G.R. No. 22193 - Smith, Bell and Co. Ltd. vs. Director of Lands

In 1893, an Englishman named Pickford had a tract of land situated in the barrio of Agtiwi, municipality of Toledo, Cebu, surveyed by public surveyor Ignacio Regner.
Possessory information proceedings were instituted for this tract, and the record was inscribed in the property registry of Cebu on April 28, 1894, detailing that the land comprised 32 contiguous parcels previously occupied by their respective owners for ten years or more, with an estimated total area of approximately 500 hectares.

Pickford incurred a debt amounting to roughly P68,000 with Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd., resulting in the execution of two mortgages in favor of the firm: one dated August 17, 1894, and the other November 17, 1905.
After residing on the land until the outbreak of the revolution, Pickford relocated to Cebu and subsequently went abroad, leaving the land under the charge of Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. The firm declared the land for taxation and duly paid the associated taxes during his absence.

On April 30, 1915, while Pickford was in Mazagan, Morocco, he conveyed his remaining interest in the estate in fee simple to Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd.
In September 1918, the Bureau of Lands conducted a survey of the property, following the lines of the initial Regner survey. This survey resulted in a new technical description of the land, on which Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. filed an application for registration on May 25, 1919.

Numerous oppositions were filed against the application, resulting in several orders of general default and subsequent re-openings for additional oppositions.
By the time of trial in December 1922, the remaining opponents were a group of private adverse claimants (including Florencio Pansacala, Eutiquio Delit, Cleto Laspena, Francisco Gabato, Regino Laspena, Adriano Sembrano, Canuto Larrobis, Genon Lariosa, Sinforoso Engaling, Modesta Canteveros, Quintin Laspena, the heirs of Eugenio Cabigas, Antero Siempre, Pantaleon Bolo, Jose Rico) and the Director of Lands.
After an extensive trial with substantial testimony, the trial court found that the land was not sufficiently identified as described in the possessory information and consequently denied the registration application.

The appeal focused solely on questions of fact, particularly the completeness and accuracy of the land’s identification under both surveys.
Evidence pointed to the fact that the land described in the possessory information was the same as that in the original Regner survey and that the Bureau of Lands had followed the same lines in its 1918 re-survey, notwithstanding a noted discrepancy in the area measurement (667 hectares in the later survey versus the estimated 500 hectares in the original).
Additional evidentiary support included the identification of several landmarks from Regner’s testimony and the consistent conduct of surveying by officials such as surveyor Bunagan and teniente Pio Ponce.

Whether the land described in the possessory information (based on the original 1893 Regner survey) could be conclusively identified in the subsequent 1918 survey conducted by the Bureau of Lands, despite discrepancies in area and adjacent landholders’ names.
Whether minor differences in the survey measurements (500 hectares vs. 667 hectares) were substantial enough to undermine the applicant’s title.

Whether the possessory information recorded in 1894, which would have converted into title by 1914 barring any legal interruption of possession, remained valid given the series of transactions and subsequent surveys.

Whether the adverse claims of the private opponents and the Director of Lands, including allegations regarding mineral rights and adverse possession, were sufficient to defeat or impair the applicant’s title.
The reliability of oral evidence regarding possession compared to documentary evidence and recorded taxation declarations.