Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4205 March 16, 1908 - JULIAN CABAÑAS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

010 Phil 393:



[G.R. No. L-4205. March 16, 1908. ]

JULIAN CABAÑAS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Respondent-Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellant.

Gibbs and Gale, for Appellee.


1. REGISTRATION OF LAND; ADMISSIONS BY DEFAULT. — When no answer in writing or any opposition is made to an application for the registration of a property in the Court of Land Registration all the allegations contained in the application shall be held as confessed by reason of the absence of a special or general denial on the part of the opponent under the provisions of section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in accordance with the prescriptions of section 35 and of the first part of section 36 of Act No. 496, as amended by Act No. 1699 of the Philippine Commission.

2. ID.; FAILURE TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP. — A person who has not challenged an application for registration of land, even if the appeal afterwards interposed is based on the right of dominion over the same land, can not allege damage or error against the judgment ordering the registration, inasmuch as he did not allege or pretend to have any right to such land, and no right has been infringed by an error which should be corrected by the court of appeal in the second instance. Therefore, the appeal should not have been admitted.



Julian Cabañas, a widower residing in the pueblo of San Isidro del Campo, Province of Leyte, filed an application with the Court of Land Registration requesting that a rural property of which he claimed to be the absolute owner, and which was not burdened by any incumbrance, be registered in accordance with the Land Registration Act. The said property is occupied by him and his laborers, and has an area of 18,741,675.20 square meters, consisting of six portions assessed, according to the last assessment for the payment of the land tax, at $3,404, United States currency; the manner by which the property was acquired by him, the boundaries of the whole, as well as of each portion, and the plan and description of the same, are contained in the title deeds that accompanied the application.

The proceedings were begun by service upon the Director of Lands, and the Attorney-General appeared for him and his place. On the 15th of November, the petitioner moved that his former application be considered as amended, with the request that Act No. 926 be applied in his favor in the remote event that his petition could not be granted under the provisions of the Land Registration Act. The record does not show that any answer was made or opposition offered by the Attorney-General to the request for registration based on the right of dominion.

The court, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary appearing in the case, rendered judgment on the 28th of June, 1907, adjudicating the property to and granting the registration of the same in favor of the petitioner, Julian Cabañas.

The Attorney-General, on behalf of the Director of Lands, excepted to this decision, in so far as it granted the registration under section 54, paragraph 6, of the said Act No. 926, of the sixth and last portion of land with an area of 829 hectares 81 ares and 19 centares, acquired by adverse possession, and gave notice of his intention to present the corresponding bill of exceptions for the review of the above-mentioned portion of said judgment, and further asked for a new trial on the ground that the evidence did not sufficiently justify the decision which was contrary to law. The petition was denied, to which denial the appellant excepted.

As may be seen from the foregoing statement of facts, this case is submitted to this court with the appeal interposed by the Attorney-General by means of the corresponding bill of exceptions; but it should be noticed that the petitioner, in replying to the brief of the representative of the Director of Lands, alleges that the appeal is not admissible for the reason that the appellant had neither answered nor in any manner opposed the application for registration, from which the fact it is presumed that he admitted all the allegations made by the petitioner, according to section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the respondent was included in the general declaration of default ordered by the court in accordance with the provisions of section 36 of Act No. 496.

"SEC. 94. The answer. — The answer is a defense in writing, made by a defendant to the charges contained in a complaint filed by the plaintiff against him. The answer of the defendant shall

"1. A general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint, controverted by the defendant. A general denial only puts in issue the material allegations of the complaint;

"2. A statement of any new matter constituting a defense or counterclaim. A material allegation of the complaint which is neither generally nor specifically denied in the answer, shall be deemed to have been admitted."cralaw virtua1aw library

As no answer in writing was made, nor any opposition offered to the application for registration, it follows that all the allegations contained in the same must be considered as admitted, owing to the absence of a specific or a general denial on the part of the appellant, following the provisions of the foregoing section of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 35 and the first part of section 36 of Act No. 496, as amended by Act No. 1699, provided that —

"SEC. 35. If no person appears and answers within the time allowed, the court may at once, upon motion of the applicant, no reason to the contrary appearing, order a general default to be recorded and the application to be taken for confessed. By the description in the notice, "To all whom it may concern," all the world are made parties defendant and shall be concluded by the default and order. After such default and order the court may enter a decree confirming the title of the applicant and ordering registration of the same.

"SEC. 36. If in any case an appearance is entered and answer filed, the case shall be set down for hearing on motion of either party, but a default and order shall be entered against all persons who do not appear and answer, in the manner provided in the preceding section."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence, as the Government was included in the general default ordered in the judgment appealed from, and having recognized the propriety of the petition for registration of the title deeds above referred to, the court below acted in accordance with the law when rendering the aforesaid judgment ordering the registration applied for.

Against the above decision the Director of Lands had no right to interpose an appeal to this court, because he could allege no damages in support of his appeal, nor were any of his rights injured thereby, inasmuch as no right of possession was claimed by him nor any opposition offered by an answer in writing to the application of Julian Cabañas for the registration of the title to his land filed in the Court of Land Registration.

In the decision rendered in case No. 3637, Roxas v. Cuevas, 1 the following doctrine was laid

"Scope of the respondent’s appeal. — In order that an application for registration of the title in the Court of Land Registration may be objected to, pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 496, the opposition must be based on the right of dominion or some other right opposed to the adjudication or recognition of the dominion of the applicant, whether it be limited or absolute; and if no such rights of the opposition have been injured the latter can have no right to appeal from the judgment, whether it may have been; neither the said act nor any other law grants to anyone the right to appeal on behalf of another party, and not in his own name and by reason of his own interest. It is only the legal personal right of the respondent prejudiced by the judgment of the lower court that can be considered by this court upon appeal. As no claim was made by the respondents in their own name, and as the decision which they seek from this court is that it be held that the land adjudicated by the judgment appealed from is the property of the Government, there is no possible way for this court to consider and decide as to a right which has not been claimed on appeal by the party really prejudiced. In the present case the proper party would be the Insular Government, represented by the Attorney-General, and the latter has not appealed from the judgment."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above legal doctrine was likewise considered in the decision rendered in case No. 3628, Couto Soriano v. Cortes. 1

Therefore, the party who did not oppose the petition for the registration of a property, basing its opposition on the right of dominion over the same, can not allege any damage or error of law against the judgment whereby the registration was ordered, for the reason that it did not allege or pretend to have any right whatever to the land in question; for this reason no right of such party was injured by any error which should be corrected by a court of appeal in the second instance.

In applying the above doctrine to the present case, no injury appears to have been caused to any of the exclusive rights of the Government which should properly be the subject of an appeal to this court; under the circumstances such an appeal could neither be interposed or admitted, according to law. Nor does the record show any legal reason for the reversal of the said judgment.

It is, therefore, held that the appeal interposed against the judgment dated the 28th of June, 1907, together with the bill of exceptions submitted to this court, was improperly admitted, and no special ruling is made as to costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.


1. 8 Phil. Rep., 469.

1. 8 Phil. Rep., 459.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

March-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3457 March 2, 1908 - YU BUNUAN ET AL. v. ORESTES MARCAIDA

    010 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4065 March 2, 1908 - BRUNO VILLANUEVA v. MAXIMA ROQUE

    010 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-3717 March 5, 1908 - FELIX VELASCO v. MARTIN MASA

    010 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-4237 March 5, 1908 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 286


    010 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 4438 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SUNGA, ET AL

    011 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3811 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BLANCO

    010 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-4026 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL DULAY

    010 Phil 302


    010 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 4131 March 9, 1908 - SERAPIO AVERIA v. LUCIO REBOLDERA

    010 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 4347 March 9, 1908 - JOSE ROGERS v. SMITH

    010 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 3279 March 11, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    010 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-2129 March 12, 1908 - C. HEINZEN & CO. v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    010 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-3523 March 12, 1908 - CARIDAD MUGURUZA v. INT’L. BANKING CORP.

    010 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3855 March 12, 1908 - EUFEMIA LORETO v. JULIO HERRERA

    010 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-3907 March 12, 1908 - ROMAN ABAYA v. DONATA ZALAMERO

    010 Phil 357


    010 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. L-4087 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AMADOR BARRIOS

    010 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. L-4341 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ROJO

    010 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-469 March 13, 1908 - T. H. PARDO DE TAVERA v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    010 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3848 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES GIMENO

    010 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 4146 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PETRA DE GUZMAN

    010 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-3951 March 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    010 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-4169 March 14, 1908 - WILHELM BAUERMANN v. MAXIMA CASAS

    010 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-4205 March 16, 1908 - JULIAN CABAÑAS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    010 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. L-4077 March 17, 1908 - MACARIA MATIAS v. AGUSTIN ALVAREZ

    010 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-4127 March 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES J. KOSEL

    010 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4051 March 18, 1908 - CATALINA BERNARDO v. VICENTE GENATO

    011 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-3606 March 18, 1908 - IGNACIO ACASIO v. FELICISIMA ALBANO

    010 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3699 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO CUSI

    010 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-4007 March 18, 1908 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. E. DIAZ & CO.

    010 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-4213 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO REYES

    010 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-4233 March 18, 1908 - EXEQUIEL DELGADO v. MANUEL RIESGO

    010 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-4318 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GENEROSO ACADEMIA

    010 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-4147 March 19, 1908 - AGRIPINO DE LA RAMA v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    010 Phil 432


    010 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-3904 March 20, 1908 - KO POCO v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-4104 March 20, 1908 - JAO IGCO v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    010 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-4155 March 20, 1908 - RUPERTO BELZUNCE v. VALENTINA FERNANDEZ

    010 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-4158 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CARIÑO

    010 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4196 March 20, 1908 - BENWIT ULLMANN v. FELIX ULLMANN and CO.

    010 Phil 459


    010 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-4399 March 20, 1908 - BENITO LEGARDA v. S. L. P. ROCHA Y RUIZDELGADO

    010 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. L-4436 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO DI TIAN LAY

    010 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 4109 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA TORRES

    011 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-3968 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS LOPEZ

    010 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3975 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MARIN

    010 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-4167 March 21, 1908 - RAFAELA SALMO v. LUISA ICAZA

    010 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-4300 March 21, 1908 - MARIA BARRETTO v. LEONA REYES

    010 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-4324 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO OLLALES

    010 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3550 March 23, 1908 - GO CHIOCO v. INCHAUSTI & CO.

    010 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-3780 March 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SELLANO

    010 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-4132 March 23, 1908 - IN RE: MARIA SIASON Y MADRID DE LEDESMA

    010 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-4215 March 23, 1908 - LUCIO I. LIMPANGCO v. JUANA MERCADO

    010 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-4274 March 23, 1908 - JOSE ALANO v. JOSE BABASA

    010 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-4352 March 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO BAYOT

    010 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2674 March 25, 1908 - JOAQUIN JOVER Y COSTAS v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    010 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-3357 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. W. PRAUTCH

    010 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-4012 March 25, 1908 - MAXIMO CORTES Y PROSPERO v. CITY OF MANILA

    010 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. L-4063 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARIÑO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. L-4091 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE BACHO

    010 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-4354 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO POBLETE

    010 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-4418 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES V. ESTRADA

    010 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-3339 March 26, 1908 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    010 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3812 March 26, 1908 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. BARRY BALDWIN

    010 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-4100 March 26, 1908 - MARIA SINGAYAN v. CALIXTA MABBORANG

    010 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-4121 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GARCIA

    010 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-4175 March 26, 1908 - A. W. BEAN v. B. W. CADWALLADER CO.

    010 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-4207 March 26, 1908 - JUAN VALLE v. SIXTO GALERA

    010 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. L-4265 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS PASCUAL

    010 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-4322 March 26, 1908 - INOCENTE MARTINEZ v. G. E. CAMPBELL

    010 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-4376 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SIP

    010 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-4420 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CAGUIMBAL

    010 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 4160 March 26, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO MATTI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 3539 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    011 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4372 March 27, 1908 - ENRIQUE M. BARRETTO v. CITY OF MANILA

    011 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3612 March 27, 1908 - DOMINGO LIM v. JOSE LIM

    010 Phil 633


    010 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-4037 March 27, 1908 - LIM JAO LU v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-4200 March 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE

    010 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4203 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL CRAME SY PANCO v. RICARDO GONZAGA

    010 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-4469A March 27, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-4017 March 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MARIÑO

    010 Phil 652


    010 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-4198 March 30, 1908 - JUAN MERCADO v. JOSE ABANGAN

    010 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-4222 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CERNIAS

    010 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-4281 March 30, 1908 - JOSE GARRIDO v. AGUSTIN ASENCIO

    010 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-4377 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GARCIA GAVIERES

    010 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-3469 March 31, 1908 - JOSEFA AGUIRRE v. MANUEL VILLABA

    010 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-4078 March 31, 1908 - CONCEPCION MENDIOLA v. NICOLASA PACALDA

    010 Phil 705


    010 Phil 707