Title
Abrille vs. Banuelos
Case
G.R. No. 5829
Decision Date
Aug 23, 1911
Applicants sought land registration for 870 hectares in Tarlac but only proved ownership of seven parcels (403 hectares). Court ordered a new trial for corrected plans, denied registration of untitled parcels, and upheld opponents' injunction.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 5829)

Facts:

Application for Land Registration

Valeriana Calivara, on behalf of her children Pedro, Eugenia, Luz, Jose, Enrique, and Carlos Villa Abrille y Calivara, filed an application on November 18, 1907, amended on January 11, 1909, for the registration of a tract of rural land in Tarlac. The land, with an area of 870 hectares, 18 ares, and 73 centares, was allegedly owned by the applicants. The property was bounded by various landowners and government forest land. The applicants claimed ownership through a conveyance from Valeriana Calivara on November 16, 1907, and asserted that no one else had any rights or interests in the land, except for a mortgage of P500 affecting 159 hectares.

Opposition to the Application

Twenty-eight opponents and the Attorney-General contested the application. The opponents claimed ownership of specific parcels within the land, while the Attorney-General argued that the land belonged to the United States and was under the control of the Insular Government. The court ruled on August 9, 1909, that the applicants were only entitled to two parcels of land (84 hectares and 319 hectares) and dismissed the rest of the application. The applicants waived their right to amend the application and requested final judgment, which the court denied, leading to the appeal.

Evidence and Titles Presented

The applicants presented documents (Exhibits Y, R, LL, L, M, I, and E) proving their ownership of seven parcels of land (numbered 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 in the plan Exhibit F). These documents were not challenged by the opponents. However, the total area of these parcels (403 hectares, 99 ares, and 8 centares) was significantly less than the 870 hectares claimed in the application. The court found discrepancies in the identity, location, and boundaries of the parcels as described in the titles and the plans presented.

Issues with the Remaining Parcels

The applicants also sought registration for four additional parcels (numbered 1, 3, 5, and 6 in Exhibit F), but they failed to provide valid titles or proof of possession. These parcels were not adjudicated to the applicants or their predecessors, and the record showed no legal possession or conveyance of rights to the applicants.

Issue:

  1. Whether the applicants sufficiently proved their ownership and the identity of the land sought to be registered.
  2. Whether the applicants were entitled to register the seven parcels of land for which they held valid titles.
  3. Whether the applicants could register the four additional parcels without valid titles or proof of possession.
  4. Whether the injunction issued in favor of the 24 opponents should be dissolved.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of August 9, 1909, recognizing the applicants' ownership of the seven parcels of land (numbered 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) but reversed the dismissal of the application. The court ordered a new trial to allow the applicants to amend their application and provide a corrected plan identifying the location, area, and boundaries of the seven parcels. The court denied the registration of the four additional parcels (numbered 1, 3, 5, and 6) due to the lack of valid titles or proof of possession. The injunction in favor of the 24 opponents was upheld.

Ratio:

  1. Proof of Ownership and Identity: A person seeking to register land must prove not only ownership but also the identity of the land. The applicants failed to establish the exact location, boundaries, and area of the seven parcels of land as described in their titles.
  2. Validity of Titles: The court recognized the validity of the titles for the seven parcels but emphasized that the plans presented did not conform to the titles, leading to discrepancies in area and boundaries.
  3. Registration of Untitled Land: The applicants could not register the four additional parcels without valid titles or proof of possession. The lack of legal possession and conveyance of rights precluded registration.
  4. Injunction: The injunction in favor of the opponents was upheld because it was unclear whether the lands claimed by the opponents overlapped with the seven parcels owned by the applicants.

The case was remanded to the Court of Land Registration for further proceedings to identify and register the seven parcels of land with valid titles.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.