Case Digest (G.R. No. 49)
Facts:
The Municipality of Antipolo v. The Community of Cainta, G.R. No. 49, May 11, 1903, the Supreme Court, Arellano, C.J., writing for the Court; Cooper, Willard, Mapa, and Ladd, JJ., concurred; Torres and McDonough, JJ., did not sit.Pablo de la Cruz, representing the Community of Cainta, filed a petition dated May 22, 1893 with the central direction of civil administration under the Spanish government seeking "the return of the use and enjoyment of ninety-two quinones of common lands" that, he alleged, had long been leased to the people of Antipolo. He recited that the lands originally belonged to the early inhabitants of Cainta, were at one time forfeited during a rebellion and later restored as commons to be neither conveyed nor encumbered, and that at an unspecified time the Cainta community leased the lands to Antipolo for the canon of one real per balita (amounting to 115 pesos per year), payments that ceased after an 1887 order exempted the common lands from canon but possession by Antipolo continued.
The central civil office caused interrogatories to be sent to the two towns’ representatives; both answered they had no written lease: Antipolo claimed they had received the lands from their ancestors and considered them their property, while Cainta insisted the lands belonged to it and that the payments should now go to the township. The consulting attorney and the investigating bureau reviewed the matter. The consulting attorney (July 20, 1894; opinion of September 18, 1894) found no written evidence of a contract and recommended return of the beneficial title subject to Article 1577 of the Civil Code; the bureau (opinion of February 18, 1896) and the director-general concurred, and the Governor‑General finally approved the resolution on February 28, 1896 ordering that the usufruct/dominium utile be declared terminated and the lands returned to Cainta.
The Municipality of Antipolo filed a contentious-administrative complaint (August 3, 1896) attacking the administrative resolution; the government attorney filed an answer April 22, 1898; Cainta initially did not appear. The office of attorney of the contentious administrative court was later abolished and the case was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court before evidence-taking was complete; Cainta was thereafter admitted as a party and both sides introduced evidence. The record showed that Cainta in its petitions had consistently prayed only for restitution of the enjoyment (a possessory or usufruct claim), whereas the administrative decision ordered return of the dominium utile (full beneficial ownership) — effectively a revindicatory disposition. The Co...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the administrative authorities and the contentious administrative court have jurisdiction to adjudicate and order the return in plenum dominium of the 92 quinones of land claimed by Cainta?
- Was the administrative decision of February 28, 1896 (and the subsequent delivery of the lands by the politico-military government of Morong on March 20, 1896) valid...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)