A.M. No. P-00-1359 - Casenares vs. Almeida, Jr.

The petitioners, Roales Brothers and Cousins, sought the registration of various parcels of land that comprise nearly all of Bonga Island, located approximately 25 kilometers off the coast of Cotabato near the mouth of a large river.
The origin of their claim dates back to a period before American occupation when Tomas Roales took possession and commenced cultivation of the island.
Between 1893 and 1895, the possession was formalized by a grant from the Military Political Commander of Illana Bay, which led to the organization of an anonymous association known as Fortuna involving several participants mentioned in the grant.

The anonymous association, Fortuna, failed to pay the land tax on the island, leading to its sale at public auction.
Francisco Diaz purchased the island at the auction, from whom the current petitioners later acquired the parcels now subject to registration.

The petitioners sought registration for several parcels identified as parcels 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.
The lower court recognized that parcels 4, 6, 7, and 8 had been occupied and cultivated by the petitioners and their predecessors, dating back to ten years before American occupation, and accordingly ordered their registration in the petitioners’ names.
For parcel 2, only a portion had been occupied, prompting the court to require the petitioners to submit an amended plan detailing the occupied area (as delineated by red lines on the oppositor’s sketch Exhibit X) to resolve its adjudication.
The remaining portion of parcel 2 and all of parcel 3 were denied registration on the sole ground that neither the petitioners nor their predecessors had had actual possession of those parts.

The sole justification for denying registration of the contested portion of lot 2 and all of lot 3 was the lack of actual physical possession by the petitioners or their predecessors.
The decision was based on the principle that possession, as evidenced by cultivation and physical presence, must be demonstrated over the area claimed.

Whether the cultivation and actual possession of more than two-thirds of Bonga Island by the petitioners and their predecessors constitutes constructive possession of the entire island, including the portions not directly occupied.
Whether the acts of actual possession (cultivation, pasture usage, and tree cutting for boat construction) are sufficient to legally infer possession of the unoccupied areas.

Whether the lower court erred in denying the registration of the remaining portion of parcel 2 and all of parcel 3 solely on the ground of lack of physical possession.
Whether the principles established in the decision of Ramos vs. Director of Lands, which allow for constructive possession by virtue of cultivative acts, apply to this case.

Determining if actual possession of a substantial part of a tract can legally extend to constitute possession of the entire tract under the doctrine of constructive possession.
Evaluating if the registration of parcels should be granted based on the overall evidence of possession, even if certain portions have not been physically reached by the petitioners.