Heirs of Zara Pelagio and Mindanao vs Director of Lands

L- 19535
July 10, 1967

FACTS: Appellants, heirs of Zara Pelagio filed an application for registration of the
subject land pursuant to the provisions of Act 496. They alleged that the land had been
inherited by them from their grandfather, Pelagio Zara, who in turn acquired the same
under a Spanish grant known as "Composicion de Terrenos Realengos" issued in
1888.The Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry and by Vicente V. de Villa, Jr.filed
their opposition. De Villa, Jr contended that the subject parcel of land is the same land
he is seeking to be registered.The de Villas has been in open,continuous and adverse
possession for 60 years and that the failure of the plaintiffs to appear on the
proceedings barred their claim in this case by prior judgement, being an action on
rem. The court decided in favour of the de Villas and dismissed the case. The lower
court held that "once a parcel of land is declared or adjudged public land by the court
having jurisdiction x x x it cannot be the subject anymore of another land registration
proceeding x x x (that) it is only the Director of Lands who can dispose of the same by
sale, by lease, by free patent or by homestead."

ISSUE: Whether or not the 1949 judgment in the previous case, denying the
application of Vicente S. de Villa, Sr., and declaring the 107 hectares in question to
be public land, precludes a subsequent application by an alleged possessor for judicial
confirmation of title on the basis of continuous possession for at least thirty years,
pursuant to Section 48, subsection (b) of the Public Land Law

HELD: No. It should be noted that appellants' application is in the alternative: for
registration of their title of ownership under Act 496 or for judicial confirmation of their
"imperfect" title or claim based on adverse and continuous possession for at least
thirty years. It may be that although they were not actual parties in that previous case
the judgment therein is a bar to their claim as owners under the first alternative, since
the proceeding was in rem, of which they and their predecessor had constructive
notice by publication. Even so this is a defense that properly pertains to the
Government, in view of the fact that the judgment declared the land in question to be
public land. In any case, appellants' imperfect possessory title was not disturbed or
foreclosed by such declaration, for precisely the proceeding contemplated in the
aforecited provision of Commonwealth Act 141 presupposes that the land is public.
The basis of the decree of judicial confirmation authorized therein is not that the land
is already privately owned and hence no longer part of the public domain, but rather
that by reason of the claimant's possession for thirty years he is conclusively
presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant.