Uy Un v

The appellant asks in his request for certiorari to review and revoke the decision issued by the Court of
Appeal declaring null the sale made by the Sheriff on September 21, 1934 of the land in dispute,
declaring valid sale of improvements Existing in the same and ordering that such improvements be sold
to satisfy the amount that the appellant paid as auction price amounting to P379.85, without costs.
Chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The appellant initiated the case in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas to recover from the appellants
the ownership and possession of an agricultural land of 10 hectares, located in the municipality of
Guinayangan, Province of Tayabas, as well as the improvements that exist In the same one consisted of
333 ponos of cocci fruit fructiferos of first class and 200 no fructiferos.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
chanrobles virtual law library

The relevant facts in the case are exposed by the Court of Appeals in these terms:

Martin Villaplana was a possessor of a land, as owner, from the time of the Spanish Government, having
declared it for the purpose of assessing the year 1902, and having introduced in the improvements
consisting of coconut trees, the oldest of which has 60 year old. On May 27, 1916, Martin Villaplana sold
the land to his son Vicente Villaplana, married to the defendant Mamerta Perez. On December 7, 1922
Vicente Villaplana requested it as "Free Patent." Vicente Villaplana having contracted a debt of P291.05
of Gregorio Reyes Uy Un on February 13, 1931, and having been sued for the payment of said amount
and sentenced to pay it on May 5, 1933, the corresponding order of execution was issued, Which was
completed on September 21, 1934, and sold to the demadante (Exhibit A). The 20 of April of 1935 was
when it was sent to Vicente Villaplana and title gratiuito. On December 13, 1934, the possession of the
land was given to Gregorio Reyes Uy Un by virtue of an order of the Guinayangan Peace Court, Tayabas,
but in July 1935 the defendants, who are the wife and children of Vicente Villaplana, Having been
released from it on September 10 of the same year by virtue of a preliminary prohibition issued in this
case.

The Court of Appeal, after reviewing the evidence presented at the first instance, stated that the land was
public and that it was part of the public lands of the State that could be made available through a
gratuitous conscription. In its first statement of error, the appellant maintains that such a conclusion is
erroneous and inconsistent with the facts established by the Court of Appeals itself. He argues that the
Court of Appeal declared that Martin Villaplana owned the land as owner since 1902, declaring it in the
property with his own property and having cultivated it by sowing in the coconut trees that are now more
than 60 years old and that his Son Vicente Villaplana and his wife owned it in the same concept, the land
ceased to be public land and became private and, therefore, the provisions of Law No. 2874, known by
Land Law Virtual law library

According to subsection (b) of article 45 of Law No. 2874, in force on the dates in which the possession of
the respondents and their originator and the issuance of the gratuitous title took place, those who, by
themselves or through Their quasantes, would have been in open, contiguous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, intending in good faith to acquire
property, except against the Government, since July twenty-eighth, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, are
entitled To the confirmation of their rights and to the issuance of a certificate of title in accordance with the
Law of the Registry of Property, and have in their favor the presumption juris de jure of having fulfilled all
the necessary conditions for the concession of the Government and Shall be entitled to a certificate of title
under the provisions of said Law. In accordance with said legal provision, the defendants and their
offender had an inactive Sunday law on the ground, To request and obtain confirmation of said right and
to be issued the certificate of title in accordance with the Law of the Registry of Property; They also had in
their favor the presumption that they had fulfilled all the conditions necessary for the granting of the title;
But until the title was issued they did not have the juridical concept of being the real owners of the land or
that stopped belonging to the public lands of the State susceptible of alienation. That this was the legal
condition of the land until the government issued the free title, is confirmed by Article 54 of the same law
that provides that from now on it will not be possible to acquire title, legal right or right by reason of equity
on land Of the public domain by prescription or by possession or occupation as owner, or by agreement
or by virtue of any law in force prior to the American occupation, except as expressly provided by the laws
dictated after such occupation of the Philippine Islands by the U.S. The fact that Vicente Villaplana
requested December 7, 1922 titled gratiuito of the land is another fact that shows that in his feeling he
had not acquired a perfect title of it and that it remained public land of the State. We conclude, therefore,
that the Court of Appeals did not err in declaring that the land was public and subject to the provisions of
Law No. 2874.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In the second error, it is claimed that the Court of Appeal should have declared that the land at issue
could not be granted by a free title and that this title, issued on April 20, 1935, is null and void and may
affect Rights that the appellant had acquired on the spot. Having declared that the land remained public
on the date the title was issued, it is obvious that it was subject to the provisions of the Law of Public
Land and, consequently, the gratuitous title that was issued in favor of Vicente Villaplana is legal and
valid.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

To support his theory that the land had become private property, that Vicente Villaplana and his deceased
Martin Villaplana were the exclusive owners of the same and that he succeeded in the title of the first
when acquiring it in public auction, the appellant quotes the settled by This Court in the affairs of Cariño v.
Insular Government of the Philippines Islands, 212 U.S., 449, 53 Law. Ed., 594, 597; 41 Phil., 935, 940-
941; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. The Director of Lands, 27 Phil., 246, 248; And Susi vs.
Razon and the Director of Lands, 48, Phil., 424, where it was declared that the agricultural land that has
been owned under the conditions prescribed by the Public Land Law has ceased to be public land to
become oprified land, and The one who has it has the presumption juris et de jure of having obtained
concession from the Government and that he has the right to register it in his name according to the Law
of the Registry of Property. The issues cited are, however, distinguished from the present in that in this
one who owned the land and from which their rights derive the resident is the same that recognized the
condition of the land to be public property of the State and not only recognized that Continued to be public
land but requested that it be issued a free title in accordance with the Public Land Law.
Chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In the last error, the appellant maintains that the Court of Appeals must have confirmed the decision of
the Court of First Instance that declared valid the sale by public auction of the land made by the Sheriff in
his favor. Since the land was public property of the State when the Sheriff sold the public on September
21, 1934, and Vicente Villaplana did not own it, it is obvious that the former did not acquire the domain of
the land that did not have it yet The executed Vicente Villaplana and, consequently, the sale was null and
of no legal effect. The sale, in addition, can not be declared valid under the precept of article116 of Law
No. 2874, as amended by article 23 of Law No. 3517, which prohibits encumbrance and alienation,
except to the Government and institutions Of the lands acquired by title gratiuito from the date of the
approval of the application and during the five years following the issuance of the title or
concession.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

If the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is upheld, the petition of certiorari is denied, with the
costs to the appellant. So it is ordered