Case Digest (G.R. No. 13298) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Cornelio Ramos vs. Director of Lands (39 Phil. 175, Nov. 19, 1918), the petitioner, Cornelio Ramos, and his wife acquired parcel No. 1 from Restituto Romero y Ponce, who had obtained a possessory information title under the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894 and registered it in February 1896. Romero initially took possession in 1882 of a tract in San Jose, Nueva Ecija, and sold a portion to Ramos in February 1907. Ramos sought registration of the entire parcel before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. The Director of Lands opposed on grounds that Ramos lacked a good Spanish title, while the Director of Forestry claimed the land was forest territory. The trial court sustained both objections and excluded the larger portion (areas A, B, and C) from registration. Ramos appealed.Issues:
- Does Ramos’ open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of a portion of the tract under color of title prove constructive possession of the entire parcel?
- Is the land prope
Case Digest (G.R. No. 13298) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of Land and Title
- Restituto Romero y Ponce occupied a tract in San Jose, Nueva Ecija, from 1882 and obtained a possessory information title under the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, registered February 8, 1896.
- Parcel No. 1 (Exhibit A) was included in Romero’s title and sold in February 1907 to Cornelio Ramos and his wife, Ambrosia Salamanca.
- Registration Proceedings and Trial Court Decision
- Ramos instituted registration proceedings before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija to confirm his title to Parcel No. 1.
- The Director of Lands objected that the Spanish possessory title was invalid; the Director of Forestry objected that Parcel No. 1 was public forest land.
- The trial court sustained both objections and denied registration of the larger portion of Parcel No. 1 (marked A, B, and C on Government Plan, Exhibit 1).
Issues:
- Whether Ramos’s color of title and open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under subsection 6, section 54 of Act No. 926 (as amended by Act No. 1908) entitle him to registration of the entire Parcel No. 1.
- Whether partial cultivation (about one-fourth) constitutes constructive possession of the entire tract.
- Whether the land qualifies as “agricultural public land” under the Public Land Law and the Philippine Bill.
- Whether the trial court erred in excluding Parcel No. 1 from registration in the absence of conclusive proof that it is forest land.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)