G.R. No. L-38185: RAMIREZ VS.

CA 144 SCRA 292, September 24, 1986 - An antichretic creditor cannot acquire by prescription the land surrendered to him by the debtor FACTS On September 15, 1959, petitioners-spouses Hilario Ramirez and Valentina Bonifacio filed an application for registration of a parcel of riceland in Rizal. In their application for registration, they alleged that to the best of their knowledge and belief, there is no mortgage or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever affecting said land and that they had acquired it by purchase from certain Gregoria Pascual during the early part of the American regime but the corresponding contract of sale was lot and no copy or record of the same was available. The Court found, however, that the applicants are not the owners of the land sought to be registered. They were ANTICHRETIC CREDITORS- mere holders placed in possession of the land by its owners as security for loan. The applicants were found guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment when they declared that no other person had any claim or interest in the said land. ISSUE Can an antichretic creditor acquire land of debtor by prescription? HELD No. The petitioners are not possessors in the concept of owners, but mere HOLDERS placed in possession of land by its owners. Thus, their possession cannot serve as a title for acquiring dominion. The court, from other cases like Trillana v. Manansala, Valencia v. Acala and Barretto v. Barretto, held that the antichretic creditor cannot ordinarily acquire by prescription the land surrendered to hum by the debtor.

CARIO V INSULAR GOVERNMENT February 23, 1909 FACTS Mateo Cario, an Igorot from the Province of Benguet, contests dismissal of application of registration of their ancestral land through writ of error. Carios ancestors maintained fences for cattle, cultivated some parts, and pastured parts for cattle for more than 50 years before the Treaty of Paris (April 11, 1899). This land is also used for inheritance in accordance to Igorot custom.- Although the plaintiff applied in 1893-1894 and 1896-1897, no document of title was issued by the Spanish crown. In 1901, plaintiff alleged ownership under mortgage law and the lands were registered to him but it was only an established possessory title. His application for land registration was subsequently granted. The CFI of Benguet appealed on behalf of the government and was favored by the Philippine Supreme Court. Cario appealed to the US Supreme Court on writ of error reviewing judgment of Philippine SC- Respondents argue: Given that- Spain assumed and asserted that they had title to all the land in the Philippines except to permit private lands to be acquired- No prescription against the Spanish Crown- Decree of June 25, 1880 required registration within a limited time to make the title good- And US succeeded the title of Spain(through Treaty of Paris). Plaintiffs land was not registered and he had lost all rights and a mere trespasser. Benguet never brought under civil or military government of the Spanish Crown so it is not certain the whether registration granted was under Spanish laws. The Plaintiff argues it seems to amount to denial of native titles throughout an important Island of Luzon ISSUE WON Cario owns the land HELD Prescription, mentioned in the royal cedula of 1754 states: Where such possessors shall not be able to produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they shall show ancient possessions, as a valid title by prescription. Decree of June 25, 1880 states: possession for certain times shall be deemed owners; cultivated land 20 years, uncultivated 30 years. Plaintiffs father was owner of land by the very terms of this decree. By Organic Act of July 1, 1902, all the property and rights acquired there by the United States are to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof.

Applicant should be granted what he seeks and should not be deprived of what by the practice and belief of those among whom he lived, was his property, and through our fined interpretation of an almost forgotten law of Spain. Decision REVERSED .

G.R. No. L-66866: REPUBLIC VS. DE PORKAN June 18, 1987, 151 SCRA 88 - Possession resulting in presumption of right to grant application FACTS Minda de Porkan and Lolita Macatindog acquired Lots Nos. 1099 and 1546 from their predecessors-interests, who in turn acquired said lots though a grant by the government by virtue of their proven, open, exclusive and undisputed possession for more than 30 years. An issue over said lots arose when a certain Viola Azurin obtained from the then Philippine Fisheries Commission an Ordinary Fishpond Permit covering portions of Lots Nos. 1099 and 1546. Azurin filed with the Bureau of Lands a complaint for correction, amendment or cancellation of the Homestead Patent of De Porkan over Lot no. 1546 and the Free Patent of Macatindog over Lot No. 1099 alleging among others that the patentees secured their patents and titles through fraud, misrepresentation and illegal machinations. The Solicitor General sided with Azurin; when the case was brought to the Court of First Instance, the SG stated that the disputed portions of land were actually claimed by Azurin and that such lands could not be disposed by the Director of Lands under the Public Land Act. Hence, the patents and titles issued to de Porkan and Macatindog were void insofar as the portion occupied and covered by the fishpond permit of Azurin. After hearing however, the CFI dismissed the complaints and upheld the validity of the titles/patents of de Porkan & Macatindog over the lands in dispute. The SG in the present petition avers among others that the lots in dispute could not be the subject of disposition under the Homestead and Free Patent provisions of the Public Act since they are marshy and swampy, certified as such as more suitable for fishpond development, disposable only thru lease under the Public Land Act. ISSUE Whether or not possession and cultivation of a land for more than 30 years will entitle the possessor thereof of a government grant and a certificate of title. HELD Yes. As early as 1953, the respondents had already acquired by operation of law not only a right to a grant over Lot No. 1099, but a grant of the Government over the same alienable land by virtue of their proven, open, exclusive and undisputed possession for more than 30 years, since the Spanish colonial period.

The possession of a public land identified as Lot No. 1099 dates back to the time of the Spanish colonial period. Such possessions of the said public land has attained the character and duration prescribed by law as the equivalent of an express grant from the Government. The mandate of the law itself provides that possessors shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title. By legal fiction, the land ceases to be public and thus becomes a private land.