G.R. No. L-45061




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. L-45061 November 20, 1989 THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RAMON C. FERNANDEZ [ponente], ANDRES REYES, MARIANO V. AGCAOILI and DELFIN FL. BATACAN [concurring] with JUSTICE RICARDO C. PUNO [dissenting] ARTURO RODRIGUEZ and GUILLERMO REYES, respondents. Benjamin M. Reyes for private respondents. FERNAN, C.J.: Petitioner Director of Lands interposes the instant appeal by certiorari from the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated November 10, 1976 (Special Division, Justice Ramon C. Fernandez, ponente; Justices Andres Reyes, Mariano V. Agcaoili and Delfin Fl. Batacan, concurring; Justice Ricardo C. Puno, dissenting) in CA-G.R. No. 42292-R entitled "Arturo Rodriguez, et al., applicants-appellees versus the Director of Lands, oppositor-appellant" decreeing the confirmation of title of the applicants-appellees under Republic Act No. 496 in relation to Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, over an area identified as Lot No. 1736, Cadastral Survey of Orion, Bataan. Said Lot No. 1736 is a large tract of agricultural land situated in Barrio Kapok, Orion, Bataan, containing 233.6883 hectares, alleged to have been occupied since 1913 by the grandfather of applicant Arturo Rodriguez, the late Vicente Rodriguez, who, during his lifetime filed Lease Application No. 1206 with the Bureau of Lands, but which application was rejected upon investigation and ascertainment that the land was classified as within the U.S. Military Reservation (Mariveles) under Executive Order dated December 16, 1924 of the President of the United States of America, embodied in Proclamation No. 10 of the Governor-General of the Philippines dated February 16, 1925. Upon the death of Vicente Rodriguez in 1924, possession of the property was taken over by his sons, Victorino Rodriguez (the father of applicant Arturo Rodriguez) and Pablo Rodriguez. Subsequently in an instrument of quitclaim, both Victorino and Pablo Rodriguez waived their rights as heirs of the late Vicente Rodriguez over the subject property ceding all their participation, ownership and possession thereon in favor of Arturo Rodriguez. Thereafter, Arturo Rodriguez sold two-thirds (2/3) undivided portion of the land to Guillermo Reyes and Francisco S. Alcantara. In 1953, the land in question was deemed reverted to the public domain as it was excluded from the US-Philippine Military Bases Agreement. On August 29, 1965, Arturo Rodriguez together with Guillermo Reyes and Francisco S. Alcantara filed a verified petition for registration of their title to Lot No. 1736 of the Cadastral Survey of Orion, Bataan under Act No. 496 alleging that they, by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and adverse possession thereof in the concept of owners for more than thirty (30) years immediately preceding the filing of their application. (Land Registration Case No. N-122 (LRC Rec. No. N-28819) Applicant Francisco Alcantara subsequently withdrew his application by motion dated March 21, 1966. On March 8, 1967, the remaining applicants, Arturo Rodriguez and Guillermo Reyes, filed an amended application incorporating an allegation that the heirs of Vicente Rodriguez, the original possessor of Lot No. 1736, namely Victorino Rodriguez and Pablo Rodriguez, had relinquished their rights and participation in Lot 1736 in favor of Arturo Rodriguez. Thirty-nine (39) persons headed by Rosauro Canaria filed their Opposition to the petition for registration contending, among others, that they have been in actual, peaceful, adverse and continuous possession of portions of Lot No. 1736 for more than thirty (30) years and have introduced improvements thereon consisting of fruit-bearing trees; that the applicants have never been in possession of the property; and that applicant Arturo Rodriguez could not have inherited the land from his grandfather, because the children of Vicente Rodriguez are still living. The Director of Lands likewise filed his opposition alleging that neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest possess sufficient title to the land applied for, as they have not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land sought to be registered for at least thirty (30) years immediately preceding the filing of the application. On July 15, 1966, oppositors Rosauro Canaria, et al., filed a motion to dismiss the petition for registration stating that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment. Said motion was denied on August 30, 1966 for lack of merit. On March 13, 1967, oppositor Director of Lands filed a "Motion to Dismiss or for Reconsideration" of the Order dated August 30, 1966 alleging in substance that the present petition for registration was intended to reopen Cadastral Case No. 15, L.R.C. Record No. 1021, wherein a cadastral court already declared Lot 1736 as public land; that the application for registration cannot be treated as a pleading for the reopening of the cadastral case as provided under Republic Act No. 931 because it does not contain material allegations justifying the applicants' failure to file their answer during the cadastral proceedings; and that a decision in a cadastral case constitutes res judicata. In a decision dated July 12, 1967, the lower court ruled in favor of the applicants confirming their title to Lot 1736 of Orion Cadastre, Bataan and ordering its registration in the names of said applicants in the following proportion: 2/3 undivided portion to Arturo Rodriguez and 1/3 undivided portion to Guillermo Reyes. 1 The Director of Lands and the private oppositors seasonably filed their respective notices of appeal and their joint record on appeal. However, private oppositors' appeal was dismissed by the appellate court in its resolution dated July 25, 1969 on the ground that the record on appeal did not show that they filed an appeal bond. On June 2, 1976, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision penned by Justice Ricardo C. Puno and concurred in by Justices Ramon C. Fernandez and Delfin Fl. Batacan, reversing and setting aside the decision of the lower court on the ground that the land in question had been decreed in 1938 to be part of the public domain by the cadastral court in proceedings commenced as early as 1927 and which had become final thereby constituting a bar to the subsequent application for registration on the principle of res judicata. 2 Such declaration according to the appellate court is binding upon the applicants even if they did not take part in the proceedings as claimants or oppositors and therefore the trial court had no further jurisdiction to entertain the case at bar. Applicants-appellees filed a motion for the reconsideration of the appellate court's decision alleging three grounds, namely: that the decision in Cadastral Proceedings No. 15, Record No. 1021 does not constitute res judicata on the same land subject of the present application for land registration; that the application for land registration and/or confirmation of an imperfect title is not a petition for reopening of the cadastral proceedings; and that the trial court had jurisdiction over the land registration case. In a resolution dated November 10, 1976, 3 the Court of Appeals thru a division of five and by a vote of four to one reversed its decision and ruled that the prior decision of the cadastral court declaring the lot in question as public land way back in 1930 does not bar the present application for registration of title or confirmation of imperfect title under Act 496 of the same parcel of land citing the case of Mindanao vs. Director of Lands, 4 and that the applicants had registrable title over the land subject of the application. Hence this appeal by certiorari with the following assignment of errors: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PRIOR DECISION OF THE CADASTRAL COURT IN A PROPER CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS DECLARING THE LOT IN QUESTION AS PUBLIC LAND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RES JUDICATA, OR OTHERWISE STATED, DOES NOT BAR THE PRESENT APPLICATION BY SUBSEQUENT POSSESSORS FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE AND/OR CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE UNDER ACT 496 OF THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND. II THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE APPLICANTS HAD REGISTRABLE TITLE OVER THE LARGE TRACT OF PUBLIC LAND HEREIN APPLIED FOR. Petitioner's main contention in elevating the case to this Court is that the case of Mindanao relied upon by the appellate court in reversing its original decision is not applicable to the case at bar the basic and fundamental distinction resting on the fact that the declaration of the land in question as public land in said case was made in ordinary land registration proceedings which was a voluntary application commenced by a private party under Act 496, whereas in this case, the land in question was declared public land in compulsory cadastral proceedings initiated by the government under the Cadastral Act.5 Petitioner consequently cites the case of Navarro vs. Director of Lands, 6 as the more appropriate and applicable decision wherein it was ruled that where the parcels of land sought to be registered are the same lots already declared public lands in a cadastral proceedings where the applicant and the Director of Lands were parties, and the applicant failed to show acquisition of the lands by any of the legal modes of acquiring public lands, the decision declaring the lots part of the public domain must be deemed res judicata. We grant the petition but not on the principle of res judicata invoked by petitioner. Admittedly, the land in question had been declared public land in a decision rendered by the cadastral court in Cadastral Case No. 15, Record No. 1021. Factually, however, there is no prior final judgment at all to speak of because, as we explained in the case of Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 7 a decision in a cadastral proceedings declaring a lot public land is not the final decree contemplated in Sections 38 and 40 of the Land Registration Act. Thus, a judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public, does not preclude the same applicant from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land, provided he thereafter complies with the provisions of Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, and as long as said public land remains alienable and disposable. When Cadastral Case No. 15 was instituted in 1927 and terminated in 1930, the land in question was still classified as within the U. S. Military Reservation per Proclamation No. 10 of the Governor General of the Philippines dated February 16, 1925 and was deemed reverted to the public domain only in 1953. On this basis, the Court finds that the decision in the aforesaid cadastral case does not constitute res judicata upon a subsequent action for land registration considering the futility of filing any claim then over the land in question since the same would nevertheless have been denied due to the fact that during the pendency of the cadastral case, said land was not alienable nor disposable and this was shown by the denial of the lease application filed then by private respondents' predecessor-in-interest. It would be unfair to consider the said cadastral decision as binding upon private respondents because there was nothing they could have done then to protect their rights. Apparently, at that time they had no registrable right to speak of considering that in 1927, private respondents' possession could not have met the thirty year requirement under the law, their predecessor-in-interest having entered the land only in 1913, which if computed up to 1927 would add up to only fourteen (14) years. But while the cadastral proceedings in 1927 cannot be considered a bar to the registration proceedings instituted by private respondents in 1965, the chronology of events in the case at bar clearly negates compliance by private respondents-applicants with the thirty-year possession requirement. The intervening period commencing from the promulgation of Proclamation No. 10 of the Governor-General of the Philippines in 1925 declaring the land in question as part of the U.S. Military Reservation until 1953 when the land was deemed reverted back to the public domain disturbed private respondents- applicants, possession over the land in question because during this interregnum, no amount of time in whatever nature of possession could have ripen such possession into private ownership, the land having been segregate as part of a military reservation. This circumstance considered, private respondents' claim of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession over the land in question should be counted only from 1953. Considering that the application for registration was filed in 1965, obviously, the thirty-year requirement had not been met at the time the action for registration was filed and therefore it was error on the part of the appellate court to rule that the applicants already possessed a registrable title over the land in question. WHEREFORE, the November 10, 1976 resolution of the Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE. Land Registration Case No. N-122 (LRC Rec. No. N-28819) of the then Court of First Instance of Bataan is DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur, Gutierrez, Jr., J., took no part. Feliciano J., concurs in the result. Footnotes 1 Amended Record On Appeal, pp. 91-112. 2 Court of Appeals Decision, Rollo, pp. 21-34. 3 Rollo, pp. 35-40. 4 20 SCRA 641. 5 Act 2259. 6 SCRA 834. 7 106 SCRA 426. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation