Director of Lands vs CA

Director of Lands vs CA [GR No. L-47847 : July !" !#8!$

•

•

•

•

•

•

%AC&': On May 8, 1974, respondent Manuela Pastor fled with the Court o First Inst Instan ance ce o ata atan! n!as as "#C "#C Case Case $o% $o% $&89 $&89', ', an appl applica icati tion on or or confr(ation o i(perect title o)er thirteen *1'+ lots situated in ulod and Pallocan, atan!as City%  -he application shows that se)en *7+ o the lots were alle!edly inherited .y respondent Manuela Pastor ro( her parents #aael Pastor and $atalia $atalia /uinio /uinio who died on 0uly 0uly 1, 19'8 19'8 and and 0uly 0uly 1, 1, 1928, 1928, respe respecti) cti)ely ely% -he -he other other si3 *+ lots lots were were alle!e alle!edly dly inheri inherited ted .y respondent ro( her aunt #osario Pastor who died on 0anuary 1', 1952 without any sur)i)in! heir e3cept respondent herein, that she and her predecessors&in&interest had .een in continuous, uninterrupted, open, pu.lic, pu.lic, ad)erse ad)erse and notorious notorious possession possession o the lots or (ore than thirty *'2+ years%  -he 6irector o "ands fled an OPPOI-IO$ to the application on the !round that applicant Manuela Pastor and her predecessors&in&interest neither had title in ee si(ple nor i(perect title under ection 48 o  the Pu.lic "and "aw, as a(ended, o)er the lots in uestion% 6urin! 6urin! the hearin!s, hearin!s, the applicant presented presented as her witnesses her nephew ntonio M% Pastor, and eodetic :n!ineer /uirino P% P% Cle(eneo% s part part o her her docu(e docu(enta ntary ry e)ide e)idence nce,, applic applicant ant Manue Manuela la Pasto Pastorr presented the certifcations o the -reasurer o atan!as City showin! o;cial receipts o pay(ents o real estate ta3 on the sa(e lots or 1975, a certifcation ro( the "and #e!istration Co((ission statin! that "ot $o% 9''2 o the Cadastral ur)ey o atan!as, Pro)ince o  atan!as, was declared pu.lic land in Cadastral Case $o% 41, "#C Cad% #ecord $o% 172% he liection nor set up the deense deense o res >udicata >udicata with

respect to the lots in uestion% uch ailure on the part o oppositor 6irector o "ands, to O@# (ind, is a procedural infr(ity which cannot .e cured on appeal% ection , #ule 9, #e)ised #ules o Court o 194, in no uncertain lan!ua!e, pro)ides thatA B:C% % 6eenses and o.>ections not pleaded dee(ed wai)ed%  6eenses and o.>ections not pleaded either in a (otion to dis(iss or in the answer are dee(ed wai)edDE

 -he decision in Cadastral Case $o% 41 does not constitute a .ar to the application o respondent Manuela PastorD .ecause a decision in a cadastral proceedin! declarin! a lot pu.lic land is not the fnal decree conte(plated in ections '8 and 42 o the "and #e!istration ct%   >udicial declaration that a parcel o land is pu.lic, does not preclude e)en the sa(e applicant ro( su.seuently seeudicial confr(ation o  his title to the sa(e land, pro)ided he thereater co(plies with the pro)isions o ection 48 o Co((onwealth ct $o% 141, as a(ended, and as lon! as said pu.lic land re(ains aliena.le and disposa.le *now sections ' and 4, P%6% $o% 127'+% ith respect to Cadastral Case $o% 4', the e)idence on record is too scanty to sustain the )iew o the petitioner that the decision rendered

therein constitutes res ad>udicata, or in the a.sence o fnality thereo, litis pendentia% On the contrary, pri)ate respondent has a(ply shown that no fnal decree whatsoe)er was issued in connection with said cadastral case, e)en as it is not