Title
Lacson vs. Government of the Philippine Islands
Case
G.R. No. 12790
Decision Date
Feb 17, 1919
Aniceto Lacson claimed ownership of Sicogon Island, citing 30+ years of possession by predecessors. Despite lost documents due to war, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, excluding forest zones.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 12790)

Petitioner's Claim

Lacson claims that he rightfully acquired the Island of Sicogon through a purchase from its historical owners. He argues that his prior possession, combined with that of his predecessors, was quiet, continuous, and under a title of owner, allowing him to seek the inscription of the island in the property registry. Initially, the opposition to his claim came from the Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry, the municipality of Balasan, and several residents of the island. However, the municipality later withdrew its opposition under specific conditions for public land use, which Lacson accepted.

Historical Ownership

The petitioner asserts that the island was ceded by the Spanish government to the firm Ynchausti & Co. through a composition title. This firm subsequently sold the island to Ramon Fontanet, who eventually sold it to Lacson as payment for a debt. Notably, the historical account highlights the absence of physical documentation regarding ownership, as key records were destroyed during a period of civil unrest when Fontanet was killed by insurgents.

Evidence and Testimony

Testimonies were presented indicating that the island was in the possession of Ynchausti & Co. for over thirty years and that Fontanet continued that possession until his death. Witness accounts corroborated that Fontanet had previously displayed the ownership title to Lacson at the time of sale. However, the destruction of records during the revolution complicated Lacson's ability to present formal documentation, a point that the court found reasonable based on historical context.

Ownership and Possession

The court examined whether Lacson and his predecessors had maintained possession of the island for the legally required duration under ownership claims. Testimonies were essential in establishing that Ynchausti & Co. and Fontanet had exercised continuous and adverse possession, thus supporting Lacson's claim. Despite the claim against ownership of certain portions designated as forest zones—unavailable for private ownership—the court focused on the agricultural lands' legality under Act No. 926.

Conclusion and Judgme

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.