Title
Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 45828
Decision Date
Jun 1, 1992
Spouses sought land title registration; Director of Lands opposed, citing public domain. SC dismissed application, citing insufficient proof of 30-year possession.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 45828)

Procedural Background

The private respondents filed an application on January 29, 1973, seeking registration of two parcels of land under Act 496, which are portions of Lot 2749 of the Orion Cadastre. In response to a Court order, a report was submitted indicating that the parcels were subject to prior registration proceedings, although records had been lost due to war. The Director of Lands opposed the application, asserting that the respondents failed to establish ownership due to insufficient possession and claim that the land was public domain.

Evidence Presented

During the hearings, private respondents attempted to prove their claim of ownership through testimonies from two witnesses, Crisanto Angeles and Monico Balila. Angeles claimed to have possessed the land since 1931, cultivating it and declaring it for taxation purposes in 1966. Balila, an adjoining landowner, attested to witnessing Angeles's possession of the land. It was also noted that the parcels had been declared for taxation by the respondents since they acquired them.

Court Decisions

The lower court ruled in favor of the private respondents on April 6, 1974, confirming their titles to the parcels and ordering the issuance of a decree of registration. The Director of Lands appealed, arguing that the defense of res judicata had been waived by not being raised in the initial stages of the proceedings and contended that the decision derived from the cadastral proceedings barred any subsequent confirmation on the basis of possession.

Findings on Res Judicata

The Court of Appeals, in its decision dated May 7, 1977, confirmed the lower court's findings and ruled that the defense of res judicata was not valid since it was not raised in the original pleadings. The court found that the private respondents successfully demonstrated the requisite thirty-year period of continuous possession. The Court ruled that a prior decision in a cadastral proceeding declaring land public did not necessarily preclude subsequent claims if those claims were grounded in adverse possession, provided they complied with the relevant provisions of law.

Supreme Court's Assessment

In evaluating the appeals, the Supreme Court revisited the evidentiary standards and procedural conduct emphasized by the Court of Appeals. It found doubts regarding the provenance of the testimonies supporting the private respondents' claims, particularly how Crisanto Angeles w

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.