REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES PRUDENCIO MAXINO

and TARCIANA MORALES, PEDRO GONZALES, ROGELIO AQUINO, Minor represented by his father,
Manuel Aquino, and ALEJANDRO, SOCORRO, MERCEDES, CONCHITA, REMEDIOS and FLORA, all
surnamed CONSOLACION, respondents.

Facts:

This is about the validity of the registration of 885 hectares of public forestal land located in Mulanay,
Quezon.

In Land Registration Case No. 81-G of the Court of First Instance at Gumaca, Quezon, Judge Vicente del
Rosario on March 21, 1981 rendered a decision, ordering the registration of said land, Lot 1, allegedly
located at Barrio Cambuga (Anonang), Mulanay, in the names of the spouses Prudencio Maxino and
Tarciana Morales, less 200 hectares which should be registered in the names of the Heirs of Lorenzo
Consolacion. The decision became final and executory. A decree and an original certificate of title were
issued.

More than eight years later, or on June 20, 1969, the Republic of the Philippines filed with the Gumaca court
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. Moreover, the possessory information title
relied upon by the Maxino spouses covered only 29 hectares of land and not 885 hectares. The petition was
verified by the Acting Director of Forestry.

Petition was denied.

A copy of the order was transmitted by the fiscal to the Solicitor General’s Office only on September 2, 1971
or nearly one year from the issuance of the order, Twenty-two days thereafter or on September 24 the
Solicitor General appealed from that order and filed a motion for extension of time within which to submit
a record on appeal. The appeal was given due course.

On appeal, the petition was denied on the ground that the 1970 order had allegedly long become final and
unappealable. The Solicitor General appealed to this Court.

The basis of the claim of the Maxinos is a Spanish title, Exhibit G, a gratuitous composition title or adjustment
title issued on July 30, 1888 to Prudencio Tesalona pursuant to the Royal Decree of December 26, 1884 for
29 hectares of pasture land (pasto de animales) allegedly bounded by the Yamay and Campalacio Creeks.**

Issue:

1. Procedural: w/n the solicitor general should be bound by the acts of its surrogates – NO.
2. Substantive: w/n the issuance of certificate of title was proper

Held:

1. the Solicitor General’s Office should be served with the final order disposing of the petition and
should not be bound by the service on his surrogates, the special counsel and the fiscal.

The fact that after the record on appeal was filed on time, the Solicitor General’s Office was late in
filing the amendments to it is of no moment. In exceptional cases, like the instant case, the interest
of justice may warrant waiver of the rules
2. the 885-hectare area registered by the Maxinos, is within the public forest, not alienable and
disposable nor susceptible of private appropriation. Its inclusion in the public forest was certified
by Director of Forestry as per Land Classification Map and testimony of Lorenzo R. Tria, a forest
station warden

It is axiomatic that public forestal land is not registerable. Its inclusion in a title, whether the title be
issued during the Spanish regime or under the Torrens system, nullifies the title.
Possession of public forestal lands, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership. Spanish
titles are not indefeasible.

The instant case bears similarities to Ramirez and Bayot de Ramirez vs vs. Director of Lands, 60 Phil.
114, where an adjustment title issued in 1896 was held to be void because it was fraudulent and it
covered public forestal land not subject to registration.

Incidentally, it may be mentioned that Presidential Decree No. 892 effective February 18, 1976
discontinued the use of Spanish titles as evidence in land registration proceedings.