As an incident in the cadastral case in the municipality of Rizal, Province of Nueva Ecija, the four brothers Cajucom asked for the adjudication in their name of sixty-two contiguous lots containing about 245 hectares of land. Two private parties joined issue as to four lots, and the Attorney-General, on behalf principally of various homesteaders, asked that the tract be declared to be public land.
Following trial, the Honorable Vicente Nepomuceno Judge of First Instance, handed down a decision, as comprehensive as any which it has been our fortune to see, reading as follows:
The 62 lots claimed by Alejandro Cajucom, Timoteo Cajucom, Felix Cajucom, and Lorenzo Cajucom according to their answer signed and sworn to by their attorney, Mr. Tomacruz, on May 31, 1923, are as follows: 1527, 1717, 1823, 1825, 1826, 1827, 1833, 2835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1851, 1852, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 2866, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1908, 1909, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1999, 2004, 2036, 2037, 2050, 2051, 2079, 2230.
In said answer it is alleged: . . . "2. That these lots (the 62 above mentioned) from one single tract of land, which is described and represented on the plan of the claimants, 11-3788 of the Bureau of Lands, and in said plan the land formed by said lots is described as follows: Land situated in Macapsin, formerly municipality of Boñgabong, now municipality of Rizal, Province of Nueva Ecija, and bounded on the north by public lands and Bulalacay Creek; on the east by lands of the State; on the south by lands of Gorgonio Riguer and Marcos Gonzalez; and on the west by land of Gorgonio Riguer, Bulalacay Creek and public land; containing an area of 2,457,433 square meters. 3. That the land above described, with the improvements thereon, is the absolute property of the claimants held by them in common, having acquired title thereto by inheritance from their deceased father Cecilio Cajucom, who in turn had acquired it by composition with the State. 4. That the claimants, together with their predecessors in interest, have been in possession of the land above described, for a period of forty years approximately and said possession was exercised by them under claim of ownership and adversely to the whole world."
According to this allegation and the evidence introduced, these claimants contend that their predecessor in interest, Cecilio Cajucom, obtained from the Spanish government a title to the tract of land above described, and that said title was kept by them in their possession and was seen by these Cajucom claimants and also by other persons foreign to the family. So that they do not ask for the perfecting of their title under sections 44 and 45 (b) of Act No. 2874 of the Philippine Legislature, because they do not admit said 62 lots to be public lands, but apply for the adjudication in their favor and registration of said tract of land in their name under section 19 of Act No. 496, for they contend that said tract of land is a private property, with title issued by the Spanish government in favor of Cecilio Cajucom.
Cecilio Cajucom died in the year 1902, leaving children begotten with his wife Antonia Caisip (who is also dead), named Alejandro, Timoteo, Felix, and Lorenzo Cajucom, who are all of age. They have had whole blood brothers who are already dead, named Vicenta, Marcela, Jose, Marcela alias Coring, and Luis, Cajucom. Vicenta left a son by the name of Florencio Ilagan, about 25 or 26 years old; Marcela, a son by the names of Guillermo Cabuhat, 27 years old; Jose, two children by the names of Juan, who is about 22 or 21 years old, and Jose, 15 years of age; Marcela alias Coring left two children, Jesus and Santos Ilagan, the former being 19 years old, and the latter 17. The other child of the deceased Cecilio by the name of Luis Cajucom does not appear to have left any descendant. The court appointed Alejandro Cajucom guardian ad litem of the minors Jose Cajucom, Jesus Ilagan, and Santos Ilagan to represent them in this case. So that these and the aforementioned children and grand-children of Cecilio Cajucom are the claimants of the 62 lots, asserting a right derived from the alleged title of Cecilio Cajucom.
The question that presents itself is whether or not the composition title alleged to have been issued by the Spanish government in favor of Cecilio Cajucom over this tract of land existed in fact.
The claimant maintain that such title did really exist, but was lost in a fire.
Let us now examine the evidence, documentary and oral, that these claimants have presented to prove the existence and subsequent loss of the said title and the alleged possession of the land for a period of 40 years.
Sotero de la Cruz, Government surveyor, testified that the land described in the plan Exhibit B is the same land inclosed in a red line on the sketch Exhibit A and is substantially the aggregate of the 62 lots mentioned in the answer.
Eulalio Ilagan Bisig, 62 years of age, testifies that he knows the lots claimed by the Cajucom people, because Cecilio Cajucom the owner of said lands, was his father-in-law, he having married the latter's daughter in the year 1887, and also because he administered said lands as representative of the Cajucom family. He adds that in the lifetime of Capt. Cecilio Cajucom, the latter used the land for the pasturing of carabaos, oxen and horses, which were about two hundred head in all and that since Capt. Cecilio took possession of said tract of land, he has never used it for any other, than pasturing purpose, although some small portions (about two or three hectares) of the land in the sitio of Bañgulo were cultivated by the two shepherds of Capt. Cecilio, to obtain from them just what was sufficient for their support; that the place where the animal grazed was not inclosed, but there were some inclosures in Bañgulo and Linao and that these animals reached other places not included in this tract of land now claimed by the Cajucom people; that in the year 1888 there occurred a great rinderpest, and a larger part of the cattle of Capt. Cecilio died, but not all; that in the place where the animals of Cajucom were pasturing, the animals of other persons, not relatives of his, were also pasturing; that when Cecilio Cajucom died in the year 1902, he was succeeded by this witness (Eulalio Ilagan Bisig) as representative of the Cajucom family, who had been in possession of the land until 1916 or 1917, and who opposed, although without result, the application for homestead filed by other persons concerning said lands; that he declared the lands for the purpose of taxation in the year 1906, paid the taxes imposed thereupon, and caused them to be surveyed in the year 1910, and the plan Exhibit B made, but for certain reasons the application for registration was not filed; that his opposition having been decided by the Bureau of Lands in the sense that he had no right to this tract of land, he asked in the year 1916 for the cancellation of the tax declaration and removed the oxen and carabaos therefrom; and lastly this witness marked on the plan or sketch the place where the camarin (shed) was erected, which does not exist now, as the witness himself says.
Alejandro Cajucom, 43 years of age, testifies that he knows the land described in the plan Exhibit B because he had inherited it from his deceased father, Cecilio Cajucom, who in his lifetime had used it partly for the pasturing of his cattle, and partly for cultivation by his shepherds; that the title his father had to this land, and which was mortgaged to Gabriel Espina, was redeemed by this witness (Alejandro Cajucom) in the year 1903 by paying to Mr. Espina the sum of P500 his deceased father had borrowed from the latter; that the title was reduced to ashes when his house in Boñgabong was burnt in the year 1904; that the title in question was a gratuitous title, such as the courts granted during the Spanish regime, was dated in the year 1884 and its heading was "Direccion General de Administration Civil," and referred to a land containing 50 quinones, situated in the sitios of Linao and Bañgulo, barrio of Macapsin, then municipality of Boñgabong and now of Rizal, Province of Nueva Ecija; that said title was apparently printed and was almost the same as the title Exhibit 1; that o obtain a copy of the title that was burnt, he went to Manila and examined the records of the Bureau of Archives and Patents and other bureaus, but the only copy he could find is Exhibit D which is a certified copy issued to him by Mr. Iriarte; that his deceased father possessed lands in the places, but he knows that the certified copy Exhibit D refers to the land covered by the title that was burnt; which is the same land described in the plan Exhibit B; that during the lifetime of his father, he never took charge of the animals that were grazing on that place, and the shepherds of his father cultivated some portions of the land in Bañgulo of about six or seven hectares.
Exhibit D is a certificate issued on May 18, 1912 by the Chief of Archives in Baguio, wherein it is substantially stated that in the Archives there exists a list signed by the "Inspector General de Montes" (Chief Ranger) on August 30, 1883, corresponding to Nueva Ecija, wherein the name of Cecilio Cajucom, a resident of Boñgabong, appears as one of the persons interested in the composition proceeding instituted on May 16, 1882. "This certificate, as may be gathered from the testimony of Francisco Tolentino, was written, with the list Exhibit 44 before him, which contained applications covering unoccupied public lands of the State. In that certificate Exhibit D the writer stated that it was a composition with the State; but in the original list exhibited to the court, a copy of which with regard to Nueva Ecija is Exhibit 44, nothing is said about composition, but it is simply called a list of the applications for unoccupied public lands of the State, which the "Intendencia General de Hacienda" sent to the "Direccion Civil" corresponding to the Province of Nueva Ecija.
Exhibit B is a plan 11-3788 of land, containing an area of 2,457,433 square meters, situated in the sitio of Macapsin, barrio of Biga Grande, municipality of Boñgabong, (Rizal), which is said to be the property of the heirs of Cecilio Cajucom, surveyed on the 17th and 18th of August 1910, the survey having been approved on the 8th of November of the same year. Said land, according to the same plan, is bounded on all its sides by public lands, with the exception of some portion on the south and southwest which are bounded by lands of Marcos Gonzalez and Gorgonio Riguer.
Timoteo Cajucom, 59 years old, testifies that he knows the land described in the plan Exhibit B, because it was he who indicated the boundaries to the surveyors who surveyed it, and also because he has been the foreman of the shepherds, being the eldest of his brothers; and he remembers that in the year 1882, the date of his marriage, he was taken by his father to the land and the boundaries thereof pointed out to him, in which land his father had horses, carabaos and oxen; that said land which is about four kilometers from the residential center of Boñgabong is bounded on the north and east by some mountains and on the south by lands of the Riguer people; that in said land there were erected the houses of the two shepherds, one in Bañgulo, and the other in Linao, and there was no inclosure or fence; that those animals used to go far and pasture on other places and mountains up to the sitio of Capisungan on the other side of the mountain; that he knows the sitio of Castillo and that of Bagsit which is said to be a mountain, but does not know the sitios of Saguing and San Melchor.
Catalino Ortiz y Airoso, 60 years of age, testifies that he knows Cecilio Cajucom and the clerk of Gabriel Espina, because he was a friend of both, and also because in the year 1882 or 1883 he succeeded Espina in the office of proceedings clerk; that in the year 1894 or 1895, Cecilio Cajucom called at his house, requesting him to help him obtain a loan from his friends, and showing him a title to a land he possessed in Boñgabong; that then he accompanied him to the house of Gabriel Espina who was at the time residing in San Isidro, and succeeded in causing the latter to lend him the money he needed, which was P500, Cecilio Cajucom having mortgaged to him his land or his title to that land to secure the payment of the amount borrowed from Gabriel Espina; that he remembers that title because he had read it, and knows that it referred to a land situated in Linao and Bañgulo, barrio of Macapsing, then within the municipality of Boñgabong, and now municipality of Rizal, containing 50 quinones; that title was one issued by the "Direccion General de Administracion Civil," the date of which he did not remember, but that it was printed and issued by the chief of the province, the provincial governor, whose name he did not remember, and was similar to the title Exhibit 1, with a note of its registration in the registry; that he believed that a document of mortgage was executed, because nobody would lend money without a receipt; that the deed of mortgage of that land must have formed a part of the records of the notary public who drew and authorized the document; that he knows that every three months the Judge of First Instance of the province visited and inspected the notarial office and made minutes thereof, stating the number and kind of documents executed and recorded during the past semester, said minutes being forwarded afterwards by the Judge of First Instance to the president of the Audiencia; and those minutes must have been filed in the archives of the Audiencia, now Supreme Court, and there it can be ascertained and verified whether there really existed such document of mortgage executed by Cajucom in favor of Espina; that moreover in the Bureau of Archives, there must also exist all the records of the notaries public; that he likewise knows that in order to redeem a mortgage a document was drawn and when the register of deeds came, the mortgages and cancellations thereof were noted on their books; that he does not remember whether during the revolution any fire took place in the municipal building of San Isidro, then the capital of the province, but he knows that when the insurgents entered the town, some papers of the government were taken away; and, lastly, that the witness has once been on the land described in that title of Cecilio Cajucom, and that was on an occasion when he was going to Rizal.
The Government, in turn, has presented the witnesses Sotero de la Cruz, Agapito A. Curamen, Anastacio Duque and Francisco Tolentino.
Witness Sotero de la Cruz, who is a Government surveyor, testifies that he prepared the plan or sketch Exhibit A, marked Exhibit 2 of the Government, and that he has been in the land shown and described in Exhibit 2, having traced personally in red ink the squares appearing on this sketch or plan, which mean houses erected within the lots into which the land is subdivided, because he reached the places where those houses were; that in lot No. 1999 there are the house of Anastacio Duque shown in the picture Exhibit 3, and the three houses of his tenants; that lot No. 1904 is claimed by Fructuoso Francisco, but is included in the homestead of Anastacio Duque, and the house shown by the picture Exhibit 4, which is of Emeteria Francisco, is erected on lot No. 1903 near the boundary between this lot and lot No. 1904, and this witness added that he had found improvements on said lot No. 1903, consisting of a portion of 1 hectare planted with palay and other portions planted with coconut and banana trees and a mango tree; that lot No. 1919 is a land covered by a homestead application of Roque Duque, which was presented on April 27, 1910, his application being No. 8642, which was granted on March 21, 1911 (Exhibits 5 and 6) a patent (Exhibit 7) having been issued to him on September 27, 1916, this witness having found the land already clean and cultivated with palay; and that upon the death of Roque Duque, his widow inherited it, and she, together with the relatives of Roque Duque, has now houses within that land; that lot No. 1907, now in possession of Mariano Bautista, is a homestead covered by his application No. 8643 (Exhibit 8) filed April 27, 1910, which application was granted, according to Exhibit 9, on December 12, 1910, and that a patent No. 1911 has already been issued in his favor; that lot No. 1908 is the homestead applied for by Domingo Rioso on June 2, 1909, his application being No. 7420 (Exhibit 10), which was granted, according to Exhibit 11, on July 20, 1909; that lot No. 1909 is the homestead of Victoriano Paas, mortgaged to Serafin Linsangan, which was applied for by him under No. 7404, on July 5, 1909 (Exhibit 12), which application was granted, according to Exhibit 3, on May 18, 1910; that lot No. 1910 is the homestead of Pedro Garcia Segundo, his application being No. 7406 (Exhibit 14) of June 5, 1919, which was granted, according to Exhibit 15, on June 9, 1919; that lot No. 1924 is the homestead of Lorenzo Corpus in behalf of Serafin Linsangan, for which a patent has already been issued, it appearing that his application No. 11953 was presented on August 16, 1919, (Exhibit 16), and granted, according to Exhibit 17, on January 19, 1912; that lot No. 1928 is the land of Agapito A. Curamen, and was the subject-matter of an application, No. 7416 (Exhibit 19), a patent No. 2718 having been issued to him on December 22, 1920, which was registered as certificate of title No. 807; that lot No. 1945 is the homestead of Fermin de los Reyes, his application being No. 7412 (Exhibit 21), filed June 5, 1909, and granted May 18, 1910, according to Exhibit 22, a patent No. 2776 having been issued in his favor (Exhibit 23) on February 17, 1921, and registered as certificate of title No. 828; that lot No. 1860 of Blas Laureano, was the subject-matter of application No. 7408 (Exhibit 24), filed June 5, 1909, and granted July 20, 1911 (Exhibit 25), he having already obtained a patent therefor and sold the same to Arsenio Vergel, who, in turn, sold it to Francisco Chua; that lot No. 19968 is the homestead of Blas Tomas y Curamen, his application being No. 51201 (Exhibit 26), filed November 19, 1917, and granted according to Exhibit 27, on February 11, 1918, this witness having seen some houses there belonging to Blas Tomas and his nephews; that lot No. 1944, where there are five houses of Cecilio Curamen and his tenants, was the land for which said Curamen has filed a homestead application No. 44012 (Exhibit 28) on February 7, 1917, which was granted according to Exhibit 29, on November 26, 1917; that lot No. 1946, where there are three houses of Melencio Vilante and his tenants, is included within the boundaries of the homestead of Leoncio Lucero constituted by said lot and lots Nos. 1942 and 1941, but that the latter (lot. No. 1941) was covered by a homestead application of Ignacio Limos, there existing in said lot No. 1942 four houses and a barn of Leoncio Lucero and his relatives, Leoncio Lucero's application No. 45950 (Exhibit 30) over lots Nos. 1942, 1943 and 1941 appearing to have been presented on May 13, 1917, and granted, according to Exhibit 31, on May 22, 1919; that application No. 56064 of Ignacio Limos over lot No. 1941 was filed on June 22, 1918 (Exhibit 32), but has not as yet been granted; that lots Nos. 1920 and 1940 now constitute the homestead of Dominador Villarosa, for although Pedro Tabliso had filed a homestead application, covering both lots, in the years 1909 and 1910 (Exhibits 33 and 34), nevertheless he assigned his rights to Arsenio Vergel, who, in turn, transferred them to Dominador Villarosa, and the latter, on March 3, 1923, filed his application (Exhibit 35); that lost Nos. 1903 and 1527 now in possession of Emeteria Francisco were her homestead, applied for under No. 51079 (Exhibit 36) on November 27, 1917; that lot Nos. 1903, 1904 and 1999 were the homestead, of Anastacio Duque applied for on May 27, 1916, under No. 38183 (Exhibit 37), his application having been granted on December 29, 1917 (Exhibit 38); that lots Nos. 1825, 1826, 1827, 1835, 1836 and 1951 were the homestead of Epifanio Guevara, his application No. 51045 (Exhibit 39) having been filed on November 26, 1907 and granted May 10, 1910, according to Exhibit 40; that lot No. 2037 is the homestead of Paula Rioroso, her application No. 57361 filed August 27, 1918 (Exhibit 41) not having been granted yet, on account of said lot being occupied at present by another person, to wit, Fermin de los Reyes; that lot No. 1961 is the homestead of Lorenzo Urquiola, his application No. 53737 (Exhibit 42) filed March 9, 1918, being still pending; that lot No. 1823 (marked with the initials P. L., which mean public land) is public land because it is unoccupied, dirty and stony and is situated between two creeks. This witness adds that he had inspected these lands twice, having been there for the last time on May 23, 1923, when he found that the majority of these lands were already occupied and cultivated by certain homesteaders, and the remaining portions were occupied by private persons who alleged the same to be their property, not having found any portion occupied by Alejandro Cajucom or his brother, nor by his shepherds and coparceners; and having been asked to explain why in Exhibit 7 (homestead patent of Roque Duque) there appeared as adjacent owners of the latter's homestead "the heirs of Cecilio Cajucom" who were not mentioned in the application and in the communication granting the same (Exhibits 5 and 6), he answered that when the application (Exhibit 5) was filed in the Bureau of Lands these lots had not as yet been surveyed as lands of Cecilio Cajucom, and for this reason "the heirs of Cecilio Cajucom" were not made to appear then as adjacent owners, because these lands were surveyed on August 17, 1910 (Exhibit B); but once surveyed and the plan Exhibit B made, the surveyor must have seen that plan and put there as adjacent owners "the heirs of Cecilio Cajucom."
Agapito A. Curamen, 60 years of age, testifies that lot No. 1928 is his homestead, having applied, and obtained a patent for it; that he knew Cecilio Curamen, being his brother, and the persons named Melencio Vilante, Leoncio Lucero, Ignacio Limos, Dominador Villarosa, Pedro Tablizo, Fermin de los Reyes, Lorenzo Corpus, Pedro Garcia Segundo, Victoriano Paas, Luan Rioroso, Mariano Bautista, Dionisio Duque, Roque Duque, Blas Tomas y Curamen, Epifanio Guevara, Bals Laureano, and Paula Rioroso and knew that all of them were occupying lands as their homesteads and had filed applications therefor, because he was the leader of those who had gone there in the year 1905 seeking for land, and that after having ascertained in the provincial treasury that those lands were not registered in the assessment book in the name of any person, he and his companions filed applications for homestead, most of which appear to have been ratified before him as notary public, and in the next year (1906) they went to the sitio of Macapsing to distribute the land among themselves; that when he entered for the time upon his homestead, lot No. 1928, a part of it was forest land, and other parts were full of cogon and talahib, without any sign of former occupancy, but now all is already clean and cultivated, his possession having been continuous from the year 1910 up to the present time; that Alejandro Cajucom, Eulalio Ilagan and his brothers never prohibited him and his cohomesteaders from tilling and cultivating those lands; that with regard to those lands occupied by the concessionaries aforementioned, they were likewise covered in all parts by shrubs and weeds without any sign of former occupancy; that when he arrived at that place in the year 1905 he saw about 9 wild carabaos, but did not see any camarin there, belonging to Eulalio Ilagan, nor did he see any carabao of Alejandro Cajucom; that he knew Clemente Victorio and was sure that the latter arrived there in the year 1908. This witness admits that he and his companions have presented complaints in the years 1918 and 1919 to the provincial governor and the Governor-General for the damages that had been caused by the carabaos of Cajucom to their plantations, but those carabaos were on the top of Mt. Capisungan, which is scarcely 1 kilometer from the palay plantations, and as there was no wire fence to prevent them from coming down and hanging about, nor did the shepherds take care of them, they came down up to the palay plantations, but after the filing of those complaints, the Cajucom brothers removed and took away from there those 9 head of animals.
Anastacio A. Duque, testifies that he has a homestead in the barrio of Macapsing, constituted by lots No. 1999, 1903, and 1904, that lot No. 1904 has been in his possession since the year 1914; than then it was forest land, but was cleaned by him, nobody having interfered with him when he was cleaning it; that now it is being withheld by Fructuoso Francisco who had shot a coparcener of his for which he was sued.
Francisco Tolentino, 69 years of age, an employee at present in the Division of Archives of the Philippine Library and Museum, testifies that during the Spanish regime he had been an employee for about 25 years in the "Direccion General de Administration Civil" in cases of application for land titles by composition with the State; that the archives of the "Direccion General de Administracion Civil" are found in the Division of Archives where the witness is now employed; that he is sure that the "Direccion General de Administracion Civil" was the office authorized to issue composition titles, and the "Intendencia General" was the one that issued sale titles in cases of public unoccupied lands of the State; that subsequently titles were also issued by the chiefs of the provinces, that is, the provincial governors as deputies of the "Director de la Administracion Civil" with respect to composition titles; that he is also positive that the rulings of the 'Direccion General de Administracion Civil" as well as those of the "Intendencia" about adjudication of lands, whether by composition or by purchase, were published in the "Gaceta de Manila," and by way of example the witness indicated page 115 of the "Gaceta" of January 28, 1885; that in order to facilitate to the public and to himself the search of the antecedents of applications and adjudications of lands, he made a list that served as a guide to him or facilitated the search of the names of the persons to whom lands had been adjudicated by the "Direccion" and the "Intendencia," by examining sheet by sheet the "Gacetas" published from the year 1877 until the ceasing of the Spanish sovereignty here, he having written personally the list Exhibit 43, which is a list of the judgments and rulings referring to those persons who had obtained lands by composition and by purchase from the Spanish government corresponding to the "Gacetas" from 1880 to 1895; that among the persons to whom, according to that list Exhibit 43, composition titles were granted, the name of Cecilio Cajucom was not included, his name appearing only on a "list of the application for public unoccupied lands of the State" (Exhibit 44), which the "Intendencia General de Hacienda" has forwarded with the applications to the "Direccion General de Administracion Civil;" that according to a memorandum placed at the bottom of the list the applications mentioned therein were received in that office on December 15, 1884, and forwarded on December 24th of the same year to the "Intendencia General de Montes; was, according to the regulations, the one in charge of the proceedings in composition cases, and after the proceedings, the records were forwarded to the "Direccion General de Administracion Civil" for the issue of the titles; that, according to that list (Exhibit 44), the date of the application of Cecilio Cajucom was May 16, 1882; that the witness began in the year 1900 to prepare that list (Exhibit 43) of the final rulings of the "Direccion" and the "Intendencia" about adjudications of lands, by taking the same for the "Gacetas" of the Spanish government that are kept in the Bureau or Archives; that he very well remembered that on September 27 and 28, 1897, the office building of the "Inspeccion de Montes" where there were recorded many documents was burnt and as a consequence thereof all the documents, papers and records of lands covered by applications of private individuals were destroyed; that in the Bureau of Archives there is kept a statistics or list of the agricultural lands in Boñgabong, signed by then Municipal Captain of Boñgabong, Nueva Ecija, Don Hilarion Vilar, it appearing from said statistics that Cecilio Cajucom possessed a parcel (one alone) of agricultural land containing 35 hectares and 70 ares, of the third class; denominated "San Pablo;" bounded on the north by a creek; on the south by San Pablo Creek; on the east by a creek; on the west by a ditch, palay being its agricultural product; that when the civil governor of the province authorized the issuance of a composition title in his capacity as deputy of the "Director General de Administracion Civil," the proceeding was commenced, conducted, and the record filed in the corresponding provincial board and only a statement of the adjudications made was sent to the "Direccion General de Administration Civil," signed by the provincial board for its publication in the gazette. And having been asked about cases of composition titles of Isidro Muñoz covering a land now possessed by the clerk, he answered that he did not find any more than a note; that in the Bureau of Archives no document was found concerning the application of Isidro Muñoz, and all he saw in the gazette was the publication of said application.
And as a rebuttal evidence, and to illustrate that composition titles were issued without publication in the gazette of the applications and final rulings, the attorney of Cajucom presented the following titles:
Composition title in the name of D. Isabelo Santiago (Exhibit E).
Composition title in the name of Fausto Ramos (Exhibit F).
Composition title in the name of Esteban Duval (Exhibit G).
Composition title in the name of Agustin Mangulabnan (Exhibit H).
And the testimony of Francisco Tolentino in case No. 546 of the Court of Nueva Ecija.
From this evidence the following conclusions logically follow:
First. That no portion of this tract of land (composed of 62 lots) is at present in the actual possession of the heirs of Cecilio Cajucom, nor is there any carabao, ox or inclosure, pertaining to, or being under the control of, the Cajucom people.
Second. That all of those 62 lots, with the exception of some forest lands and some hills or stony places, have been for some years physically occupied by private individuals and certain homestead applicants and concessionaries who have cultivated, cleaned, improved and brought them to a state of cultivation.
Third. That Cecilio Cajucom in his lifetime had not possessed them as owner; for although in one or two small portions (which were not identified), he made inclosures for his cattle and cottages for his shepherds, nevertheless it positively appears that he did not break up any ground, clean or reduce them to cultivation, it not being sufficient to say that he was in possession thereof on account of his cattle having wandered, walked and grazed on those lands, when the carabaos of other persons also wandered and grazed there, with the further circumstances that he had not obtained a permit to pasture his cattle there; and that although his two shepherds planted some palay that yielded enough for their support, yet such cultivation was not permanent but casual, and was stopped as soon as said shepherds ceased to live there because all of the carabaos and oxen they were taking care of had perished.
Fourth. That when the present possessors of the lands arrived there for the first time they found them to be a forest full or shrubs, and without any sign of former occupancy or cultivation, nobody, even the Cajucom family, having interrupted or prohibited them from occupying, cleaning, and cultivating the 62 lots in houses they themselves have erected there without objection of anybody.
Fifth. That in the statistics of the agricultural lands of Boñgabong (made in the last years of the Spanish regime) which is on file in the Bureau of Archives, no mention is made of this tract of land as the property of Cecilio Cajucom, but of other land situated in the barrio of San Pablo at the same town of Boñgabong, Nueva Ecija.
Sixth. And, lastly, that Eulalio Ilagan, connected with the Cajucom family, intended to appropriate these lands in behalf, and as representative (according to him), of said family, and tried to file an application for registration; and to that effect and for the purpose of meeting certain requirements, he declared the lands in the year 1906 for the purpose of taxation and cause them to be surveyed in the year 1910, and some carabaos were even let loose thereon to molest the occupants who had their plantations there; that he did not carry out his design to file an application for registration, but he himself asked for, and obtained in the year 1916 or 1917, the cancellation of the tax declaration, and then abandoned the lands withdrawing his carabaos therefrom.
Having made the foregoing considerations, let us now discuss the question: Did the composition title which the Cajucom people allege to have been issued in favor of their predecessor in interest Cecilio Cajucom over this tract of land (62 lots) really exist?
There are reasons to presume that such composition title was issued and existed. But there are also powerful and convincing reasons to hold that the supposed composition title never existed, nor was it is issued by the Spanish government.
Reasons for the presumption that the title in question existed and was issued by the Spanish government:
First. The note found on the list of applications for public unoccupied lands of the State (Exhibit 44) to the effect that Cecilio Cajucom, on May 16, 1882, had filed an application covering a parcel of land situated within the jurisdiction of the town of Boñgabong, Province of Nueva Ecija, which application was forwarded with others by the "Intendencia General de Hacienda" to the "Direccion General de Administration Civil" where they were received on December 15, 1884 and transmitted afterwards, that is, on the 24th of the same month and year, by that same office, that is, the "Direccion Civil," to the "Inspeccion General de Montes."
Second. The fact of Cecilio Cajucom having had for some years within the tract of land one or two inclosures for his carabaos and oxen, and of those animals having grazed there.
Third. The testimony of Alejandro Cajucom and Catalino Ortiz y Airoso (after the offering of evidence about the supposed loss or burning of the title in question in the fire which took place in the year 1904 and destroyed the house of Cecilio Cajucom in Boñgabong) to the effect that those witnesses have seen and read that title.
Fourth. The circumstance that on account of the loss and destruction of all the documents, records, and papers on file in the office of the "Inspeccion General de Montes" when said office was burnt in September 1897, one is compelled to accept, as the only proof of the existence of the title of Cecilio Cajucom, the testimony of Alejandro Cajucom and Catalino Ortiz who have testified having seen and read it.
The reasons or grounds for holding that the supposed title of Cecilio Cajucom never existed are as follows:
First. It positively appears as a fact that Cecilio Cajucom presented the application referred to in the list Exhibit 44, but said list does not point out the location, area, and boundaries of the land, limiting itself to stating in a vague manner that the application was presented on May 16, 1882 and that the land covered by it was a single parcel which was situated within the jurisdictional limits of the town of Boñgabong, Nueva Ecija. All of these circumstances raise a reasonable doubt as to whether or not that application referred rather to another land distinct from the tract of land (62 lots) in question, such as the land (one single parcel) alluded to in the aforesaid agricultural statistics of Boñgabong of 35 hectares and 70 ares, third class, used for the cultivation of palay which is situated in the barrio of San Pablo, of the same town of Boñgabong, bounded on the north by a creek; on the south by San Pablo Creek; on the east by a creek; and on the west by a ditch.
Second. Under the laws then in force no composition title could be issued over these lands on account of the state and conditions thereof which in that time (year 1882) they were incult and untitled and bounded on its two sides by mountains which are evidently lands of the State, for even at present, notwithstanding the many emigrants who have gone there to cultivate lands, the Cajucom people describe that tract of land in their answer as follows: "Bounded on the north by public lands and Bulalacay Creek; on the east by lands of the State; on the south by those of Gorgonio Riguer and Marcos Gonzales, and on the west by property of Gorgonio Riguer, Bulalacay Creek and public lands." This will later be explained in connection with the following.
Third. On the date of the filing of the application (May 16, 1882) the supposed titled could not have been issued for having been presented out of the period prescribed by the Royal Order of June 25, 1880, approving the regulation for the gratuitous concession of public unoccupied lands of the State. This Royal Order was published in the "Gaceta de Manila" on September 8, 1880. Article 8 reads thus:
"If the interested parties do not make application within the period of one year from the concession of the lands they are unduly enjoying, and, once the same is granted by the proper authority, they do not comply with their agreement by paying the amount they are under obligation to pay to the Treasury, the latter in the exercise of its right will vindicate the property of the State."
Under this provision the period for the filing of applications for composition expired September 8, 1881. It is true that by the Royal Order of July 15, 1881, the period for the filing of applications for composition was extended one year, but this was only a special grace granted those who had tilled their lands and brought them to a state of cultivation. The pertinent part of said Royal Order reads thus:
"An extension of one year is granted, as a special grace, to possessors of land who have tilled and reduced them to cultivation in order that they may apply for the concession thereof in the manner provided by the regulation approved by Royal Decree of June 25, 1880."
It is admitted by the Cajucom people themselves that the land in question was never cultivated during the time of the Spanish regime and, that, perhaps for this reason it was not included as agricultural land in the aforesaid statistics of agricultural lands of Boñgabong. The application of Cecilio Cajucom, even supposing that he had presented it within the second period, could not have been considered for the simple reason that the land was incult, untilled and not in a state of cultivation at the time of the filing of the application. And the legal provision was so strict upon this point that the same Royal Order of July 15, 1881, it its article 3, is couched in the following terms:
"With respect to unoccupied public lands of the State withheld by private individuals and which are not tilled or reduced to cultivation, no extension whatever is granted; wherefore they shall revert to the State as provided in article 8 of the regulation and shall consequently be considered as any other unoccupied public lands of the State, to be disposed of in such manner as may be deemed fit."
Fourth. The title of Cecilio Cajucom could not have been issued in the year 1884, the date of the title according to the witness Alejandro Cajucom, because of the physical impossibility to meet all the requirements and to finish the proceedings within the said year 1884. And this conclusion is shown almost mathematically, as will presently be seen. By the testimony of Alejandro Cajucom, it was attempted to prove, as above state, that the title of Cecilio Cajucom was issued in the year 1884. In the list of applications Exhibit 44, from which the name of Cecilio Cajucom was taken (Exhibit D), as one of those who have filed applications covering unoccupied public lands of the State, it appears that the applications, among which was that of Cecilio Cajucom, were forwarded by the "Intendencia General de Hacienda" to the "Direccion General de Administracion Civil" where there were received on December 15, 1884. That office, in turn, transmitted them to the "Inspeccion General de Montes" on December 24, 1884. According to the Royal Order of November 15, 1881 (punished in the gazette of February 2, 1882) the Office of Forestry was the one in charge of conducting the composition proceedings, specially the field works, such as the inspection, marking of boundaries and survey of the land and drawing of the plans. If it was only before the ending of the year 1884, that is to say, seven days before the expiration of that year, that the application of Cajucom was sent by the "Direccion" to the "Oficina de Montes," it being very difficult, not to say impossible, during those last seven or six days of the year, to comply with all the various then in force in cases like this, it must be admitted that it was impossible to obtained the title in question in the same year 1884. So that the court does not hesitate to affirm that the testimonies of Alejandro Cajucom and Catalino Ortiz y Airoso are false. They have not seen such a title.
The fact alleged by these witnesses as their reason for stating having seen and read the supposed title of Cecilio Cajucom is not an actual, but fictitious fact, is a mere fable invented, which their resourceful imagination has suggested to them in their desire to accomplish their purpose.
If it was true that the land was mortgaged to Espina, the existence of the supposed title alleged to have been burnt in a fire may easily be verified by the following means: First, by a copy of the deed of mortgage, which undoubtedly may be found in the records of the notary public of Nueva Ecija who intervened in the drawing and execution thereof, which records may be searched in the Bureau of Archives created by Act No. 273, where all the original notarial documents, such as the records, were sent by virtue of the provision of Act No. 136 in its section 80, for as the witness Ortiz very well says, it cannot be conceived that a person should loan P500 to another without any document whatever to secure its payments; second, by a copy or copies of the index of the original documents referred to in article 33 of the Notarial Law then in force in these Islands, and the of the minutes of the semestral inspections that the Judges of First Instance, as deputies of the president of the Audiencia, should have made and remitted to the "Audiencia Territorial de Manila" (Leg. Nt. arts. 44, 45, and 47); and third, by a copy of the pertinent part of the registry of the official acts (secs 87, Act No. 138) of the notary who intervened in, or authorized, the document of redemption of the mortgage upon the payment of the debt of P500 to the creditor Espina, if it is really true that said loan and mortgage existed. All of these minutes and indexes are undoubtedly in the archives of the Audiencia now known as Supreme Court, if they were not forwarded to the Bureau of Archives, and the records of the notaries of the Spanish regime, and the registers of the notaries under the American sovereignty in the Bureau of Archives.
In the same document of mortgage executed by Cajucom in favor of Espina (if such loan and mortgage was really made), a statement should have been made of the title of Cecilio Cajucom with the corresponding description of the land mortgaged and the amount of the loan given; and in the index there must be found at least the name of the mortgagor. There is no doubt whatever that the copies of these documents would be more acceptable than the mere testimonies, somewhat vague and inconsistent on certain details, of witnesses who did not intervene in the composition proceeding (which never existed) nor in the preparation and drawing of the supposed title of Cecilio Cajucom. Section 321 of Act No. 190 provides that in case the original document cannot be presented, for having been lost or misplaced, there must be previous proof: First, of the loss of the document (title in the instant case), and second, of the fact that the document or title was duly signed; and after this evidence is introduced, then proof of the contents may be presented: First, by a copy of the title (which there cannot be because such original title did not exist); second, by the statement made thereof in some authentic document (which in the instant case would be either a copy of the document of mortgage, or of the indexes, minutes and records of the official acts of the notary authorizing the same, which can easily be found in the Supreme Court and in the Bureau of Archives, if such mortgage and loan really existed); and lastly by the recollection that a witness may have thereof. As may be see, the law (section 321) puts the recollection of the witness in the last place. And in the case before us, not only were the copies of the indexes, minutes and records of the notary and of the documents themselves of mortgage or cancellation thereof not introduced as evidence at the trial, but their loss was not satisfactorily proven; nor was it shown that the supposed title of Cecilio Cajucom was issued and signed by the proper functionary, nor even was is attempted to prove that the proceeding was conducted and terminated, or at least commenced, or that the bans and notices punished as required by law.
Fifth. On the pages of the collection of the official gazettes of the Spanish government from the year 1880 up to 1895, the name of Cecilio Cajucom was not found among the many persons in whose favor lands were adjudicated. And this evidence is in the opinion of the court decisive; because the adjudications of lands, whether by composition or purchase, made by the "Direccion General de Administracion Civil" and the "Intendencia General de Hacienda" were published in the gazette and this is very easy to verify by examining the very pages of the gazette. Mr. Francisco Tolentino, an employee of the Bureau of Archives, has made a complete list of all the persons in whose favor lands were adjudicated, and from that list the part corresponding to the Province of Nueva Ecija was copied and is marked Exhibit 43; and, as above stated, among the many rulings of the "Direccion de Administracion Civil" from the year 1880 up to 1895, none was found in favor of Cecilio Cajucom.
To overthrow this kind of proof, there were presented as rebuttal evidence the composition titles issued from the year 1894 by the chief of the Province of Nueva Ecija, in his capacity as deputy of "Director General de Administracion Civil," marked Exhibit E, F, G, and H in favor of Isabelo Santiago, Fruto Ramos, Esteban Duval, and Agustin Mangulabnan, respectively. The applications and decisions of the chief of the Province of Nueva Ecija in these adjudications of lands, as all the final decisions rendered by the provincial governors in their capacity as deputies of the "Director de Administracion Civil," were not published in the gazette, said authorities having limited themselves to forwarding to the "Direccion Civil" some indexes of the cases dispatched. And this is true notwithstanding the erroneous opinion of the witness Francisco Tolentino on the point. Knowing this to be the fact the attorneys of the Cajucom people now apparently pretend that the supposed title of Cecilio Cajucom was issued and signed in the year 1884, not by the "Director General de Administracion Civil," nor by the "Intendente General de la Hacienda," but by the chief of the Province of Nueva Ecija, in his capacity as deputy of the Director General de Administracion Civil," the same as the aforesaid titles of Santiago, Ramos, Duval, and Mangulabnan. And thus they now want to explain the fact of the non-publication in the gazette of the issuance of the composition title in favor of Cecilio Cajucom. But this new feature of the argument appears to be without merit in view of the following two circumstances: First, in the year 1884 (which is the alleged date of the title) the provincial boards authorized to make concession of public lands by composition were not yet organized, for said provincial boards were created by the Royal Order of December 26, 1884 (punished in the gazette on March 20, 1885 with the decree of the Governor-General putting the same in force), complemented and amended afterwards in part by the Royal Order of August 31, 1888; second, that it being the function of the Office of Forestry, according to article 2 of the first Royal Order, to conduct the proceedings for concession of lands containing more than fifty hectares, subject to the "Direccion General de Administracion Civil," which was the office authorized to render the final decision; and it being within the province of the "Direccion General de Administracion Civil," according to article 2 of the Royal Order last cited, to conduct the proceedings, and decide the applications covering lands containing more than 30 hectares, and it appearing, on the other hand, that the area of the land claimed is more than 50 hectares (50 quinones), the provincial board of Nueva Ecija could no way have entertained the application for the concession thereof, and carried on the proceeding, nor could any title to said land containing said area have been issued by the chief of the province, in his capacity as deputy of the "Director General de Administracion Civil." In the composition titles (Exhibits E, F, G, and H) presented as rebuttal evidence, the area of each of the parcels of land therein described does not exceed even 30 hectares. So those titles were issued and signed by the chief of the province, and the final rulings thereon were not published in the official gazettes of the Spanish government. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose even the possibility of said alleged title having been issued by the chief of the province in favor of Cecilio Cajucom, as Exhibits E, F, G, and H, were.
Said alleged composition title of Cecilio Cajucom not having existed, the question now presents itself, whether under the Public Land Act (Act No. 2874) the Cajucom people may take advantage of the benefits of chapter 8 of said Act. Taking into account that the Cajucom people do not come within the provision of section 45, to with, that the "applicants or grantees and their heirs have occupied and cultivated said lands continuously since the filing of their application." (paragraph a), and that `they by themselves or through their predecessors in interest should have been in the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition, except as against the Government, since July 26, 1894 (paragraph b), the court is of the opinion that these Cajucom people cannot take advantage of the benefits of chapter 8 of Act No. 2874. Moreover, the law of prescription is in favor of many of the actual occupants of the land and against the Cajucom people, inasmuch as said occupants have been in the actual possession of some lots for more than 10 years under claim of ownership.
For all of the foregoing facts and considerations, the court finds:
First. That the Cajucom people are not entitle to any of the 62 lots above-mentioned, and therefore their claim is hereby overruled with costs.
Second. And lots Nos. 1527, 1823, 1825, 1826, 1827, 1835, 1836, 1860, 1903, 1904, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1919, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1951, 1961, 1968, 1999, and 2037, are declared public lands.
Third. That nobody having appeared, notwithstanding the due notices given, to present evidence with respect to lots Nos. 1833, 1837, 1851, 1852, 1859, 1866, 1921, 1923, 1927, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1963, 2004, 2036, 2051, 2079, and 2230 and the claim of the Cajucom people having been overruled, the 19 lots just mentioned are declared public lands, the present occupants thereof being entitled to legalize their possession in accordance with any of sections 23 and 41 of the aforesaid Act No. 2874. And as to the remaining lots, the nature and conditions of each of them will be stated in its respective place.
Lot No. 1527. This is public land. See above discussion.
Lot No. 1671. This is private property. See discussion about the lots claimed by Deogracias Sumaquiao and what was said about lot No. 2023.
Lot No. 1699. Private property. See what was said about the lots claimed by Deogracias Sumaquiao.
Lots Nos. 1717, 1904, and 1906. These lots are claimed by Fructuoso Francisco, alleging to have acquired them by purchase from Clemente Victorio and Victoriano Francisco. It was proven, however, that lot No. 1904 is a part of the homestead of Anastacio Duque who has a house there (Exhibit 3) and is actually in physical possession thereof, and that some portions of the land are still in a state of uncultivation (Exhibit 4). This lot No. 1904, therefore, must be declared a part of the homestead of Anastacio Duque. As to lots Nos. 1717 and 1906, it appears from the testimony of Felix Corpus that Clemente Victorio, from whom Fructuoso Francisco has acquired them, took possession thereof only in the year 1908 and that these lands have been the subject-matter of a litigation between Clemente Victorio and Victoriano Francisco.
These lots Nos. 1717 and 1906 are not private property of the claimant Fructuoso Francisco, nor is he within the provision of section 43 of Act No. 2874, but may legalize his possession under any of sections 23 and 41 of said Act.
Lots Nos. 1717, 1904, and 1906 are, therefore, public lands.
Lot No. 1823. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1826. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1827. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1833. Public land. See what was said above with regard to the claim on the Cajucom people.
Lot No. 1835. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1836. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1837. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot Nos. 1838, 1858, and 1861. These three lots are claimed by Jose Lazaro married with Maria Mallari. According to the evidence, they were acquired by occupancy and cultivation during the time of the Spanish regime, lot No. 1838, by Guillermo Pineda and Romana Ramos; lot No. 1858 by the spouses Eugenio Corpus and Maxima Garcia; and lot No. 1861 by Antonio Vicente, father of Bernardino Vicente; that later Vicente Vergel acquired lots Nos. 1858 and 1861 by purchase; that Francisco C. Tantingco alias Chua likewise acquired the aforesaid three lots by purchase from Vicente Vergel and Guillermo Pineda, and resold them afterwards to the spouses Jose Lazaro and Maria Mallari who are of age, and have complied with the requirements prescribed by paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874.
The adjudication and registration of lots Nos. 1838, 1858 and 1861 are decreed in favor of the conjugal partnership of Jose Lazaro and Maria Mallari, of age, and residents of Rizal, Nueva Ecija.
Lot No. 1851. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 1852. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 1858. Private property. See lot No. 1838.
Lot No. 1859. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 1860. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1861. Private property. See lot No. 1838.
Lot No. 1866. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 1903. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1904. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others. And see also lot No. 1717.
Lot No. 1905. It appears from the evidence that Gorgonio Riguer, 65 years old, and married with Marcela Lorenzo, has been since four years ago in possession of this land as owner, having purchased the same from Victoriana Francisco, wife of Marcos Gonzalez who had been occupying and cultivating said land publicly and peacefully since the Spanish regime.
It is, therefore, decreed that lot No. 1905 be adjudicated to, and registered in the name of, the conjugal partnership of Gorgonio Riguer and Marcela Lorenzo, both of age, and residents of Rizal, Nueva Ecija.
Lot No. 1906. Public land. See lot No. 1717.
Lot No. 1907. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1908. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1909. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1919. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1920. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1921. Public land. See lot No. 1833
Lot No. 1922. It is claimed by Victoriano Paas. But he and Mariano de los Reyes, from whom he has purchased it, have been in possession thereof only for 15 years. This claimant may legalize his possession under sections 23 and 41 of Act No. 2874.
Lot No. 1922 is, therefore, declared public land.
Lot No. 1923. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 1924. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1925. It is claimed by Mariano Basilio for having purchased the same from Zacarias Diego, who began to occupy it only in the year 1906, and for this reason the only way to legalize his possession is to apply to the Director of Lands according to section 41 or 23 of Act No. 2874.
Lot No. 1925 is, therefore, public land.
Lots Nos. 1926 and 2050. These lots are claimed by Urbano Riguer. According to his evidence, he has been in possession of said lands since five years ago, having acquired lot No. 1926 by purchase from one Angel Mariano, according to Exhibit M, and lot No. 2050 by purchase from Cipriano Collado, according to Exhibit N; it appearing that before lot No. 1926 was transferred by way of sale it has been for about 11 years in possession of Angel Mariano, and lot No. 2050 for about 13 years in possession of Cipriano Collado.
Both lots Nos. 1926 and 2050 are, therefore, public lands, the claimant Riguer being authorized, however, to legalize his possession under any of sections 23 or 41 of Act No. 2874, should he deem it fit to do so.
Lot No. 1927. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 1928. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lots Nos. 1937, 1938, and 1939. These are claimed by Lorenzo Limos, Leoncio Lucero, and Pedro Antonio respectively; but the possession of all and each of them has been only for 20 years.
The aforesaid lots Nos. 1937, 1938, and 1939 are, therefore, public lands subject, however, to gratuitous concession or sale according to sections 23 and 41 of Act No. 2874.
Lot No. 1938. Public land. See lot No. 1937.
Lot No. 1939. Public land. See lot No. 1937.
Lot No. 1940. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1941. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1942. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1943. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1944. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1945. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1951. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1952. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 1953. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 1954. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 1955. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 1956. It is claimed by Esperanza Celis as private property. But according to the evidence, Gregorio de la Cruz, from whom Esperanza acquired this land, began to possess it in the year 1906 as her compensation or share on account of the construction of an irrigation canal.
Therefore said lot No. 1956 is public land, subject, however, to gratuitious concession or purchase according to sections 23 and 1 of Act No. 2874, upon petition of any person who may have a right thereto.
Lot No. 1961. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1962. It is claimed by Macario Bawara, but as the latter's possession has been only for 20 years, the court declares said lot No. 1962 public land, subject, however, to gratuitious concession or sale in accordance with sections 23 and 41 of Act No. 2874.
Lot No. 1963. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 1968. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 1999. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 2004. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 2036. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 2037. Public land. See lot No. 1527 and others.
Lot No. 2050. Public land. See lot No. 1926.
Lot No. 2051. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 2069. It is private property. See what was said about lot No. 100 and others claimed by Serafin Linsangan.
Lot No. 2079. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
Lot No. 2230. Public land. See lot No. 1833 and others.
As to the lots declared public lands, instead of issuing decrees therefor, the Chief of the General Land Registration Office is ordered to prepare and submit to the Honorable Governor-General a list of a said lots, stating their condition and the right is reserved to the Government of the Philippine Islands to ask for the issuance of the decrees for such lots as may be registered.
The roads, highways, streets, alleys, beds of waters and other lands not enumerated as lots, situated within the perimeter of the tract of land dealt with in this decision, are declared property of the Government of the Philippine Islands.
Once the statement of the expenses caused by the survey and marking of boundaries on the land is made by the Bureau of Public Lands, and the list of expenses for registration and proceeding by the General Land Registration Office, a special order shall be issued, fixing the proportionate part which each party in interest must pay in the manner prescribed by the Cadastral Law and its amendments.
The clerk is ordered, as soon as said special order for the distribution of costs is issued, to notify each claimant of the amount or aliquot part he has to pay according to said special order.
The clerk is likewise ordered to sent two certified copies of this decision to the Chief of the General Land Registration Office and one to each of the following officers: The provincial treasurer of Nueva Ecija, the fiscal and register of deeds of the aforesaid province of Nueva Ecija, the Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands and the Director of Lands, and to notify each claimant or his attorney in this proceeding of the part of the decision pertinent to him.
And the Chief of the General Land Registration Office is finally ordered, after this decision has become final, and the final plans prepared by the Bureau of Lands according to the tenor hereof are received by him, to issue the decrees for the registration of the corresponding title: Provided, however, That the said Chief of the General Land Registration Office may issue in accordance with the original plan attached to the record the decrees for the registration of the corresponding title of those lots that are not to be amended according to this decision.
So ordered.
Manila (for Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija), July 3, 1923.
|
(Sgd.) V. NEPOMUCENO
Judge of First Instance |
In this court, counsel for the claimants-appellants assigned the following errors:
None of these errors need be discussed, for the decision itself is their best refutation. Here, we have on the one side, claimants with a more or less shadowy title around which peculiar incidents have arisen, and on the other side, a considerable number of homesteaders who went upon this land in 1906, who later cultivated it and erected their homes thereon, who were granted homestead patents in 1916, and who continued thereafter in undisputed possession until this cadastral survey was initiated. We are frank to add that it would take a much stronger case than this for the appellate court to override the findings of fact as made by the trial judge.
Finding no reversible error, and agreeing in all respects with the conclusions of the trial judge, judgment is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellants. So ordered.
