Case No. 13 [G.R. No. 14029. October 15, 1919.

]
MARIA BALTAZAR ET AL., applicants-appellants, v. THE INSULAR
GOVERNMENT ET AL., objectors-appellees.
FACTS: The heirs of the deceased Lucino Almeida applied to the Court of First
Instance of La Union for the registration in their name of two parcels of
containing 815 hectares, 68 ares, and 88 centares. The applicants relied
chiefly on the documents which denote a public sale of two parcels of land
with a chain of title going back to the year 1803 and a certified copy of a
possessory information of the land in question. The Attorney-General
opposed the registration of this property on the ground that it included forest
lands.
The facts involve three important dates. The time within which advantage
could be taken of the Maura Law expired on April 17, 1895. Almeida obtained
dominion over 526 hectares of land on June 9, 1895. The possessory
information for 815 hectares was issued to Almeida on December 14, 1896.
Almeida was thus not in possession until after the expiration of the period
specified by the Maura Law for the issuance of possessory titles, and his
possessory information was of even a later date and made to cover a large
excess of land. Under these conditions, the possessory information could not
even furnish, as in other cases, prima facie evidence of the fact that at the
time of the execution the claimant was in possession, which it would be
possible to convert into ownership by uninterrupted possession for the
statutory period.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECT LANDS ARE ALIENABLE AND MAY
THUS BE REGISTERED TO THE PETITONERS.
RULING: NO.
"ARTICLE 1. All uncultivated lands, soil, earth, and mountains not included in
the following exceptions shall be considered alienable public lands: First,
those which have become subjected to private ownership and have a
legitimate owner. Second, those which belong to the forest zones which the
State deems wise to reserve for reasons of public utility.."
"ART. 19. Possessors of alienable public lands under cultivation who have not
obtained nor applied for composition on the date this decree shall be
published in the Gaceta de Manila, may obtain a gratuitous title of property,
by means of a possessory information in conformity with the law of civil
procedure and the mortgage law whenever they establish any of the
following conditions.
"First. Having, or having had, them under cultivation without interruption

during the preceding six years.

"Second. Having had possession of them for twelve consecutive years, and
having had them under cultivation until the date of the information, and for
three years before that date.
"Third. Having had them in possession ostensibly and without interruption,
for thirty or more years, although the land is not under cultivation."cralaw
virtua1aw library
"ART. 21. A term of one year, without grace, is granted in order to Perfect the
informations referred to in articles 19 and 20."
Article 80 of the regulations for the carrying out of the Royal Decree above
mentioned provided:
"ART. 80. By virtue of the provision of article 21 of the Royal Decree of
February 13, 1894, the inextensible period for carrying out the informations
referred to in the two preceding articles, shall be counted as closed on the
17th day of April, 1895.
"Upon the expiration of this period the right of cultivators and possessors to
the obtainment of free title shall lapse, and the full property right in the land
shall revert to the State or, in a proper case, to the public domain.
"It is incumbent upon the petitioners, as plaintiff, to prove their property
rights or ownership, and possession, of the two parcels of land which they
desire to register as belonging to them. As the record does not disclose proof
of the right alleged by them, over the whole of the land in question, and on
the other hand, as it has been proven, according to the clear, conclusive and
unrefuted testimony of the ranger of the Bureau of Forestry that at least 82
hectares of the land concerned in the application are covered with a very
dense vegetation, and about 122 hectares are "non-commercial forest" land,
that is, uncultivated woodland, it is evident therefore, that it would be
improper to grant the registration applied for.
The trial court committed no error in denying to the applicants title to the
lands covered by the possessory information of December 12, 1896.
The court, in effect, found that the applicants were entitled to the
registration of that portion of the property which is covered by their title
deed. It appears from the decision, however, and a regarding of the
documents confirms the same, that the boundaries of this tract are vague,
indefinite, and doubtful. It thus remains for the applicants to comply with the
suggestion of the court, by amending their petition and by presenting a plan
which would identify the property with some reasonable degree of accuracy.

Case No. 16 G.R. No. L-60413 October 31, 1990

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. SOFRONIO G. SAYO, Judge, Br. I, C I, Nueva Vizcaya, HEIRS OF
CASIANO SANDOVAL, HEIRS OF LIBERATO BAYAUA, JOSE C. REYES,
and PHILIPPINE CACAO AND FARM PRODUCTS, INC., respondents.
FACTS: The spouses, Casiano Sandoval and Luz Marquez, filed an original
application for registration of a tract of land identified as Lot No. 7454 of the
Cadastral Survey of Santiago. The land was formerly part of the Municipality
of Santiago, Province of Isabela, but had been transferred to Nueva Vizcaya
in virtue of Republic Act No. 236.
Oppositions were filed by the Government, through the Director of Lands and
the Director of Forestry, and some others, including the Heirs of Liberato
Bayaua. In due course, an order of general default was thereafter entered on
December 11, 1961 against the whole world except the oppositors.
The case dragged on for about twenty (20) years until March 3, 1981 when a
compromise agreement was entered into by and among all the parties.
Under the compromise agreement, the Heirs of Casiano Sandoval (as
applicants) renounced their claims and ceded
1) in favor of the Bureau of Lands, an area of 4,109 hectares;
2) in favor of the Bureau of Forest Development, 12,341 hectares;
3) in favor of the Heirs of Liberato Bayaua, 4,000 hectares; and
4) in favor of Philippine Cacao & Farm Products, Inc., 8,000 hectares.

In a decision rendered on March 5, 1981, the respondent Judge approved the

compromise agreement and confirmed the title and ownership of the parties
in accordance with its terms.
The Solicitor General, in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, has taken
the present recourse in a bid to have that decision of March 5, 1981 annulled
as being patently void and rendered in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the compromise agreement is valid

2. Whether or not the informacion possesoria is a competent proof of
possession.
HELD: 1. NO. It thus appears that the decision of the Registration Court a
quo is based solely on the compromise agreement of the parties. But that
compromise agreement included private persons who had not adduced any
competent evidence of their ownership over the land subject of the
registration proceeding. Portions of the land in controversy were assigned to
persons or entities who had presented nothing whatever to prove their
ownership of any part of the land. What was done was to consider the
compromise agreement as proof of title of the parties taking part therein, a
totally unacceptable proposition. The result has been the adjudication of
lands of no little extension to persons who had not submitted any
substantiation at all of their pretensions to ownership, founded on nothing
but the agreement among themselves that they had rights and interests over
the land.
2. NO. As to the informacion posesoria invoked by the private respondents, it
should be pointed out that under the Spanish Mortgage Law, it was
considered a mode of acquiring title to public lands, subject to two (2)
conditions: first, the inscription thereof in the Registry of Property, and
second, actual, public, adverse, and uninterrupted possession of the land for
twenty (20) years (later reduced to ten [10] years); but where, as here, proof
of fulfillment of these conditions is absent, the informacion posesoria cannot
be considered as anything more than prima facie evidence of possession.
It thus appears that the compromise agreement and the judgment approving
it must be, as they are hereby, declared null and void, and set aside.

Case 51. G.R. No. 72694 December 1, 1987

DEL BANCO vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
FACTS: The Pansacola brothers purchased the Island in 1859 as common
property and agreed on how they would share in the benefits to be derived
from the Island.
They had four agreements summarized as follows:
The agreement entered into in 1859 simply provides for the sharing of
whatever benefits can be derived from the island. The agreement, in fact,
states that the Island to be purchased shall be considered as their common
property. In the second agreement entered in 1868 the co-owners agreed not
only on the sharing proportion of the benefits derived from the Island but
also on the distribution of the Island each of the brothers was allocated a 1/4
portion of the Island with the children of the deceased brother, Eustaquio
Pansacola allocated a 1/4 portion and the children of Manuel Pansacola also
allocated a 1/4 portion of the Island. In the agreement of January 20, 1907,
the heirs that were represented agreed on how the Island was to be
partitioned. The agreement of April 18, 1908 which supplements that of
January 20, 1907 reveals that as of the signing of the 1908 agreement no
actual partition of the Island had as yet been done. The second and fourth
paragraphs of the agreement speaks of a survey yet to be conducted by a
certain Amadeo and a plan and description yet to be made. Said contracts
were never implemented because nobody defrayed the expenses for
surveying the same.
ISSUE: The sole issue to be resolved by the Court is the question of whether
or not Cagbalite Island is still undivided property owned in common by the
heirs and successors-in-interest of the brothers, Benedicto, Jose and Manuel
Pansacola.
HELD: There is nothing in all four agreements that suggest that actual or
physical partition of the Island had really been made by either the original
owners or their heirs or successors-in-interest. It is not disputed that some of
the private respondents and some of the petitioners at the time the action
for partition was filed in the trial court have been in actual possession and
enjoyment of several portions of the property in question. This does not
provide any proof that the Island in question has already been actually
partitioned and co-ownership terminated. A co-owner cannot, without the

conformity of the other co-owners or a judicial decree of partition. lt is

therefore of no moment that some of the co-owners have succeeded in
securing cadastral titles in their names to some portions of the Island
occupied by them.
It is not enough that the co-owners agree to subdivide the property. They
must have a subdivision plan drawn in accordance with which they take
actual and exclusive possession of their respective portions in the plan and
titles issued to each of them accordingly. Neither can such actual possession
and enjoyment of some portions of the Island by some of the petitioners
herein be considered a repudiation of the co-ownership. It is undisputed that
the Cagbalite Island was purchased by the original co-owners as a common
property and it has not been proven that the Island had been partitioned
among them or among their heirs. While there is co-ownership, a co-owner's
possession of his share is co-possession which is linked to the possession of
the other co-owners.
Furthermore, no prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner against his coowners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the coownership.
Case No. 52 [G.R. No. 111257. December 4, 1998]
MERCEDES DEIPARINE, et. al. vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
VICENTA DEIPARINE, et. al.
FACTS: This is a case for partition of real estate, declaration of nullity
of certain deeds, cancellation of certificate of title, and damages. The
property subject of the controversy is a parcel of land denominated as Lot
1938 of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate located in San Isidro,
Talisay, Cebu. The lot was originally owned by Marcelo Deiparine who
acquired the same from the government in 1923 under Friar Lands
Certificate No. 2008. On April 28, 1923, Marcelo Deiparine was issued Patent
No. 11403. When he died sometime in 1929, the subject lot was inherited by
his wife Leona Caballero and children Francisca, Filomena, Salvador,
Supriana, Segundo, Justiniana, Macaria and Manuel, all surnamed Deiparine.
On April 15, 1930, Lot 1938 was subdivided into two (2) lots, Lot 1938-A with
an area of 3,599 square meters and Lot 1938-B with an area of 3,608 square
meters. Manuel Deiparine took possession of Lot 1938-A and declared it in

his name for taxation purposes, in 1966, 1974 and 1980. Upon his death on
April 8, 1968, his heirs took possession of Lot 1938-A.
Lot 1938-B, on the other hand, was sold to Justiniana Deiparine on
October 28, 1933, as evidenced by a deed of sale. Defendant Bacus took
possession of the said lot.
IISUE: Whether or not the co-ownership of the subject land had been
sufficiently repudiated.

RULING: NO. We agree with the respondent Courts findings that petitioners
evidence consisting of the subdivision plan, tax declarations and tax receipts
are not conclusive and indisputable evidence to show that the lot in question
was sold to Manuel Deiparine, their predecessor-in-interest. A mere tax
declaration does not vest ownership of the property upon the declarant.
Neither do tax receipts nor declarations of ownership for taxation purposes
constitute adequate evidence of ownership or of the right to possess realty.
The subdivision plan prepared at the instance of the petitioners predecessorin-interest cannot likewise be considered in their favor, the same being selfserving.
The fact that a portion of the subject land was sold by the heirs of Marcelo
Deiparine to Justiniana Bacus would not lead to the conclusion that the other
portion was previously sold to Manuel Deiparine.
To sustain the validity of the reconstituted titles would be to allow Republic
Act No. 26 to be utilized as an instrument for land grabbing x x x or to
sanction fraudulent machinations for depriving a registered owner of his land
to undermine the stability and security of Torrens titles and to impair the
Torrens system of registration.
Accordingly, the title [TCT No. RT-3834 (NA)] issued to Manuel Deiparine
is null and void.
Petitioners possession of the subject lot did not also ripen into ownership
for the reason that they possessed the subject lot only as trustees for the
other co-owners.

Thus, in order that a co-owners possession may be deemed adverse to

the cestui que trust or the other co-owners, the following elements must
concur: (1) that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting
to an ouster of the cestui que trust or the other co-owners; (2) that such
positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust or
the other co-owners; and (3) that the evidence thereon must be clear and
convincing.
We sustain the respondent Courts findings that Manuel Deiparine, during
his lifetime, did not by any express or implied act show that he was
repudiating the co-ownership. While it is true that he took possession of Lot
1936-A after the death of Marcelo Deiparine, this hardly proves an act of
repudiation as there was no showing that the said possession was to the
exclusion of the other co-heirs.
Finally, the action for partition has not yet prescribed. An action to
demand partition is imprescriptible or cannot be barred by laches. Each coowner may demand at any time the partition of the common property.