G.R. No.

L-19535 July 10, 1967

HEIRS OF PELAGIO ZARA; PIO, CLEEN!E, SERAFIA, PORFIRIO "#$ ES!E%AN, "ll
&u'#"()$ IN*ANAO; ARIA "#$ GLICERIA, +o,- &u'#"()$ SE*ARIA; *.LCE COR*ERO,
/IC!ORIA *E LOS RE0ES "#$ JOSE GARCIA, applicants-appellants,
vs.
*IREC!OR OF LAN*S, *IREC!OR OF FORES!R0, Government oppositor-appellees.
/ICEN!E /. *E /ILLA, JR., "#$ /ICEN!E S. *E /ILLA, SR., 1'23",) oppositors-appellees.
Jose L. Matias and H. A. Jambora for applicants-appellants.
Francisco Villanueva, Jr. and Gregorio L. Ouitania for private oppositors-appellees.
Manuel !e"es #astro for oppositor-appellee $irector of Forestr".
A4ALIN!AL, J.:
Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Batangas (Lipa City dismissing appellants!
"application for registration of the parcel of land consisting of #$% hectares, more or less, situated in
the &arrio of 'ampiro, (unicipality of 'an )uan, *rovince of Batangas, and designated in amended
plan *'+-#$,-.- as Lot A."
/he proceedings in the court a uo are not disputed.
0n August 1, #.-$ appellants filed an application for registration of the land a&ove descri&ed
pursuant to the provisions of Act 1.-. /hey alleged that the land had &een inherited &y them from
their grandfather, *elagio 2ara, 3ho in turn ac4uired the same under a 'panish grant 5no3n as
"Composicion de /errenos 6ealengos" issued in #777. Alternatively, should the provisions of the
Land 6egistration Act &e not applica&le, applicants invo5e the &enefits of the provisions of Chapter
8III, 'ection 17, su&section (& of C.A. #1# as amended, on the ground that they and their
predecessor-in-interest had &een in continuous and adverse possession of the land in concept of
o3ner for more than ,$ years immediately preceding the application.
0ppositions 3ere filed &y the 9irector of Lands, the 9irector of Forestry and &y 8icente 8. de 8illa,
)r. /he latter!s opposition recites:
; ; ; that the parcel of land sought to &e registered &y the applicants consisting of #$%
hectares, more or less, 3as included in the area of the parcel of land applied for registration
&y 8icente '. de 8illa, 'r. in Civil Case <o. =-, L.6. Case <o. -$# in this Court, 3hich 3as
decided &y this same Court through the then incum&ent )udge, the >onora&le )uan *.
?nri4ue@, on 'eptem&er ,$, #.1.A that the parcel sought to &e registered &y the applicants
3as declared pu&lic land in said decisionA that they (the oppositors 8icente 8. de 8illa, )r.
and 8icente '. de 8illa, 'r. have an interest over the land in 4uestion &ecause for a period
more than si;ty (-$ years, the de 8illas have &een in possession, and 3hich possession,
according to them, 3as open continuous, notorious and under the claim of o3nershipA that
the proceeding &eing in rem, the failure of the applicants to appear at the case <o. =-, L.6.
Case <o. -$# to prove their imperfect and incomplete title over the property, &arred them
from raising the same issue in another caseA and that as far as the decision in Civil Case <o.
=-, L.6. Case <o. -$# 3hich 3as affirmed in the appellate court in CA-G.6. <o. B71%-6 is
concerned, there is already "res-adCudicata" D in other 3ords, the cause of action of the
applicant is no3 &arred &y prior CudgmentA and that this Court has no more Curisdiction over
the su&Cect matter, the decision of the Court in said case having transferred to the 9irector of
Lands.
0n <ovem&er #B, #.-$ the 9e 8illas (9e 8illa, 'r. 3as su&se4uently included as oppositor filed a
motion to dismiss, invo5ing the same grounds alleged in its opposition, &ut principally the fact that
the land applied for had already &een declared pu&lic land &y the Cudgment in the former registration
case.
/he trial court, over the o&Cection of the applicants, granted the motion to dismiss &y order dated
)anuary =%, #.-#, holding, inter alia, that "once a parcel of land is declared or adCudged pu&lic land
&y the court having Curisdiction ; ; ; it cannot &e the su&Cect anymore of another land registration
proceeding ; ; ; (that it is only the 9irector of Lands 3ho can dispose of the same &y sale, &y
lease, &y free patent or &y homestead."
In the present appeal from the order of dismissal neither the 9irector of Lands nor the 9irector of
Forestry filed a &rief as appellee. /he decisive issue posed &y applicants-appellants is 3hether the
#.1. Cudgment in the previous case, denying the application of 8icente '. de 8illa, 'r., and declaring
the #$% hectares in 4uestion to &e pu&lic land, precludes a su&se4uent application &y an alleged
possessor for Cudicial confirmation of title on the &asis of continuous possession for at least thirty
years, pursuant to 'ection 17, su&section (& of the *u&lic Land La3, C.A. #1#, as amended. /his
provision reads as follo3s:
/he follo3ing-descri&ed citi@ens of the *hilippines, occupying lands of the pu&lic domain or
claiming to o3n any such lands or an interest therein, &ut 3hose titles have not &een
perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province 3here the
land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title
therefor, under the Land 6egistration Act, to 3it:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(& /hose 3ho &y themselves or through their predecessors in interest have &een in open,
continuous, e;clusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the
pu&lic domain, under a bona fide claim of ac4uisition of o3nership, for at least thirty years
immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, e;cept 3hen
prevented &y 3ar or force maCeure. /hese shall &e conclusively presumed to have performed
all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall &e entitled to a certificate of title
under the provisions of this Chapter.%&'p()%.*+t
/he right to file an application under the foregoing provision has &een e;tended &y 6epu&lic Act <o.
=$-# to 9ecem&er ,#, #.-7.
It should &e noted that appellants! application is in the alternative: for registration of their title of
o3nership under Act 1.- or for Cudicial confirmation of their "imperfect" title or claim &ased on
adverse and continuous possession for at least thirty years. It may &e that although they 3ere not
actual parties in that previous case the Cudgment therein is a &ar to their claim as o3ners under the
first alternative, since the proceeding 3as in rem, of 3hich they and their predecessor had
constructive notice &y pu&lication. ?ven so this is a defense that properly pertains to the
Government, in vie3 of the fact that the Cudgment declared the land in 4uestion to &e pu&lic land. In
any case, appellants! imperfect possessory title 3as not distur&ed or foreclosed &y such declaration,
for precisely the proceeding contemplated in the aforecited provision of Common3ealth Act #1#
presupposes that the land is pu&lic. /he &asis of the decree of Cudicial confirmation authori@ed
therein is not that the land is already privately o3ned and hence no longer part of the pu&lic domain,
&ut rather that &y reason of the claimant!s possession for thirty years he is conclusively presumed to
have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant.
0n the 4uestion of 3hether or not the private oppositors-appellees have the necessary personality to
file an opposition, 3e find in their favor, considering that they also claim to &e in possession of the
land, and have furthermore applied for its purchase from the Bureau of Lands.%&'p()%.*+t
Eherefore, the order appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded to the Court a uo for
trial and Cudgment on the merits, 3ith costs against the private oppositors-appellees.
!e"es, J.,.L., ,eng-on, J..., /aldivar, #astro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
#oncepcion, #.J. and $i-on, J., too0 no part.