Title
Heirs of Datu Pendatun vs. Director of Lands
Case
G.R. No. 36699
Decision Date
Mar 3, 1934
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, declaring the land public domain as the Heirs of Datu Pendatun failed to prove continuous, exclusive possession required for registration under the Public Land Act.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 36699)

Factual Background

The case involves an appeal by the Director of Lands concerning a decision by the Court of First Instance of Cotabato that awarded the Heirs of Datu Pendatun a tract of land measuring approximately 3,071 hectares in the Buluan district of Cotabato. The application for registration was filed in 1929, facing opposition from numerous private claimants and government parties, notably the Director of Lands and the Director of Forestry, who contended that the land was public domain.

Compromise Agreement

On November 18, 1930, a compromise was reached between the private claimants and the Heirs of Datu Pendatun, wherein the heirs agreed to exclude 500 hectares from their application, and the opponents acknowledged the applicants' ownership of the remaining portion, withdrawing their opposition. Despite this compromise, the applicants also excluded another 500 hectares on the western side of the land without a clear record of rationale.

Court's Initial Judgment

On June 15, 1931, the trial court entered a judgment granting registration to the applicants for the land that was not excluded in the compromise. The Director of Lands subsequently raised objections, arguing that the court erred in ordering registration instead of declaring the lands as public land and in denying a motion for a new trial.

Findings of the Trial Court

The trial court's findings indicated that the applicants had demonstrated a long-standing occupation of the land, having inherited it from their ancestors, dating back to their forebear, Sultan Diluyudin. Notably, the findings claimed continuous, peaceful, and exclusive possession, with cultivation of significant portions of the land. However, the details provided in the ruling were deemed insufficient as they lacked specifics regarding the nature and timeline of such possession.

Legal Analysis of Ownership Claims

Upon progression of the case review, it became evident that the applicants had failed to meet the legal standards of ownership as stipulated in section 45(b) of Act No. 2874, which necessitates proof of open, continuous, and exclusive possession under a bona fide claim of ownership. The court found that mere descent from noble lineage, as cited, did not equate to private ownership of the disputed land.

Conclusion on Land Status

After comprehensive examination of the evidence, it was concluded that the land

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.