G.

FORM AND CONTENTS OF

APPLICATION

H. CONFIRMATION OF TITLE OVER LAND

PREVIOUSLY DECLARED PUBLIC LAND

Form of the Application

1.
2.

3.

4.

It must be in writing.
It must be signed by the applicant or person
duly authorized in his behalf.
It must be sworn to before an officer
authorized to administer oath for the
province or city where the application was
actually signed.
If there is more than 1 applicant, they shall
be signed and sworn to by and in behalf of
each.

Contents of Application

Description of the land applied for together

with the buildings and improvements; the
plan approved by Director of Lands and the
technical descriptions must be attached

Citizenship and civil status of the applicant

If married, name of spouse, and

If the marriage has been legally dissolved, when
and how the marriage relation was terminated

Assessed value of the land and the buildings

and other improvements based on the last
assessment for taxation purposes

Mortgage or encumbrance affecting the land

or names of other persons who may have an
interest therein, legal or equitable

Manner of acquisition of land

Full names and address of all occupants of

the land and those of the adjoining owners, if
known, and if not known, the applicant shall
state the extent of the search made to find
them

If the applicant describes the land as

bounded by a public or private way or road, it
shall state whether or not the applicant
claims any portion of the land within the
limits of the way or road, and whether the
applicant desires to have the line of way or
road determined [Sec. 20, PD 1529]
The court may require the facts to be stated
in the application in addition to those
prescribed by the decree not inconsistent
therewith and may require the filing of
additional papers

If the applicant is a non-resident of

the Philippines, he shall file an
instrument appointing an agent
residing in the Philippines and shall
agree that serice of any legal process
shall be of the same legal effects as
if made upon the applicant within the
Philippines

H. CONFIRMATION OF TITLE OVER LAND PREVIOUSLY

DECLARED PUBLIC LAND
Director of Lands v. CA [GR No. L-47847, July 31, 1981]

Facts:

On May 8, 1974, respondent Manuela Pastor

filed with the Court of First Instance of
Batangas, an application for confirmation of
imperfect title over 13 lots situated in Gulod
and Pallocan, Batangas City.
In her application, the respondent claims that
she and her predecessor-in-interest had been
in continuous, uninterrupted, open, public,
adverse and notorious possession of the lots
under claim of ownership for more than 30
years.

The Director of lands filed an opposition to

the application on the ground that the lots in
questions was previous declared by the court
as public land therefore, a bar to appellees
application
Applicant Manuela Pastor contends that she
remained the owner and possessor of the lots
in question; that her possession has been
peaceful, public, open, continuous, adverse
against the whole world and in the concept of
owner; that she had paid the taxes thereon;
and the said lots were planted to sugar cane.

Issue:
Whether or not res judicata barred the
confirmation of title over land previously
declared public land.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that the principle

ofres judicata cannot be considered in
the instant case although the subject land
was declared public land because it have
not as yet ripen into a final decision. A
judicial declaration that a parcel of land is
public does not preclude even the same
applicant from subsequently seeking a
judicial confirmation of his title to the
same land, as long as said public land
remains alienable and disposable.

A judicial declaration that a parcel of land

is public, does not preclude the same
applicant subsequently seeking a judicial
confirmation of his title to the same land,
provided he thereafter complies with the
provisions of Section 48 of the
Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended,
and as long as said public land remains
alienable and disposable [now sections 3
and 4, PD No. 1073]

Mindanao vs. Director of Lands

20 SCRA 641

On August 4, 1960 appellants filed an application for

registration of the 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. contends that there is already
"res-adjudicata", the cause of action of the applicant is
now barred by prior judgment that it was already
declared public land; and that this Court has no more
jurisdiction over the subject matter.

The trial court granted the motion to holding,inter

alia, 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 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?

RULINGS

Pursuant to Section 48, subsection (b) of the Public

Land Law, C.A. 141, as amended. This provision
reads as follows:

The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands

of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest
therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may
apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is
located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a
certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:
xxxxxxxxx
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain,
under abona fideclaim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty
years immediately preceding the filing of the application for
confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force
majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all
the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled
to a certificate of title under the provisions of this Chapter.

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 wasin 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.

Ramirez vs. CA
256 SCRA 217

FACTS:
An original application for registration was filed by
spouses Marta Ygonia and Arcadio Ramirezwith the CFI.
It had for its subject matter a parcel of land on the
eastern side of 17, with an area of 11, 055 sqm later
increased to 11,311 sqm. Which was claimed ny the
applicants as an accretion to their land gradually
formed by alluvial deposits.
It had for its subject matter a parcel of land on the
eastern side of Lot 17, with an area of 11,055 square
meters (later increased to 11,311 sq. meters), which
was claimed by the applicants as an accretion to their
land gradually formed by alluvial deposits.

The Director of Lands opposed the application on

the grounds that the applicants did not possess
sufficient title to the land sought to be registered,
and that the land in question is a part of the
public domain.

Herein petitioner, as the buyer of Lots 17 and 19

from his parents, filed on May 17, 1989, in LRC
Case No. B-526, before the Regional Trial Court of
Laguna, Branch XXV, Bian, Laguna,[6]an
application for registration of the same land
formed by accretion.After due publication,
mailing and posting of notices, the petition was
called for hearing.

ISSUES:
Whether a judicial declaration that a parcel of
land is public,preclude even the same applicant
from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation
of his title to the same land?
RULINGS:
A judicial declaration that a parcel of land is
public,does not preclude even the same applicant
from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation
of his title to the same land,provided he
thereafter complies with the provisions of Section
48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended,
and as long as said public lands remains alienable
and disposable (now Sections 3 and 4, P.D. No.
1073).

After careful deliberation and consultation, we find

ourselves in agreement with petitioners
contention.Seen from the perspective offered by the
aforequoted ruling, it is evident that one of the
elements ofres judicatais lacking in the case at
bar.Respondent Court declared that identity of
causes of action between Case No. B-46 and Case No.
B-526 exist since they both sought registration of the
land formed by alluvial deposits, but failed to
recognize that thebasisfor claiming such registration
was different in each case.In Case No. B-46,
applicants-spouses Arcadio Ramirez and Marta
Ygonia (herein petitioners parents) claimed that their
possession of the land, tacked to that of their
predecessors Apolonio Diaz, et al. (allegedly from
1943 onwards), was sufficient to vest title in them by
acquisitive prescription.

In other words, because of the different relevant

periods of possession being referred to, the basis
of the application in Case No. B-46 is actually
different from that in Case No. B-526.Stated in
another way, the right to relief in one case rests
upon a set of facts different from that upon which
the other case depended.Hence, there was
nores judicatato bar the proceedings in LRC
Case No. B-526.