinary practice and which, if cultivated, under
ordinary practice would destroy the big natural resource of
the soil, by washing, is considered by this Bureau as forest
land and in time would be reforested. Of course, examples
exist in the Mountain Province where steep hillsides have
been terraced and intensive cultivation practiced but even
then the mountain people are very careful not to destroy f
orests or other vegetative cover which they from experience
have found protect their water supply. Certain chiefs have
lodged protests with the Govern-
184

184 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramos vs. Director of Lands.

ment against other tribes on the opposite side of the

mountain cultivated by them, in order to prevent other
tribes from cutting timber or destroy cover guarding their
source of water for irrigation.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687a06c4d6a32ebd9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
1/23/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 39

"Dr. M. S. Shaler, formerly Dean of the Lawrence

Scientific School, remarked that if mankind could not
devise and enforce ways dealing with the earth, which will
preserve this source of life 'we must look forward to the
time, remote it may be, yet equally discernible, when our
kin having wasted its great inheritance will fade from the
earth because of the ruin it has accomplished.'
"The method employed by the Bureau of Forestry in
making inspection of lands, in order to determine whether
they are more adapted for agricultural or forest purposes,
by a technical and duly trained personnel on the different
phases of the conservation of natural resources, is based
upon a previously prepared set of questions in which the
different characters of the land under inspection are
discussed, namely:
"Slope of land: Level; moderate; steep; very steep.
"Exposure: North; South; East; West.
"Soil: Clay; sandy loam; sand; rocky; very rocky.
"Character of soil cover: Cultivated, grass land, brush
land, brush land and timber mixed, dense forest.
"If cultivated, state crops being grown and approximate
number of hectares under cultivation. (Indicate on sketch.)
"For growth of what agricultural products is this land
suitable ?
"State what portion of the tract is wooded, name of
important timber species and estimate of stand in cubic
meters per hectare, diameter and percentage of each
species.
"If the land is covered with timber, state whether there
is public land suitable for agriculture in vicinity, which is
not covered with timber.

185

VOL. 39, NOVEMBER 19, 1918. 185

Ramos vs. Director of Lands.

"Is this land more valuable for agricultural than for forest
purposes? (State reasons in full.)
"Is this land included or adjoining any proposed or
established forest reserve or communal forest? Description
and ownership of improvements.
"If the land is claimed under private ownership, give the
name of the claimant, his place of residence, and state
briefly (if necessary on a separate sheet) the grounds upon
which he bases his claim.
"When the inspection is made on a parcel of public land
which has been applied for, the corresponding certificate is
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687a06c4d6a32ebd9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
1/23/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 39

forwarded to the Director of Lands; if it is made on a

privately claimed parcel for which the issuance of a title is
requested from the Court of Land Registration, and the
inspection shows the land to be more adapted for forest
purposes, then the Director of Forestry requests the
AttorneyGeneral to file an opposition, sending him all data
collected during the inspection and offering him the forest
officer as a witness.
"It should be kept in mind that the lack of personnel of
this Bureau, the limited time intervening between the
notice for the trial of an expediente of land and the day of
the trial, and the difficulties in communications as well as
the distance of the land in question greatly hinder the
handling of this work.
"In the case of lands claimed as private property, the
Director of Forestry, by means of his delegate the
examining officer, submits before the court all evidence
referring to the present forest condition of the land, so that
the court may compare them with the alleged right by the
claimant. Undoubtedly,. when the claimant presents a title
issued by the proper authority or evidence of his right to
the land showing that he complied with the requirements
of the law, the forest certificate does not affect him in the
least as such' land should not be considered as a part of the
public domain; but when the alleged right is merely that of
possession,'
186

186 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramos vs. Director of Lands.

then the public or private character of the parcel is open to

discussion and this character should be established not
simply on the alleged right of the claimant but on the
sylvical condition and soil characteristics ,of the land, and
by comparison between this area, or different previously
occupied areas, and those areas which still preserve their
primitive character."
Either way we look at this question we encounter
difficulty. Indubitably, there should be conservation of the
natural resources of the Philippines. The prodigality of the
spendthrift who squanders his substance for the pleasure
of the fleeting moment must be restrained f or the less
spectacular but surer policy which protects Nature's wealth
for future generations. Such is the wise stand of our
Government as represented by the Director of Forestry
who, with the Forester f or the Government of the United
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687a06c4d6a32ebd9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
1/23/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 39

States, believes in "the control of nature's powers by man

for his own good." On the other hand, the presumption
should be, in lieu of contrary proof, that land is agricultural
in nature. One very apparent reason is that it is for the
good of the Philippine Islands to have the large public
domain come under private ownership. Such is the natural
attitude of the sagacious citizen.
If in this instance, we give judicial sanction to a private
claim, let it be noted that the Government, in the long run
of cases, has its remedy. Forest reserves of public land can
be established as provided by law. When the claim of the
citizen and the claim of the Government as to a particular
piece of property collide, if the Government desires to
demonstrate that the land is in reality a forest, the
Director of Forestry should submit to the court convincing
proof that the land is not more valuable for agricultural
than for forest purposes. Great consideration, it may be
stated, should, and undoubtedly will be, paid by the courts
to the opinion of the technical expert who speaks with
authority on forestry matters. But a mere formal opposition
on the part of the Attorney-General for the
187

VOL. 39, NOVEMBER 19, 1918. 187

Bacar and Magbanua vs. Tordecillas.

Director of Forestry, unsupported by satisfactory evidence

will not stop the courts from giving title to the claimant.
We hold that the petitioner and appellant has proved a
title to the entire tract of land for which he asked
registration, under the provisions of subsection 6, of section
54, of Act No. 926, as amended by Act No. 1908, with
reference to the Philippine Bill and the Royal Decree of
February 13, 1894, and his possessory information.
Judgment is reversed and the lower court shall register
in the name of the applicant the entire tract in parcel No.
1, as described in plan Exhibit A, without special finding as
to costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Street, and Fisher,

JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.

___________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687a06c4d6a32ebd9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
1/23/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 39

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687a06c4d6a32ebd9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12