G.R. No. 57112-21 - Republic vs. Fangonil

In 1912, a petition was filed in the Court of Land Registration regarding the Baguio Townsite Reservation (Expediente de Reserva No. 1, GLRO Reservation Record No. 211).
In 1914, the Land Registration Court was abolished, and the record was transferred to the Court of First Instance of Benguet.
The purpose of Case No. 211 was to determine which portions of the Baguio Townsite Reservation were private and registerable under Act No. 496, as provided in Section 62 of Act No. 926.
On July 22, 1915, the court issued a notice requiring all persons claiming lots within the reservation to file petitions for registration within six months.
On June 13, 1922, the General Land Registration Office submitted a report on the applications for registration.
Judge C.M. Villareal, in a decision dated November 13, 1922, ruled that all lands within the reservation were public lands, except for (1) lands reserved for specified public uses and (2) lands claimed and adjudicated as private property.
The 1922 decision established that lots within the Baguio Townsite Reservation, being public domain, were not registerable under Act No. 496.

Between 1972 and 1976, Modesta Paris, Lagya Paris, Samuel Baliwan, Pablo Ramos, Jr., Josephine Abanag, Menita T. Victor, Emiliano Bautista, and Odi Dianson filed applications for the registration of lots within the Baguio Townsite Reservation.
They alternatively claimed that if the lots were not registerable under Act No. 496, Section 48(b) and (c) of the Public Land Law should apply, as they and their predecessors had been in possession for over thirty years.
The Director of Lands opposed the applications, filing motions to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, prescription, and res judicata, citing the 1922 decision as a bar to subsequent registrations.

The trial judge acknowledged that Section 48 of the Public Land Law could not be invoked by the applicants, as it applies only to disposable agricultural lands outside the reservation.
He also conceded that lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation could not be acquired by long possession for over thirty years after Case No. 211.
However, he refused to dismiss the applications, stating that there was a need for a regular hearing to determine whether the applications were barred by res judicata, relying on the isolated case of Zarate vs. Director of Lands.

Sections 3 and 4 of Act No. 627 required notification to two classes of persons: (1) those living upon or in visible possession of the reservation and (2) absentees.
For absentees, service was complete upon publication of the notice in a newspaper and posting on the premises, with the six-month period commencing from that time.
For those living upon or in visible possession, service was complete only upon personal service, and the six-month period began to run from the date of personal service.
In Case No. 211, the clerk of court certified that 134 persons living upon or in visible possession were personally served with notice, which was deemed conclusive proof of service.

Annex I of the petition for certiorari showed that previous attempts by some applicants and their predecessors to reopen Case No. 211 had been dismissed.

Res Judicata and Jurisdiction: The 1922 decision in Case No. 211 barred all subsequent registrations of lots within the Baguio Townsite Reservation. The trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain land registration proceedings under Act No. 496 for lands within the reservation, as established by the 1922 decision and affirmed in subsequent cases.
Application of Section 48 of the Public Land Law: Section 48(b) and (c) of the Public Land Law applies only to disposable agricultural lands outside the reservation. It cannot be invoked for lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation, which are public domain.
Service of Notice in Case No. 211: The clerk of court’s certification of personal service of notice to 134 persons in 1915 was conclusive proof of service. The applicants failed to prove that their predecessors were living upon or in visible possession of the lands in 1915 and were not served notice.
Time Bar: The period of more than fifty years since the 1922 decision completely barred the applicants from securing relief due to the alleged lack of personal notice to their predecessors. The law favors the vigilant and does not aid those who sleep on their rights.