G.R. No. 57112-21 - Republic vs. Fangonil

The case revolves around the registration of lots within the Baguio Townsite Reservation.
A petition was filed in 1912 in the Court of Land Registration concerning the Baguio Townsite Reservation, designated as Expediente de Reserva No. 1, GLRO Reservation Record No. 211.
Following the abolition of the Land Registration Court in 1914, the record was transferred to the Court of First Instance of Benguet.
The primary objective of Case No. 211 was to definitively determine which portions of the Baguio Townsite Reservation were private and registerable under Act No. 496, as stipulated in Section 62 of Act No. 926.
The court issued a notice on July 22, 1915, requiring all claimants to file for registration within six months.
A report submitted by the General Land Registration Office on June 13, 1922, led to a decision by Judge C. M. Villareal, declaring that all lands within the reservation were public lands, except for those reserved for public use or adjudicated as private property.

The 1922 decision established that lots within the Baguio Townsite Reservation are public domain and not registerable under Act No. 496.
Judge Belmonte's ruling in a 1973 case reaffirmed that the Baguio Court of First Instance lacks jurisdiction to entertain land registration proceedings under Act No. 496 for lots within the Baguio Townsite Reservation.
The current case involves applications for registration filed between 1972 and 1976 by several respondents, despite the long-standing ruling that these lots are public lands.

The Director of Lands opposed the registration applications, filing motions to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, prescription, and res judicata.
The Director argued that the previous decision in Case No. 211 barred any subsequent registrations of lots within the Baguio Townsite Reservation.
The trial judge acknowledged that Section 48 of the Public Land Law could not be invoked by the applicants, as it pertains only to disposable agricultural lands outside the reservation.

The trial judge refused to dismiss the applications, citing the need for a hearing to determine the presence or absence of complete service of notice, referencing the Zarate case.
The Solicitor General contested this order, emphasizing that the law governing military reservations requires notification to two classes of persons regarding their rights to the land.

A distinction exists in the manner of service of notice between those in visible possession of the land and those who are absentees.
The notice issued in Case No. 211 was certified as having been served to 134 individuals in visible possession, which is conclusive proof of service.
The Zarate case, which involved applicants who proved they were not served notice, is deemed exceptional and not applicable to the current case.

The trial court's order to require evidence of notice was deemed erroneous, as the court ...continue reading