G.R. No. 2146 - Figueras vs. Commanding General of the Division of the Philippines

Petitioner Manuel Testagorda Figueras, represented by Jose Figueras, filed a petition for the registration of a certain tract of land.
The petition was supported by a title of composition or patent issued by the Spanish Government on October 21, 1898.

The Court of Land Registration, finding the initial evidence insufficient, required additional proof and examined three witnesses:

The petitioner himself.
The secretary of the provincial board of Iloilo, who signed the patent issued by the governor.
A member of the board responsible for the composition of public lands under the royal decree of February 13, 1894.

The petitioner testified that Manuel Testagorda Figueras had not been in possession of the land prior to the issuance of the patent.
It was further admitted that Roman Solis, who originally applied for the patent, was in possession of the land before any petition by Testagorda Figueras.

Roman Solis testified that he had applied for the patent before the year in question and that his petition was suspended when he transferred his right to Testagorda Figueras.
Both testimonies revealed that neither Roman Solis nor Testagorda Figueras had been in actual physical possession of the land at the time of the petition, highlighting that possession was in fact held by the people inhabiting the land.
After the issuance of the patent, Testagorda Figueras subsequently came into possession of the land, a point the court noted as crucial in examining the validity of the title.

The court pointed out that possession is a necessary requisite for the issuance of a valid patent.
Since the applicant was not in possession of the land before the patent was granted, the court held that the patent was issued on a false basis and was therefore null and void.
The absence of possession undermined the validity of the composition required for a proper title, leading the Court of Land Registration to refuse the registration of the land.
The trial also involved scrutiny of the procedural aspects:

The role of the provincial board of Iloilo in issuing the patent.
The legislative framework governing land composition under the Spanish Royal Decree (notably Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the decree of February 13, 1894).
The publication of petitions in the Official Gazette of Manila, from which neither Testagorda Figueras nor Roman Solis appeared.

The petitioner’s argument that he might be merely the assignee of Roman Solis was examined, with judicial attention given to the timing and substance of the petition.
The court observed that if the petition had been filed with the proper evidentiary basis (i.e., prior possession and timely renewal under the prescribed deadlines), the patent could have been admitted, but the facts did not support this.
The court emphasized its broad investigatory powers to secure necessary evidence, which in this case confirmed that no valid possession existed to ground the composition and issuance of the patent.

Was the petitioner in actual physical possession of the land prior to the issuance of the patent?
Did the absence of such possession render the patent issued by the provincial board null and void?

Can a patent, which was granted without the petitioner’s possession of the land as required by law, be considered a valid transfer of title?
Does the fact that Roman Solis initially applied for the patent—and later transferred his right—affect the validity of the composition and the resulting title?

Was the exclusion of parol evidence by the parties justified, or did the court rightly exercise its power to require additional evidence regarding possession?
Could the Court of Land Registration properly disregard the patent as evidence of title based on its investigation into the prerequisite of possession?