Case Digest (G.R. No. 83609)
Facts:
Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83609, October 26, 1989, Supreme Court First Division, Grino-Aquino, J., writing for the Court. The petition was filed by the Director of Lands through the Solicitor General seeking review of the Court of Appeals decision dated May 27, 1988 in CA-G.R. CV No. 66426 (Ibarra Bisnar, et al. v. Director of Lands) that affirmed the Court of First Instance of Capiz's order confirming and registering title to two parcels of land in LRC Cad. Rec. 1256.On July 20, 1976, private respondents Ibarra and Amelia Bisnar (applicants) filed a joint application for registration of Lots 866 and 870 of the Pilar Cadastra (areas of about 28 ha and 34 ha) in barrio Gen. Hizon, President Roxas, Capiz, alleging inheritance and payment of taxes. The Director of Lands and the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development opposed on December 16, 1976, contending (1) lack of proper antecedent Spanish or other recognized title, (2) failure to prove open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession for at least thirty years, and (3) that the parcels are public domain timberland not subject to private appropriation.
The applicants filed an amended application (Feb. 24, 1977) and alternatively sought relief under Chapter 8 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, alleging possession as owners for more than fifty years. After hearing, the Court of First Instance ordered registration, finding open, public, continuous and adverse possession under a bona fide claim for more than eighty years and improvements (plantings and fishponds).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, rejecting the Director's contention that classification as timberland precluded registration absent e...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the registration of Lots 866 and 870 under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, where the parcels are within a timberland block and certified needed for forest purposes?
- Can long possession of land classified as forest ripen into private ownership absent an official declassification by the Executive?
- Who bears the burden of proof in confirmation of imperfect title proceedings under Section 48 of CA No. 141...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)