FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-3155. January 22, 1908. ]
JOHN BORDMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.
Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellant.
John Bordman, in his own behalf.
SYLLABUS
1. GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURAL LAND; PRESCRIPTION. — Valeton v. Murciano(3 Phil. Rep., 537) followed to the point that agricultural lands of the Government can not be acquired by prescription.
2. REALTY; TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. — Order of Dominicans v. Insular Government (7 Phil. Rep., 98) followed to the point that the Court of Land Registration is justified in entering a decree for the plaintiff based upon the provisions of section 54, paragraph 6, of Act No. 926, although the petitioner did not specifically claim the benefit of that act.
2. REALTY; TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. — Order of Dominicans v. Insular Government (7 Phil. Rep., 98) followed to the point that the Court of Land Registration is justified in entering a decree for the plaintiff based upon the provisions of section 54, paragraph 6, of Act No. 926, although the petitioner did not specifically claim the benefit of that act.
D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J.:
This case comes from the Court of Land Registration. The Attorney-General appeared therein and objected to the granting of the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the property in question belonged to the Government. Judgment was rendered for the petitioner and the Government has appealed.
The court below held that the petitioner had acquired title to the land in controversy as against the Government by prescription. This ruling was erroneous. (Valenton v. Murciano, 3 Phil. Rep., 537; Cancino v. Valdez, 3 Phil. Rep., 429; Tiglao v. The Insular Government, 7 Phil. Rep., 80; Cariño v. The Insular Government, 7 Phil. Rep., 132.)
The court below found as a fact that the petitioner and his grantors had been in quiet, public, and uninterrupted possession as owners of the land in question since 1887. The Attorney-General makes no claim in his brief in this court to the effect that such possession was not the possession required by Act. No. 926, section 54, paragraph 6, and an examination of the evidence shows that the case is brought fully within the provisions of that section. The Attorney-General, however, claims that the appellee, not having asked in his petition for the benefits of the Public Land Act (No. 926), is not entitled to have his land registered by virtue of the provisions of such act. This claim has been made by the Attorney-General in other cases and has been disallowed. (Order of Dominicans v. The Insular Government, 7 Phil. Rep., 98; Pamintuan v. The Insular Government, 8 Phil. Rep., 485; Alvarez v. The Insular Government, No. 3784, decided January 16, 1908. 1)
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellants. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
The court below held that the petitioner had acquired title to the land in controversy as against the Government by prescription. This ruling was erroneous. (Valenton v. Murciano, 3 Phil. Rep., 537; Cancino v. Valdez, 3 Phil. Rep., 429; Tiglao v. The Insular Government, 7 Phil. Rep., 80; Cariño v. The Insular Government, 7 Phil. Rep., 132.)
The court below found as a fact that the petitioner and his grantors had been in quiet, public, and uninterrupted possession as owners of the land in question since 1887. The Attorney-General makes no claim in his brief in this court to the effect that such possession was not the possession required by Act. No. 926, section 54, paragraph 6, and an examination of the evidence shows that the case is brought fully within the provisions of that section. The Attorney-General, however, claims that the appellee, not having asked in his petition for the benefits of the Public Land Act (No. 926), is not entitled to have his land registered by virtue of the provisions of such act. This claim has been made by the Attorney-General in other cases and has been disallowed. (Order of Dominicans v. The Insular Government, 7 Phil. Rep., 98; Pamintuan v. The Insular Government, 8 Phil. Rep., 485; Alvarez v. The Insular Government, No. 3784, decided January 16, 1908. 1)
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellants. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Page 608, supra.
