12. Sta. Monica IDC v CA (1990)

G.R. No. 83290 September 21, 1990 STA. MONICA INDUSTRIAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS: In 1985, respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed with the Court of Appeals a complaint for the annulment of the decree in Land Registration Case No. 6431, OCT No. 48, TCT No. T-1369 and TCT No. T-7696. Said decree confirmed the title of De Perio and as a result, an original certificate of title was issued in his favor. Later, OCT No. 48 was cancelled and TCT No. T-1369 was issued to De Valencia pursuant to an extrajudicial settlement of De Perio’s estate. TCT No. T-7696 was issued when De Valencia sold a parcel of land to Baloy. The other parcel of land was subdivided into five (5) lots. One of the lots was previously sold to the Province of Zambales, the corresponding title was issued to the Republic of the Philppines. Petitioner, Sta. Monica Industrial and Development Corporation, acquired two of the lots. Republic moved to amend its complaint to include as party defendants all the other transferees of the land and, thereafter, filed its amended complaint. Respondent alleged that the decree in LRC No. 6431 was null and void for lack of jurisdiction because the land was inside the U.S. naval reservation and that it was still within the forest zone in 1912, having been released therefrom only in 1961, and hence cannot be the subject of disposition or alienation as private property. Named defendants were De Valencia and her husband, Baloy and his wife and the Register of Deeds of Zambales.

ISSUE: Whether or not the land registration court had jurisdiction over the two (2) parcels of land claimed by De Perio, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner herein.

HELD: The land registration court had jurisdiction over the two (2) parcels of land, and that OCT No. 48 and the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) derived from OCT No. 48 are valid. Law applicable to the case

It has been established that Act No. 926, known as the Public Land Act, which took effect on July 26, 1904, was the law applicable to De Perio's petition for confirmation of his title to the two (2) parcels of land. It provided: SEC. 54. The following-described persons or their legal successors in right, occupying public lands in the Philippine Islands, or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles to such lands have not been perfected, may apply to the Court of Land Registration of the Philippine Islands for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor to wit: xxx xxx xxx 6. All persons who by themselves or their predecessors in interest have been in the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural public lands, as defined by said act of Congress of July first, nineteen hundred and two, under a bona fide claim of ownership except as against the Government, for a period of ten years next preceding the taking effect of this Act, except when prevented by war or force majeure shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a government grant and to have received the same, and shall be entitled to a certificate of title to such land under the provisions of this chapter. xxx xxx xxx In other words, a person who had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious session and occupation of public agricultural land for a period of at least ten (10) years prior to July 24, 1904 could petition for the confirmation of his title over the land he had so possessed and occupied. If De Perio had title to the land in 1904, although still imperfect, then it could not have been prejudiced by the proclamation of Governor-General Smith in 1908 which reserved for naval purposes land in Subic, Zambales. Said proclamation recognized the existence of private rights. Moreover, it is now almost thirty (30) years since the land was released in 1961. In a few more months, the possessors of the land would acquire title to the portions they adversely possess through acquisitive prescription, without need of title or of good faith, pursuant to the Civil Code [Art. 1137].

ON OTHER ISSUES:

Nature of the Subject Parcels of Land Public Respondent failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the judgment in the land registration case was fatally defective.

The land registration court confirmed De Perio's title to the two (2) parcels of land after due notice and hearing. Once of the conclusions that may be derived is that the two (2) parcels of land are agricultural as defined by law, i.e., that they are neither timber land nor mineral land.

If the land is agricultural as defined by law, and as confirmed by Judge Ostrand, it could not have been forest land as claimed by public respondent, the subsequent land classification map notwithstanding. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the two (2) parcels of land were in the Olongapo townsite and were bounded by privately-owned land.