Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18814)
Facts:
Anacleto P. Navarro, Applicant and Appellant, v. The Director of Lands, Oppositor and Appellee, G.R. No. L-18814, July 31, 1962, the Supreme Court En Banc, Makalintal, J., writing for the Court.In February 1958 Anacleto P. Navarro filed an application for registration of Lots Nos. 1 and 2 of Plan Psu-117149 (residential lots in Malate along Dewey Boulevard), docketed as Case No. N-53, L.R.C. Rec. No. N-14566. The Director of Lands interposed an opposition asserting that the lots were part of the public domain. Applicant presented evidence in February and March 1959; the hearing was later set for June 18, 1959.
On May 8, 1959 the Director of Lands moved to dismiss the new application on two grounds: (1) it was barred by prior judgment (res judicata), and (2) Section 48(b) of the Public Land Law as amended by Republic Act No. 1942—allowing judicial confirmation of imperfect titles after thirty years' continuous possession—applies only to agricultural lands and not to residential lands. The Court of First Instance of Manila sustained the motion and dismissed the application by order dated July 1, 1959; Navarro appealed to the Supreme Court.
The challenged lots had been the subject of an earlier cadastral action (G.L.R.C. Cad. Rec. No. 6, G.L.R.O. Cad. Case No. 1) begun about 1950 in the Court of First Instance of Manila, in which the Republic claimed the lots as public land. Navarro (substituting for Caridad Guillen Cortez) sought registration under Section 48(b). The trial court there denied his claim by decision dated July 17, 1954; the Court of Appeals affirmed on June 29, 1957 (CA-G.R. No. L-13983-R). Navarro then filed a petition for review by certiorari to this Court, which was dismissed for being factual and for lack of merit on September 6, 1957.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals in the prior cadastral case made extensive factual findings that the lots had been under water and were filled by government works, that tax declarations and tax payments were absent for the claimed chain of owners, and that Navarro’s own evidence of possession was vague and inadequate. The Court of Appeals expressly found that Navarro had not established possession for even thirty years. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the doctrine of res judicata bar Navarro's 1958 application for registration of Lots Nos. 1 and 2?
- If not barred, does Section 48(b) of the Public Land Law, as amended by Republic Act No. 1942, permit judicial confirmation of imperfect title to the subjec...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)