The heirs of Domingo Baloy applied to register title to land based on their possessory information title acquired by Domingo Baloy under Spanish law and their continuous possession of the land. The Director of Lands opposed registration, claiming the land became public under a Philippine Commission act. The Court of First Instance denied registration but the Court of Appeals reversed. The issue is whether the heirs' rights under the possessory title were lost by prescription. The Supreme Court ruled no, finding that a government communication recognizes Baloy's possession since 1894 and that possession was only interrupted by the U.S. Navy's temporary occupation, which did not affect Baloy's ownership.
The heirs of Domingo Baloy applied to register title to land based on their possessory information title acquired by Domingo Baloy under Spanish law and their continuous possession of the land. The Director of Lands opposed registration, claiming the land became public under a Philippine Commission act. The Court of First Instance denied registration but the Court of Appeals reversed. The issue is whether the heirs' rights under the possessory title were lost by prescription. The Supreme Court ruled no, finding that a government communication recognizes Baloy's possession since 1894 and that possession was only interrupted by the U.S. Navy's temporary occupation, which did not affect Baloy's ownership.
The heirs of Domingo Baloy applied to register title to land based on their possessory information title acquired by Domingo Baloy under Spanish law and their continuous possession of the land. The Director of Lands opposed registration, claiming the land became public under a Philippine Commission act. The Court of First Instance denied registration but the Court of Appeals reversed. The issue is whether the heirs' rights under the possessory title were lost by prescription. The Supreme Court ruled no, finding that a government communication recognizes Baloy's possession since 1894 and that possession was only interrupted by the U.S. Navy's temporary occupation, which did not affect Baloy's ownership.
FACTS: The Heirs of Domingo Baloy, (private respondents), applied for
a registration of title for their land. Their claim is based on their possessory information title acquired by Domingo Baloy through the Spanish Mortgage Law, coupled with their continuous, adverse and public possession of the land in question. The Director of Lands opposed the registration alleging that such land became public land through the operation of Act 627 of the Philippine Commission. On Nov 26, 1902, pursuant to the executive order of the President of U.S., the area was declared within the US Naval Reservation. The CFI denied respondents' application for registration. CA, reversed the decision. Petitioners herein filed their Motion for Reconsideration, said MR was denied, hence this petition for review on certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents' rights by virtue of their possessory information title was lost by prescription. RULING: No. A communication which contains an official statement of the position of the Republic of the Philippines with regard to the status of the land in question recognizes the fact that Domingo Baloy and/or his heirs have been in continuous possession of said land since 1894 as attested by an "Informacion Possessoria" Title, which was granted by the Spanish Government. Hence, the disputed property is private land and this possession was interrupted only by the occupation of the land by the U.S. Navy in 1945. The heirs of the late Domingo P. Baloy, are now in actual possession, and this has been so since the abandonment by the U.S. Navy. The occupancy of the U.S. Navy was not in the concept of owner. It holds of the character of a commodatum. It cannot affect the title of Domingo Baloy. One's ownership of a thing may be lost by prescription by reason of another's possession if such possession be under claim of ownership, not where the possession is only intended to be temporary, as in the case of the U.S. Navy's occupation of the land concerned, in which case the owner is not divested of his title, although it cannot be exercised in the meantime.
William Turner Johnson, Jr. v. John Mueller, Superintendent, Newport News Virginia City Prison Farm, Alton Talbot, Officer Hollis, John Epling, and Nicholas Spanos, 415 F.2d 354, 4th Cir. (1969)