(2) THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and HEIRS OF THE DECEASED HOMESTEADERS,

namely, IGNACIO BANGUG, PASCUAL BANGUG, EUSEBIO GUMIRAN, SANTIAGO

AGGABAO and ANTONIO DERAY v
CA and HEIRS OF BRUNO CABAUATAN
June 29, 1984
Constructive Holding
AQUINO, J.
FACTS
Bruno died during the Spanish regime. He is survived by 7 children whose
descendants are herein Rs.
Bruno's heirs made an application to register 138 hectares of land located in
Cabagan, Isabela. A land allegedly adjudicated to Bruno Cabanatan in 1885

In 1937, Bruno's heirs filed a second registration case based on this expanded
survey.
Evidence for the applicants, Bruno's heirs.:
testimonies of Candida Cabauatan, Jose Buraga, Gabriel Zipagan and Placido
Angoluan, which the trial court affirmed: that the land in question was
administered by Bruno's son, Salvador. There were 40 tenants during the
Spanish regime working in the middle portion of the land. Some of the tenants
were still on the land during the American regime. They have been cultivating
the land under the overseers, Zipagan and Angoluan.
- During the Spanish regime, Bruno's children received 1/3 of the products, such
as corn and palay, as the owner's share. The tenants also planted kapok, acacia
trees and some oranges.
But it appears that in 1921, Bruno's nephew Onofre was able to obtain a tax
- they constructed rice paddies and built dwelling houses. Bruno's heirs have
declaration for the 138 hectares at P5,200. In that tax declaration, it was stated possessed the land openly, peacefully, continuously and in the concept of owner
that the land is located at Malasi, Cabagan, bounded on the north, east and south since the Spanish regime up to the present time.
by public land (P.D.) and on the west by a mountain.
The provincial fiscal, in representation of the Director of Lands, alleged in his
Emilio Cabauatan, a son of Onofre, opposed the application.
opposition that the land claimed by Bruno's heirs was covered by the approved
- lawyer Miguel Binag, in behalf of Bruno's heirs, in 1937 proposed to use the
and subsisting homestead applications of (1) Santiago Aggabao, deceased, now
said tax declaration in the land registration proceeding. He promised to give the heirs represented by Simplicio Aggabao; (2) Ignacio Bangug, deceased, now his
heirs of Onofre Cabauatan 1/3 of the land. (Lawyer Binag denied that he ever
heirs represented by Anacleto Bangug; (3) Eusebio Gumiran, deceased, now his
made a promise.)
heirs represented by Luis Gumiran; (4) Antonio Deray, deceased, now his heirs
- the land of Bruno is in Sitio Malini, 3 kilometers from Sitio Malasi. (The trial
represented by Pablo Deray; (5) Casiano Magbayad, transferor, now Rodolfo
court and Binag denied that there was a sitio in Cabagan called Malini. It was not Albano, transferee, and (6) Gaudencio Flores .
found in the list of sitios in the governor's office.)
Evidence for the Director of Lands and homesteaders as oppositor: the
March 5,1934 CFI Isabela granted the registration of the parcel of land, plan
homestaed applications and approvals.
95520, with an area of 25 hectares located at the "sitio of Malisi, Barrio of
Aggub," Cabagan. It was registered in the names of the heirs of Bruno as proAgain, the trial court granted the application for registration of the 6 lots with
indiviso co-owners without regard to the right of representation.
an area of 128 ha, in addition to the 25 hectares already registered. It reasoned
out that if Bruno's heirs had possession of the said 25 hectares, they could be
In that same year (1934), Bruno's heirs produced a survey plan Psu-95458, for his deemed to have "constructive possession" of the remaining part of the land
land but which this time had an area of 154 hectares. The land consisted of seven provided that the same is not in the adverse possession of another person.
contiguous lots located in Barrio Aggub, Cabagan. It included the 25 he of plan
Psu-95520 which was already registered and which was designated as Lot No. 6. Hence this appeal (or petittion)
The plan was based on a 1932 survey.

WON the 128 ha can be registered in the name of the Rs by virtue of constructive
possession.
Held: No
The rule on constructive possession does not apply to this case because the
major portion of the disputed 128 hectares has been in the adverse possession of
homesteaders and their heirs and is still part of the public domain until the
patents are issued.
The area claimed is in excess of that mentioned in the committed position title.
The alleged lost composition title cannot be given any probative value. Its
contents were not proven by secondary evidence. The precise location of the
land and the possession thereof were not proven by the applicants. The alleged
possession of Bruno's heirs may refer to the 25 hectares already registered in
their names. Inexplicably, the registration of the 154 hectares was made in two
installments.
WHEREFORE, the decisions of the CA and the trial court are reversed and set
aside. The application for registration is dismissed. The Director of Lands should
issue to appellant heirs of the deceased homesteaders their patents in
accordance with the Public Land Law. Costs against the applicants.