Case Digest (G.R. No. L-46145)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Lands) v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Heirs of Domingo P. Baloy, represented by Ricardo Baloy, et al., G.R. No. L-46145, November 26, 1986, the Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.The petition arose from an application for registration filed by the heirs of Domingo P. Baloy (private respondents), who relied on a Spanish-era posessory informacion title (Exhibit F, translated as Exhibit F-1), continuous, adverse and public possession since 1894, and a tax declaration (filed April 8, 1965). The Court of First Instance of Zambales (then sitting as a Land Registration Court), in LRC Case No. 11-0, LRC Record No. N-29355, denied the application for registration.
The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeals (Fifth Division, Magno Gatmaitan, J., ponente), which, by decision dated February 3, 1977, reversed the trial court and approved the application for registration. Oppositors — the Bureau of Lands (petitioner here) — moved for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals, arguing principally that the land had become public through the operation of Act No. 627 (as amended by Act No. 1138) after its inclusion in a U.S. naval reservation declared November 26, 1902, and that no registerable title in private respondents existed; the Court of Appeals denied the motion.
The petitioner then brought a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court (Rule 45). The petitioner asserted that failure of Domingo Baloy to file a claim within the period fixed under Act No. 627 conclusively adjudged the land public, divesting any private title or right to registration. The Court of Appeals had concluded that Act No. 627 required a judicial declaration by the Court of Land Registration under Section 3 before private lands could be adjudged public, that no such judgment appeared in the record, and that the temporary occupation by the U.S. Navy did not extinguish the Baloy family's possessory rights or cause prescription. The Supreme Court reviewed those findings and the documen...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does failure to present a claim under Section 2 of Act No. 627 ipso facto render private land public, or is a judicial declaration under Section 3 by the Court of Land Registration required?
- Were the private respondents’ possessory rights lost by prescription due to the interim occupation by the U.S. Navy and later entries by third parties?
- Should the applicants’ application for registration be granted (i.e....(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)