EN BANC
[G.R. No. 13286. March 26, 1919. ]
ADELA AGUINALDO DE ROMERO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, objector-appellant.
Bernardo de la Peña, Eduardo Gutierrez Repide and Felix Socias for Appellant.
Solicitor-General Paredes for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. PROPERTY; POSSESSORY INFORMATION; WHEN VALID FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ROYAL DECREE OF FEBRUARY 13, 1894. — A possessory information proceeding instituted in accordance with the provisions of the Mortgage Law in force on July 14, 1893 neither constitutes nor is clothed with the character of a gratuitous title to property, referred to in Section 19 of the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, which provides that in order that an information may be valid for the purpose of the said Royal Decree and produce the effects of a title of ownership, it is indispensable that it be instituted within the unextended period of one year fixed in Sections 19 and 20 of the said Royal Decree.
2. ID.; ID.; WHEN CONVERTED INTO TITLE OF OWNERSHIP. — A possessory information proceeding instituted in accordance with the provisions of the said Mortgage Law, duly inscribed in the Registry of Property, is converted into a title of ownership only after the lapse of twenty years from the date of its inscription, and the possession which the interested person provided with a similar information enjoys produces effects for the purposes of acquisitive prescription only after the lapse of the time fixed by law in accordance with the common law.
3. AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC LANDS; POSSESSION; REQUISITES FOR ACQUIRING TITLE THERETO. — Section 54, No. 6, of Act No. 926 does not require the possessor of an agricultural public land to cultivate or plant same either in whole or in part. It is enough that he holds it through a possession that is public, continuous exclusive, and adverse to all other claimants with the object of acquiring in good faith the ownership thereof during the ten years prior to 1904, in order that there may exist in his favor the presumption juris et de jure of having complied with all the necessary conditions required by law for obtaining a certificate of title to the land which he had possessed.
4. REGISTRATION OF LAND; CIVIL RESERVATION; NATURE OF APPLICATION. — The petition for the inscription of a piece of land comprised within the perimeter of another land, which is the object of a civil reservation covered by Act No. 636, is considered as a complaint in due form presented in accordance with the provisions of Acts Nos. 627 and 648.
5. ID.; EFFECT OF RESERVATION OF PETITIONER’S RIGHT IN JUDGMENT DENYING HIS FORMER PETITION. — Although the petition for the inscription of a piece of land comprised within the perimeter of another, the object of a civil reservation, was denied by a final judgment had in a proceeding for the registration of real property, nevertheless, when this resolution contains a reservation of the right of the petitioner to again institute a proceeding for the registration of realty after the lapse of the period fixed for protesting against a reservation made by the Government, it should not be understood that the right of the petitioner has been extinguished, because his right to again petition for the same is preserved by virtue of the reservation stated in the order denying his petition for registration.
2. ID.; ID.; WHEN CONVERTED INTO TITLE OF OWNERSHIP. — A possessory information proceeding instituted in accordance with the provisions of the said Mortgage Law, duly inscribed in the Registry of Property, is converted into a title of ownership only after the lapse of twenty years from the date of its inscription, and the possession which the interested person provided with a similar information enjoys produces effects for the purposes of acquisitive prescription only after the lapse of the time fixed by law in accordance with the common law.
3. AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC LANDS; POSSESSION; REQUISITES FOR ACQUIRING TITLE THERETO. — Section 54, No. 6, of Act No. 926 does not require the possessor of an agricultural public land to cultivate or plant same either in whole or in part. It is enough that he holds it through a possession that is public, continuous exclusive, and adverse to all other claimants with the object of acquiring in good faith the ownership thereof during the ten years prior to 1904, in order that there may exist in his favor the presumption juris et de jure of having complied with all the necessary conditions required by law for obtaining a certificate of title to the land which he had possessed.
4. REGISTRATION OF LAND; CIVIL RESERVATION; NATURE OF APPLICATION. — The petition for the inscription of a piece of land comprised within the perimeter of another land, which is the object of a civil reservation covered by Act No. 636, is considered as a complaint in due form presented in accordance with the provisions of Acts Nos. 627 and 648.
5. ID.; EFFECT OF RESERVATION OF PETITIONER’S RIGHT IN JUDGMENT DENYING HIS FORMER PETITION. — Although the petition for the inscription of a piece of land comprised within the perimeter of another, the object of a civil reservation, was denied by a final judgment had in a proceeding for the registration of real property, nevertheless, when this resolution contains a reservation of the right of the petitioner to again institute a proceeding for the registration of realty after the lapse of the period fixed for protesting against a reservation made by the Government, it should not be understood that the right of the petitioner has been extinguished, because his right to again petition for the same is preserved by virtue of the reservation stated in the order denying his petition for registration.
D E C I S I O N
TORRES, J.:
Adela Aguinaldo de Romero petitions for the inscription in her name, in the Registry of Property, of a piece of land situated in the municipality of Baguio, Mountain Province, bounded on the north by lands belonging to the Government of the Philippine Islands (Constabulary reservation) and public land; on the east, by a cove and a piece of land belonging to the city of Baguio, a public road, properties of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Government of the Philippine Islands (Constabulary reservation) and the Naguilian and Bokaken roads; and on the west, by the Bokaken road.
The Director of Lands representing the Insular Government opposes the application on the grounds, that the petitioner has not acquired, either by purchase or by composition, the title to the land nor has she instituted a possessory information to the same in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, nor has she been in possession of the same; that the first application presented in the Court of Land Registration case No. 529 dealing with the inscription of the same piece of land was denied by the said Court of Land Registration and by the Supreme Court on appeal; and that the land in question is included in Civil Reservation No. 0, the application not having been presented within the period of six months and the extension of the latter not having been asked for as prescribed by law in accordance with the provisions of Acts Nos. 627 and 648.
The following facts have been proven or admitted: That on October 22, 1893, Toribio Valdez applied to the Government for the purchase of the land in question (Exhibit E, record, p. 107, and Exhibit D, record, p. 106), and the application was published in the Gaceta de Manila on November 11, 1893. On January 13, 1898, while the application to purchase was still pending, Toribio Valdez wrote to the General Office of Civil Administration saying that he surrendered his rights to Adela Aguinaldo (Exhibit E).
On April 6, 1901, Adela Aguinaldo instituted a possessory information proceeding with respect to this land, and, by order of the Court of First Instance of La Union and Benguet on March 8, 1902, the said possessory information was approved and inscribed in the Registry of Property of San Fernando, La Union, on November 12, 1902 (Exhibit G, record, pp. 116-134).
On February 7, 1904, William F. Pack, provincial governor of benguet, in a letter addressed to one Benito Reynaldo, speaks of same documents registered in favor of Francisco P. Romero, relative to the lands of the latter in Palali and Caballo (Exhibit M, record, p. 137). The same provincial governor, in a letter addressed to Francisco P. Romero under date of October 22, 1902 congratulates the latter, "for having obtained a favorable decision respecting the concession of the title to his lands" and suggests that when he present his claims against the Government on account of the construction of a jail on said land, he should state the amount of the damages suffered (Exhibit C, record, p. 105)
As alleged by the objector, the land in question was the object of a petition for inscription, but, by a judgment rendered by the defunct Court of Land Registration and affirmed by the Supreme Court, 1 said petition was denied, reserving, however, to the petitioner the right to file a new application to the same effect in case it should be declared that Act No. 926 (Exhibit B, record, p. 100), was applicable to the Mountain Province, although in the judgment rendered by this court no such reservation was made.
By virtue of the resolution of January 8, 1910, approved by the Philippine Civil Commission, the provisions of Chapter VI of Act No. 926 were made applicable to the Mountain Province. On October 20, 1913, the petitioner again presented an application for the inscription of the said land. Said application was denied by a judgment of the Court of First Instance for the subprovince of Benguet under date of October 31, 1916 (record, p. 385). From this judgment, the petitioner excepted and her motion for a new trial having been denied, she excepted and appealed through bill of exceptions which was approved and forwarded to the clerk of this court.
The questions raised and submitted for the decision of this court are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Do the statements made by the provincial governor constitute estoppel against the Government of the Philippine Islands, in such a way that the said Insular Government would be prevented from denying that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question?
2. Has the petitioner acquired title to the said land because she has presented a possessory information, obtained its approval, and inscribed it in the Registry of Property?
3. Has the petitioner a title to the land, which can be inscribed in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 of Act No. 926?
As regards the question of estoppel, it is evident that the statements made by the provincial governor do not bind the Government of the Philippine Islands, inasmuch as the Insular Government does not base its opposition upon the conduct or decision of the said official.
Instituting the former proceeding No. 529 for the inscription of the land in question in the Registry of Property, the petitioner presented as title to the property the possessory information begun in 1901, approved on March 8, 1902, and inscribed in the Registry of Property. In the resolution of the appeal interposed therefrom this court held that the said information was not valid and efficacious, because it was not commenced within the legal period and within the extension of time expressly granted for the purpose by the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, promulgated in the Gaceta de Manila on April 17th of the same year.
Section 19 of the above-cited Royal Decree provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Possessors of alienable lands of the royal patrimony subject to cultivation, who have neither obtained nor applied for a composition title on the date of the publication of this decree in the Gaceta de Manila (April 17, 1894), shall obtain a gratuitous title of ownership through a possessory information in accordance with the laws of Civil Procedure and Mortgage, provided always that they can prove any of the following conditions:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"First. To have them or to have had them under an uninterrupted cultivation during the preceding six years.
"Second. To have possessed them continuously for twelve years, having had them under cultivation on the date of the information and during the three years prior thereto.
"Third. To have possessed them ostensibly and without interruption during thirty or more years, although the land be not under cultivation."cralaw virtua1aw library
Section 21 of the same decree provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"An unextented period of one year for the verification of the informations referred to in sections 19 and 20 is hereby granted.
"After the expiration of this period, the right of the cultivators and possessors to obtain a gratuitous title shall be extinguished; the full ownership of the land shall be restored to the State, or in a proper case to the community of neighbors, and the said possessors and cultivators or their predecessors in interest by a universal title shall only be entitled to the right of redemption, if the land had been sold within the five years subsequent to the lapse of the period.
"The possessors not included within the provisions of this chapter shall only acquire for some time the ownership of the alienable lands of the royal patrimony, in accordance with the common law."cralaw virtua1aw library
So then, according to the provision of the above-cited Section 19 of the said Royal Decree, the possessory information begun by the petitioner Adela Aguinaldo in 1901 in the Court of First Instance, third judicial district, and approved on March 8, 1902, cannot, under any circumstance, constitute a title of ownership in the manner it was presented in the said former proceeding, because the said information was begun very much after the lapse of the period fixed in the cited Section 21 of the said Royal Decree, which period commenced to run from April 17, 1894, in which the said decree was published in the Gaceta de Manila. Consequently, it was inefficacious and devoid of the legal requisites as title of ownership, with which a possessory information begun in the manner and within the period fixed for the purpose should be clothed. Hence, the petitioner could not allege that she was the owner of the land which she pretended to inscribe, because the information presented by her to justify her dominion over the land in question does not constitute a title of ownership. From this it may be deduced that the statement, made by this court in the former decision rendered in the proceeding No. 529, that the possessory information exhibited as title of ownership to the land known as Cabayo situated in Baguio was not valid and efficacious and that, according to the appellant, she had acquired it by purchase from the State through cession which she had obtained from her predecessor Toribio Valdez, does not constitute an obiter dicta but a fundamental reason.
The possessory information exhibited in that case and which appears on record, pages 118 to 133, is not the information required by the said Royal Decree, but that authorized by the Mortgage Law of July 14, 1893, which information, to be of a possessory character to which the latter law refers and in order that it may constitute, or be converted into, a title of ownership when duly inscribed in the Registry of Property, requires the lapse of twenty years from the date of its inscription, and the possession which the interested party enjoys shall only produce effect for the purposes of acquisitive prescription after the lapse of the period fixed by law in accordance with the common law. And this is the precept of the last paragraph of the above-cited Section 21 which provides that the possessors of immovables not comprised within the provisions of Chapter 4 of that Royal Decree shall only acquire for some time the ownership of the alienable lands belonging to the royal patrimony, in accordance with the common law or with the provisions of the Civil Code and other laws on the subject.
On this supposition, and with a view to elucidate the question as to whether or not according to the provisions of Section 54 of Act No. 926, the petitioner actually possesses an inscribable title to the land in dispute, we shall proceed to examine whether, according to the evidence on record, the petitioner has been in possession of the land which she pretends to inscribe in the Registry during the period of time required by law.
In fact, it appears that since Adela Aguinaldo obtained the cession of the land, she being then of age, the purchase of which from the State was proposed by Toribio Valdez since 1893, she took charge and possession of the property through her agents in 1896. The first of these agents was the same Valdez who was succeeded by Adela’s relative, Gregorio Aguinaldo, and he last was Cristobal Ramos. Although the land was not devoted to the planting of rice but part of it was planted with tubercles and the rest pastured to some cattle, it is nevertheless certain that her said agents took care of the land endeavored to cultivate on it useful plants, such as sweet potatoes belonging to the class of tubercles, and to use the land as pasture ground for her animals. The petitioner’s witnesses, Toribio Valdez, Lucio Almasan, Feliciano Hidalgo Vicente Perez de Tagle, and Santiago Fontanilla testified to this effect and further affirmed that a barn was erected on the land in 1894 which was later destroyed during the Revolution. H.P. Whitmarsh, witness for the objector, stated moreover that, in a conversation he had in 1903 or 904 with Francisco Romero, the husband of the petitioner,;he latter assured him that a representative of the Methodist Church desired to erect a church on the summit of a hill comprised within his land, the said representative agreeing to pay P100 for each hectare, and that, in testifyng in the former proceeding, he stated that he received instructions from said Romero to take care of Romero’s land and not to permit the Igorrots to enter the premises and cut trees therein.
In rebuttal to the testimony given by the said five witnesses for the petitioner, three natives named Piraso, Sioco Cariño, and Fernando Caoili said that Adela Aguinaldo was neither the possessor nor the owner of any land in the place known as Caballo, denying that her alleged agents, Valdez, Aguinaldo, and Ramos, possessed the land in litigation in the name and on behalf of the petitioner. In the document Exhibit K it appears that witness Sioco Cari
The Director of Lands representing the Insular Government opposes the application on the grounds, that the petitioner has not acquired, either by purchase or by composition, the title to the land nor has she instituted a possessory information to the same in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, nor has she been in possession of the same; that the first application presented in the Court of Land Registration case No. 529 dealing with the inscription of the same piece of land was denied by the said Court of Land Registration and by the Supreme Court on appeal; and that the land in question is included in Civil Reservation No. 0, the application not having been presented within the period of six months and the extension of the latter not having been asked for as prescribed by law in accordance with the provisions of Acts Nos. 627 and 648.
The following facts have been proven or admitted: That on October 22, 1893, Toribio Valdez applied to the Government for the purchase of the land in question (Exhibit E, record, p. 107, and Exhibit D, record, p. 106), and the application was published in the Gaceta de Manila on November 11, 1893. On January 13, 1898, while the application to purchase was still pending, Toribio Valdez wrote to the General Office of Civil Administration saying that he surrendered his rights to Adela Aguinaldo (Exhibit E).
On April 6, 1901, Adela Aguinaldo instituted a possessory information proceeding with respect to this land, and, by order of the Court of First Instance of La Union and Benguet on March 8, 1902, the said possessory information was approved and inscribed in the Registry of Property of San Fernando, La Union, on November 12, 1902 (Exhibit G, record, pp. 116-134).
On February 7, 1904, William F. Pack, provincial governor of benguet, in a letter addressed to one Benito Reynaldo, speaks of same documents registered in favor of Francisco P. Romero, relative to the lands of the latter in Palali and Caballo (Exhibit M, record, p. 137). The same provincial governor, in a letter addressed to Francisco P. Romero under date of October 22, 1902 congratulates the latter, "for having obtained a favorable decision respecting the concession of the title to his lands" and suggests that when he present his claims against the Government on account of the construction of a jail on said land, he should state the amount of the damages suffered (Exhibit C, record, p. 105)
As alleged by the objector, the land in question was the object of a petition for inscription, but, by a judgment rendered by the defunct Court of Land Registration and affirmed by the Supreme Court, 1 said petition was denied, reserving, however, to the petitioner the right to file a new application to the same effect in case it should be declared that Act No. 926 (Exhibit B, record, p. 100), was applicable to the Mountain Province, although in the judgment rendered by this court no such reservation was made.
By virtue of the resolution of January 8, 1910, approved by the Philippine Civil Commission, the provisions of Chapter VI of Act No. 926 were made applicable to the Mountain Province. On October 20, 1913, the petitioner again presented an application for the inscription of the said land. Said application was denied by a judgment of the Court of First Instance for the subprovince of Benguet under date of October 31, 1916 (record, p. 385). From this judgment, the petitioner excepted and her motion for a new trial having been denied, she excepted and appealed through bill of exceptions which was approved and forwarded to the clerk of this court.
The questions raised and submitted for the decision of this court are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Do the statements made by the provincial governor constitute estoppel against the Government of the Philippine Islands, in such a way that the said Insular Government would be prevented from denying that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question?
2. Has the petitioner acquired title to the said land because she has presented a possessory information, obtained its approval, and inscribed it in the Registry of Property?
3. Has the petitioner a title to the land, which can be inscribed in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 of Act No. 926?
As regards the question of estoppel, it is evident that the statements made by the provincial governor do not bind the Government of the Philippine Islands, inasmuch as the Insular Government does not base its opposition upon the conduct or decision of the said official.
Instituting the former proceeding No. 529 for the inscription of the land in question in the Registry of Property, the petitioner presented as title to the property the possessory information begun in 1901, approved on March 8, 1902, and inscribed in the Registry of Property. In the resolution of the appeal interposed therefrom this court held that the said information was not valid and efficacious, because it was not commenced within the legal period and within the extension of time expressly granted for the purpose by the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, promulgated in the Gaceta de Manila on April 17th of the same year.
Section 19 of the above-cited Royal Decree provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Possessors of alienable lands of the royal patrimony subject to cultivation, who have neither obtained nor applied for a composition title on the date of the publication of this decree in the Gaceta de Manila (April 17, 1894), shall obtain a gratuitous title of ownership through a possessory information in accordance with the laws of Civil Procedure and Mortgage, provided always that they can prove any of the following conditions:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"First. To have them or to have had them under an uninterrupted cultivation during the preceding six years.
"Second. To have possessed them continuously for twelve years, having had them under cultivation on the date of the information and during the three years prior thereto.
"Third. To have possessed them ostensibly and without interruption during thirty or more years, although the land be not under cultivation."cralaw virtua1aw library
Section 21 of the same decree provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"An unextented period of one year for the verification of the informations referred to in sections 19 and 20 is hereby granted.
"After the expiration of this period, the right of the cultivators and possessors to obtain a gratuitous title shall be extinguished; the full ownership of the land shall be restored to the State, or in a proper case to the community of neighbors, and the said possessors and cultivators or their predecessors in interest by a universal title shall only be entitled to the right of redemption, if the land had been sold within the five years subsequent to the lapse of the period.
"The possessors not included within the provisions of this chapter shall only acquire for some time the ownership of the alienable lands of the royal patrimony, in accordance with the common law."cralaw virtua1aw library
So then, according to the provision of the above-cited Section 19 of the said Royal Decree, the possessory information begun by the petitioner Adela Aguinaldo in 1901 in the Court of First Instance, third judicial district, and approved on March 8, 1902, cannot, under any circumstance, constitute a title of ownership in the manner it was presented in the said former proceeding, because the said information was begun very much after the lapse of the period fixed in the cited Section 21 of the said Royal Decree, which period commenced to run from April 17, 1894, in which the said decree was published in the Gaceta de Manila. Consequently, it was inefficacious and devoid of the legal requisites as title of ownership, with which a possessory information begun in the manner and within the period fixed for the purpose should be clothed. Hence, the petitioner could not allege that she was the owner of the land which she pretended to inscribe, because the information presented by her to justify her dominion over the land in question does not constitute a title of ownership. From this it may be deduced that the statement, made by this court in the former decision rendered in the proceeding No. 529, that the possessory information exhibited as title of ownership to the land known as Cabayo situated in Baguio was not valid and efficacious and that, according to the appellant, she had acquired it by purchase from the State through cession which she had obtained from her predecessor Toribio Valdez, does not constitute an obiter dicta but a fundamental reason.
The possessory information exhibited in that case and which appears on record, pages 118 to 133, is not the information required by the said Royal Decree, but that authorized by the Mortgage Law of July 14, 1893, which information, to be of a possessory character to which the latter law refers and in order that it may constitute, or be converted into, a title of ownership when duly inscribed in the Registry of Property, requires the lapse of twenty years from the date of its inscription, and the possession which the interested party enjoys shall only produce effect for the purposes of acquisitive prescription after the lapse of the period fixed by law in accordance with the common law. And this is the precept of the last paragraph of the above-cited Section 21 which provides that the possessors of immovables not comprised within the provisions of Chapter 4 of that Royal Decree shall only acquire for some time the ownership of the alienable lands belonging to the royal patrimony, in accordance with the common law or with the provisions of the Civil Code and other laws on the subject.
On this supposition, and with a view to elucidate the question as to whether or not according to the provisions of Section 54 of Act No. 926, the petitioner actually possesses an inscribable title to the land in dispute, we shall proceed to examine whether, according to the evidence on record, the petitioner has been in possession of the land which she pretends to inscribe in the Registry during the period of time required by law.
In fact, it appears that since Adela Aguinaldo obtained the cession of the land, she being then of age, the purchase of which from the State was proposed by Toribio Valdez since 1893, she took charge and possession of the property through her agents in 1896. The first of these agents was the same Valdez who was succeeded by Adela’s relative, Gregorio Aguinaldo, and he last was Cristobal Ramos. Although the land was not devoted to the planting of rice but part of it was planted with tubercles and the rest pastured to some cattle, it is nevertheless certain that her said agents took care of the land endeavored to cultivate on it useful plants, such as sweet potatoes belonging to the class of tubercles, and to use the land as pasture ground for her animals. The petitioner’s witnesses, Toribio Valdez, Lucio Almasan, Feliciano Hidalgo Vicente Perez de Tagle, and Santiago Fontanilla testified to this effect and further affirmed that a barn was erected on the land in 1894 which was later destroyed during the Revolution. H.P. Whitmarsh, witness for the objector, stated moreover that, in a conversation he had in 1903 or 904 with Francisco Romero, the husband of the petitioner,;he latter assured him that a representative of the Methodist Church desired to erect a church on the summit of a hill comprised within his land, the said representative agreeing to pay P100 for each hectare, and that, in testifyng in the former proceeding, he stated that he received instructions from said Romero to take care of Romero’s land and not to permit the Igorrots to enter the premises and cut trees therein.
In rebuttal to the testimony given by the said five witnesses for the petitioner, three natives named Piraso, Sioco Cariño, and Fernando Caoili said that Adela Aguinaldo was neither the possessor nor the owner of any land in the place known as Caballo, denying that her alleged agents, Valdez, Aguinaldo, and Ramos, possessed the land in litigation in the name and on behalf of the petitioner. In the document Exhibit K it appears that witness Sioco Cari
