March 1917 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > March 1917 Decisions >
G.R. No. 11189 March 29, 1917 - EUSEBIO LOPEZ v. FRANCISCO ABELARDE
036 Phil 563:
036 Phil 563:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 11189. March 29, 1917. ]
EUSEBIO LOPEZ, applicant-appellee, v. FRANCISCO ABELARDE, objector-appellant.
Ramon Frias for Appellant.
Laguda, Ledesma, Jalbuena & Villalobos for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. BOUNDARIES; PRIORITY OF TITLE. — When two adjacent tracts of land of great extent obtain from the Government successively their respective composition titles, and when later, in the boundary given for their common side a difference appears so that in one plan this boundary forms a straight line running north by west, while in the other plan this same boundary forms a broken and undulating line not coinciding with said straight boundary line of the adjacent tract, to determine the true line which ought to separate the two properties the decision of the court must accord with that of the office which issued the first title obtained for said land from said Government, inasmuch as in the later land title the same common boundary appears broken and undulating and the line so drawn, according to its plan could not alter the dividing line and the boundaries fixed for the adjoining land having the earlier title, by thus improperly extending said boundaries and taking in a part of the area of the land previously awarded to its lawful possessor under title of owner.
2. PROPERTY; TITLE; EVIDENCE. — The fact of a third person having obtained from the owner of the land (whose predecessor in interest had originally obtained a title of composition with the State) a right of way for the laying of a railway over the part of the land in litigation (according to a notarial instrument recorded in the property registry) confirms him in the possession which he enjoys as owner under a prior title of the land in litigation.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ESTOPPEL — the exercise of said concessionary’s right of way over the land in question, without objection by the adjacent land owner who is provided with a subsequent title, who claims as his the land comprehended within the broken and undulating line which projects into the adjacent tract wherein the said railway is laid, and the silence kept by the said claimant, operate to estop him under the provisions of paragraph 1, section 333, Code of Civil Procedure.
2. PROPERTY; TITLE; EVIDENCE. — The fact of a third person having obtained from the owner of the land (whose predecessor in interest had originally obtained a title of composition with the State) a right of way for the laying of a railway over the part of the land in litigation (according to a notarial instrument recorded in the property registry) confirms him in the possession which he enjoys as owner under a prior title of the land in litigation.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ESTOPPEL — the exercise of said concessionary’s right of way over the land in question, without objection by the adjacent land owner who is provided with a subsequent title, who claims as his the land comprehended within the broken and undulating line which projects into the adjacent tract wherein the said railway is laid, and the silence kept by the said claimant, operate to estop him under the provisions of paragraph 1, section 333, Code of Civil Procedure.
D E C I S I O N
TORRES, J. :
Appeal by bill of exceptions, filed by counsel for the objector Francisco Abelarde from the judgment of April 26, 1915, whereby the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, overruling all the oppositions to the application for the registration of a parcel of real estate belonging to Eusebio Lopez, decreed the adjudication and entry of the land that was the subject-matter of the application, together with all the improvements thereon, in behalf of the conjugal partnership formed by Eusebio Lopez and Ana Ledesma.
By a written application of November 18, 1914, counsel for Eusebio Lopez applied to the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros for the registration, in accordance with law, of a tract of land containing 4,518,937 square meters, situated in the barrio of Columela (Daga) of the municipality of Cadiz Nuevo, Occidental Negros, known as the Bayabas Hacienda, which he purchased from the heirs o Leandro Linares y Victoria at the assessed valuation of P27,000. This hacienda is now occupied by Delfin Mahinay.
On December 22, 1914, Francisco Abelarde object to the said application. He alleged that there had been included therein a parcel of land measuring 239,472 square meters which belonged exclusively to him, lying between points 65 and 75 on the applicant’s plan and technical description Exhibit A. Therefor Abelarde asked that this parcel be excluded from that specified in Lopez’ application.
In due time the Attorney-General, in representation of the Director of Lands, also filed a written opposition which was overruled. Trial was held, evidence was introduced by both parties, and the court rendered the judgment aforementioned to which counsel for Francisco Abelarde excepted and moved for a new hearing. This motion was overruled, exception was taken by the objector and, upon presentation of the bill of exceptions, the same was approved and transmitted to the clerk of this court.
We are called upon to decide who is the true owner and proprietor of the parcel of land, comprised between the points 65 and 75 of the plan Exhibit A, situated in the southern part of the land specified in the application for registration, containing an area of 23 hectares, 94 ares and 72 centares.
The record shows that, by a decree of the Dirreccion General de Administration Civil of the former sovereignty and by virtue of the property title issued by it on April 6, 1892, the ownership of three parcels of land was adjudicated to Leandro Linares by composition with the State. One of these parcels, entered by precautionary notice in the registry of Occidental Negros in 1896, is situated in the place named Bayabas, barrio of Columba, pueblo of Cadiz Nuevo, Occidental Negros. It measures 363 hectares, 50 ares and is bound on the north by lands of Luis Consing and Eusebio Lopez, on the east by those of Luis Vito and Eugenio Villanueva, on the south by the Sunlay sapa and the Talaban Grande river, and on the west by this same river (Exhibit D, p. 20). Leandro Linares left as sole heirs his two daughters Gregoria and Francisca. On November 11, 1903, Gregoria sold her hereditary share, that is, one-half of the hereditary property bequeathed to her by her father, to Amado U. Panis. The other sister, Francisca, made a similar disposal of her share to the same party, Panis, by an instrument executed on December 17, 1906. The purchaser Panis mortgaged to these vendors the property purchased from them until such time as the amount of the price of the sale should be wholly paid (record, pp. 23 and 26). As the debtor Panis did not succeed in paying the price of the lands sold, one of the her is, Francisca, to whom Panis had expressly mortgaged the Bayabas hacienda as security for the payment of the purchase price, conveyed and sold her share of the estate to the applicant Eusebio Lopez, on June 27, 1908, that is, all the rights, credits and actions she held against Panis (Exhibit C, p. 14). On July 25, 1908, precautionary notice of this conveyance was entered in the property registry of Occidental Negros (Exhibit D, last page, folio 28).
On account of Eusebio Lopez having acquired all the approved credits and claims against the estate of Leandro Linares, and of his having purchased from the latter’s heirs their hereditary interests, the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, by order of July 9, 1910, awarded to Lopez all the property pertaining to the estate of the said Linares, and, upon his giving a bond for P7,000, required as security against the claim of the said property made by the intestate estate of Amado U. Panis, the possession of the property acquired by Lopez as aforesaid was delivered to him (Exhibit D. record, pp. 18-28; and Exhibit H, record, p. 72).
The evidence further shows that in 1896 the applicant Lopez purchased from Eugenio Villanueva a parcel of land containing approximately 70 hectares, contiguous to the land which formerly belonged to Leandro Linares and which now belongs to the applicant. This land also adjoins that previously owned by Maria Javier but now by the objector Francisco Abelarde. It is described as follows: Bounded on the north by the lands of Maria Javier, on the east by lands of Joaquin Villanueva and Carlos Lazaro, and on the west by those of Leandro Linares. The southern boundary is not given. On March 2, 1915, the heirs of the said Eugenio Villanueva ratified this sale to Linares, by means of a public instrument (Exhibit 1, record, p. 74).
The southern boundary of the Bayabas hacienda, sought to be registered, adjoins the Sunlay hacienda. This latter contains 248 hectares, 20 ares and at one time belonged to Leoncia Liboon, according to the title of composition with the State issued her July 8, 1891 (Exhibit 3, record, p. 77). Its configuration is shown in the plan Exhibit F, drawn in 1884. The Sunlay hacienda passed to Leoncia Liboon’s daughter, Maria Javier, who later, on august 20, 1911, sold it outright to her son-in-law, the herein objector Francisco Abelarde (Exhibit 3). It is no wonder the boundaries on the northern part of this Sunlay hacienda were not clearly determined during the lapse of the succeeding years because the owner of this hacienda, Leoncia Liboon, was a concubine of Leandro Linares, the owner of the Bayabas hacienda adjoining the Sunlay hacienda on the northern boundary (record, p. 173); nor that, on account of those relations, Leoncia Liboon should have allowed her neighbor on the north to perform acts on the land of the Sunlay hacienda such as she would not have permitted from a stranger. It is furthermore to be noted that Leoncia Liboon and her daughter Maria Javier lived in a house situated on land that is now a part of the Bayabas hacienda, but that, according to the testimony of Eulogio Duenas, when Leoncia died her daughter Maria Javier left the place (record, pp. 172-3).
The applicant claims that the southern boundary of his Bayabas hacienda is a broken line as shown in the plan drawn in 1891 (Exhibit E); on the other hand, the objector insists that according to his own plan, made in 1884, (Exhibit F) the northern boundary of his land is a straight line which runs between the points marked as Nos. 65 and 75 on the plan Exhibit A.
The testimony of Delfin Mahinay, an expert surveyor and lessee of the Bayabas hacienda from 1909 to 1913 (record, p. 155), to the effect that the southern boundary of this hacienda comprises all the land in question and, in addition, another parcel that was not included in the survey of the applicant’s land, and that the piece of land claimed by the objector belongs to the Bayabas hacienda -- a statement corroborated in this particular by Eulogio Duenas who for 35 years lived on this hacienda and in 1888 cultivated the part thereof now in litigation--and furthermore the testimony given by Zacarias Gabila, who during a certain period planted coconut and plantain trees on this same part of the land (both witnesses recognizing Leandro Linares, and not Leoncia Liboon, as the owner of the property) does not prove the applicant Lopez’ claim of being the indisputable owner of the piece of land in question. The record contains plans and written titles of these adjoining haciendas and no oral testimony can change their metes and bounds as they are shown to exist by the whole of the documentary evidence. For this reason likewise the testimony of the objector’s witnesses, favorable to him of course, can not be taken into account in the present case to determine to whom the parcel of land in litigation belonged and now belongs. All the witnesses referred to certain kinds of trees planted on the disputed boundary line but these details are insufficient, inasmuch as neither of the titles of the parties makes any reference whatever to trees on the disputed land. One certain fact has been proven by the testimony of these witnesses to with, that a railway line belonging to The Negros Philippine Lumber Company passes over the parcel of land in question.
In order to determine the true dividing line between the applicant’s and the objector’s haciendas, two sets of facts must be taken into account: (first) Leoncia Liboon applied for and obtained a composition title for her land, now called the Sunlay Hacienda, the property having been adjudicated to her by a decree issued by competent authority on November 19, 1890, (although the title to the land was issued to her only on July 8, 1891, Exhibit 3, record, p. 77) and, according to the plan drawn by an expert surveyor in September, 1884, (six years prior to the application for a composition title), marked as the applicant’s Exhibit and as the objector’s Exhibit 2, the boundary of the northern side of Leoncia Liboon’s said land was then (in 1884) a straight line running from north to west, separating her land from the applicant’s (second) according to the certified copy (Exhibit G, record pp. 70-71) of the entries in the property registry of Occidental Negros, the original owner of the Bayabas hacienda, Leandro Linares, applied for the composition of the land in his possession, was adjudicated same by a decree of the Government on December 9, 1891, title to same awarded him on April 1892, and entered in the registry in 1896 (Exhibit d, p. 20), and his application for composition was accompanied by a plan of said land (a copy of which is Exhibit E, record, p. 64), drawn in June, 1891, which shows the southern boundary to be an undulating and broken line whose angles enter the land of the Sunlay hacienda.
So, then, it appears from the applicant’s own plan (Exhibit E) that in 1891 the whole of the southern side of his land adjoined the Sunlay sapa or estuary, but the record shows no proof of the lines between the points from 65 to 75 of the plan, and of the land on this said being bathed by the said Sunlay sapa or estuary, or of this land adjoining the former. It should be noted that for distance of 948 meters on the southwest this estuary is the boundary of the applicant’s land and that on the southeast of the land there is located the Tacdo sapa which marks the boundary for a distance of about 437 meters (see the plan and technical description Exhibit A). But the true southern boundary of the land does not appear to be the said Sunlay sapa, since, in the plan Exhibit E which accompanied the application for composition filed in 1891, the applicant’s predecessor in interest clearly shows that the said Sunlay sapa runs along the entire southern boundary of the land. According to the plan the Sunlay sapa runs toward the south and according to the ownership titles of the objector Abelarde’s predecessor in interest this sapa crosses the Sunlay hacienda, as in fact its plan Exhibit 1 so shows, an runs from north to south along the western half of the objector’s land. This plan drawn in 1913 corroborates the other one drawn in 1884 and marked as Exhibit F.
The adjudication to Leoncia Liboon of the land that comprises the Sunlay hacienda was made on November 19, 1890, and the northern boundary that separates it from the lands of Leandro Linares was given in the plan Exhibit F as a straight line. The adjacent owner Leandro Linares could hardly have obtained subsequently, on December 9, 1890, the adjudication of the land situated to the north and described as having a broken boundary line as shown by its plan Exhibit E that accompanied his application.
The first to obtain a land title from the Government was Leoncia Liboon, wherefore she must be given preference in the designation of the boundaries of her land; and, inasmuch as that dividing line of her property was fixed as a straight one, the subsequent title of the applicant’s redecessor in interest could not alter it in such a way as to exceed said boundaries and to comprehend land already adjudicated to Leoncia Liboon.
That the parcel of land in question, claimed by Francisco Abelarde, is crossed by a railway belonging to The Negros Philippine Lumber Company which (as shown in the document Exhibit 4, record, pp. 82-3) executed a contract for right of way through same in October, 1913, with the representative of Maria Javier, the daughter and heir of Leoncia Liboon, is unquestionable. In the instrument Exhibit 4 appears the said contract duly entered in the prohibit 4 appears the said contract duly entered in the property registry of Occidental Negros, notwithstanding which said exhibit was not admitted in evidence by the trial judge on the ground that it was res inter alios acta (record, pp. 198-9. The doctrine of res inter alios acta is sufficiently expounded in the case of Aldecoa & Co. v. Warner, Barnes & Co. (30 Phil. Rep., 153). In contradistinction with the point discussed in that case and with the decisions therein cited, this said document should have been admitted as evidence of the contract for right of way executed by The Negros Philippine Lumber Company with the attorney in fact of Maria Javier inasmuch as, from the sole fact that the contract contained in aid document was entered in the property registry, it may, by imperative mandate of law, affect and prejudice third persons, wherefore, in accordance with the provisions of the Mortgage Law, this document is not only evidence of the facts it contains but also prejudices third persons as regard the legal effects of the said contract.
It is presumed that one year before the applicant filed his application for registration he consented to and apparently approved — there being no evidence to the contrary — the installation on the land then owned by Maria Javier, now claimed by himself, of the railway line constructed by the said lumber company.
It was a matter of public knowledge that the track was laid and that afterward the said company’s cars and locomotives travelled over same with the applicant’s full knowledge and permission. If, in truth, he was the owner of the land occupied by the said railroad, why has there been no explanation of his silence and why has he not used his dominical right? Why did he not protest against such usurpation and against the use of the land authorized by Maria Javier to the said company? And why did he limit the railway was to pass should be included in the survey of his land, in order afterwards to claim it as his exclusive property.
Subsection 1 of section 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure proves: "Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or mission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it."cralaw virtua1aw library
All discussion of this point is superfluous. As Eusebio Lopez kept silent in 1913 when it was his duty to object to and protest against the occupation of the strip of land over which The Negros Philippine Lumber Company’s railway passes and as the record does not show that it was in any way proven at trial that the said company obtained permission from the applicant to use the land in litigation, it must be concluded that by his own acts he is now estopped from alleging ownership in the strip of land specified in the contract, to which the document Exhibit 4 refers.
In the contract relative to the right of way over Maria Javier’s lands the width of the said right of way was fixed at twenty meters. On the assumption that the rails of the railway track were to be laid in the center of the strip, there should remain a space of ten meters on each side of the track. Under said supposition there should be excluded from the land adjudicated to Eusebio Lopez all the land situated to the south of the Bayabas hacienda for a width of twenty meters, from the point of entrance of the railway to the point of exit in the disputed land taking an intermediate line between the rails as the center of the railway track, so that all the land for a width of twenty meters occupied by the said railway over the parcel of land in question is considered as not included in the Bayabas hacienda.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from should be affirmed in so far as it agrees with this decision, and should be excluded from the land adjudicated to Eusebio Lopez all the lad situated to the south of the Bayabas hacienda for a width of twenty meters, from the point of entrance of the railway to the point of exit in the disputed land taking an intermediate line between the rails as the center of the railway track, so that all the land for a width of twenty meters occupied by the said railway over the parcel of lad in question is considered as not included in the Bayabas hacienda.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from should be affirmed in so far as it agrees with this decision, ad should be reversed in so far as it does not. Therefore, sustaining the opposition, we hold that there shall be excluded from the registration of the land comprised by the Bayabas hacienda the parcel of land, 20 meters in width, in the center of which the rails of the said railway track are laid, throughout the whole length of the land, question occupied by the said track; this parcel of land, together with the rest of the land on the south, is deemed to be an integral part of the Sunlay hacienda. No special finding is made as to the costs. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.
Moreland, J., concurs in the result.
By a written application of November 18, 1914, counsel for Eusebio Lopez applied to the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros for the registration, in accordance with law, of a tract of land containing 4,518,937 square meters, situated in the barrio of Columela (Daga) of the municipality of Cadiz Nuevo, Occidental Negros, known as the Bayabas Hacienda, which he purchased from the heirs o Leandro Linares y Victoria at the assessed valuation of P27,000. This hacienda is now occupied by Delfin Mahinay.
On December 22, 1914, Francisco Abelarde object to the said application. He alleged that there had been included therein a parcel of land measuring 239,472 square meters which belonged exclusively to him, lying between points 65 and 75 on the applicant’s plan and technical description Exhibit A. Therefor Abelarde asked that this parcel be excluded from that specified in Lopez’ application.
In due time the Attorney-General, in representation of the Director of Lands, also filed a written opposition which was overruled. Trial was held, evidence was introduced by both parties, and the court rendered the judgment aforementioned to which counsel for Francisco Abelarde excepted and moved for a new hearing. This motion was overruled, exception was taken by the objector and, upon presentation of the bill of exceptions, the same was approved and transmitted to the clerk of this court.
We are called upon to decide who is the true owner and proprietor of the parcel of land, comprised between the points 65 and 75 of the plan Exhibit A, situated in the southern part of the land specified in the application for registration, containing an area of 23 hectares, 94 ares and 72 centares.
The record shows that, by a decree of the Dirreccion General de Administration Civil of the former sovereignty and by virtue of the property title issued by it on April 6, 1892, the ownership of three parcels of land was adjudicated to Leandro Linares by composition with the State. One of these parcels, entered by precautionary notice in the registry of Occidental Negros in 1896, is situated in the place named Bayabas, barrio of Columba, pueblo of Cadiz Nuevo, Occidental Negros. It measures 363 hectares, 50 ares and is bound on the north by lands of Luis Consing and Eusebio Lopez, on the east by those of Luis Vito and Eugenio Villanueva, on the south by the Sunlay sapa and the Talaban Grande river, and on the west by this same river (Exhibit D, p. 20). Leandro Linares left as sole heirs his two daughters Gregoria and Francisca. On November 11, 1903, Gregoria sold her hereditary share, that is, one-half of the hereditary property bequeathed to her by her father, to Amado U. Panis. The other sister, Francisca, made a similar disposal of her share to the same party, Panis, by an instrument executed on December 17, 1906. The purchaser Panis mortgaged to these vendors the property purchased from them until such time as the amount of the price of the sale should be wholly paid (record, pp. 23 and 26). As the debtor Panis did not succeed in paying the price of the lands sold, one of the her is, Francisca, to whom Panis had expressly mortgaged the Bayabas hacienda as security for the payment of the purchase price, conveyed and sold her share of the estate to the applicant Eusebio Lopez, on June 27, 1908, that is, all the rights, credits and actions she held against Panis (Exhibit C, p. 14). On July 25, 1908, precautionary notice of this conveyance was entered in the property registry of Occidental Negros (Exhibit D, last page, folio 28).
On account of Eusebio Lopez having acquired all the approved credits and claims against the estate of Leandro Linares, and of his having purchased from the latter’s heirs their hereditary interests, the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, by order of July 9, 1910, awarded to Lopez all the property pertaining to the estate of the said Linares, and, upon his giving a bond for P7,000, required as security against the claim of the said property made by the intestate estate of Amado U. Panis, the possession of the property acquired by Lopez as aforesaid was delivered to him (Exhibit D. record, pp. 18-28; and Exhibit H, record, p. 72).
The evidence further shows that in 1896 the applicant Lopez purchased from Eugenio Villanueva a parcel of land containing approximately 70 hectares, contiguous to the land which formerly belonged to Leandro Linares and which now belongs to the applicant. This land also adjoins that previously owned by Maria Javier but now by the objector Francisco Abelarde. It is described as follows: Bounded on the north by the lands of Maria Javier, on the east by lands of Joaquin Villanueva and Carlos Lazaro, and on the west by those of Leandro Linares. The southern boundary is not given. On March 2, 1915, the heirs of the said Eugenio Villanueva ratified this sale to Linares, by means of a public instrument (Exhibit 1, record, p. 74).
The southern boundary of the Bayabas hacienda, sought to be registered, adjoins the Sunlay hacienda. This latter contains 248 hectares, 20 ares and at one time belonged to Leoncia Liboon, according to the title of composition with the State issued her July 8, 1891 (Exhibit 3, record, p. 77). Its configuration is shown in the plan Exhibit F, drawn in 1884. The Sunlay hacienda passed to Leoncia Liboon’s daughter, Maria Javier, who later, on august 20, 1911, sold it outright to her son-in-law, the herein objector Francisco Abelarde (Exhibit 3). It is no wonder the boundaries on the northern part of this Sunlay hacienda were not clearly determined during the lapse of the succeeding years because the owner of this hacienda, Leoncia Liboon, was a concubine of Leandro Linares, the owner of the Bayabas hacienda adjoining the Sunlay hacienda on the northern boundary (record, p. 173); nor that, on account of those relations, Leoncia Liboon should have allowed her neighbor on the north to perform acts on the land of the Sunlay hacienda such as she would not have permitted from a stranger. It is furthermore to be noted that Leoncia Liboon and her daughter Maria Javier lived in a house situated on land that is now a part of the Bayabas hacienda, but that, according to the testimony of Eulogio Duenas, when Leoncia died her daughter Maria Javier left the place (record, pp. 172-3).
The applicant claims that the southern boundary of his Bayabas hacienda is a broken line as shown in the plan drawn in 1891 (Exhibit E); on the other hand, the objector insists that according to his own plan, made in 1884, (Exhibit F) the northern boundary of his land is a straight line which runs between the points marked as Nos. 65 and 75 on the plan Exhibit A.
The testimony of Delfin Mahinay, an expert surveyor and lessee of the Bayabas hacienda from 1909 to 1913 (record, p. 155), to the effect that the southern boundary of this hacienda comprises all the land in question and, in addition, another parcel that was not included in the survey of the applicant’s land, and that the piece of land claimed by the objector belongs to the Bayabas hacienda -- a statement corroborated in this particular by Eulogio Duenas who for 35 years lived on this hacienda and in 1888 cultivated the part thereof now in litigation--and furthermore the testimony given by Zacarias Gabila, who during a certain period planted coconut and plantain trees on this same part of the land (both witnesses recognizing Leandro Linares, and not Leoncia Liboon, as the owner of the property) does not prove the applicant Lopez’ claim of being the indisputable owner of the piece of land in question. The record contains plans and written titles of these adjoining haciendas and no oral testimony can change their metes and bounds as they are shown to exist by the whole of the documentary evidence. For this reason likewise the testimony of the objector’s witnesses, favorable to him of course, can not be taken into account in the present case to determine to whom the parcel of land in litigation belonged and now belongs. All the witnesses referred to certain kinds of trees planted on the disputed boundary line but these details are insufficient, inasmuch as neither of the titles of the parties makes any reference whatever to trees on the disputed land. One certain fact has been proven by the testimony of these witnesses to with, that a railway line belonging to The Negros Philippine Lumber Company passes over the parcel of land in question.
In order to determine the true dividing line between the applicant’s and the objector’s haciendas, two sets of facts must be taken into account: (first) Leoncia Liboon applied for and obtained a composition title for her land, now called the Sunlay Hacienda, the property having been adjudicated to her by a decree issued by competent authority on November 19, 1890, (although the title to the land was issued to her only on July 8, 1891, Exhibit 3, record, p. 77) and, according to the plan drawn by an expert surveyor in September, 1884, (six years prior to the application for a composition title), marked as the applicant’s Exhibit and as the objector’s Exhibit 2, the boundary of the northern side of Leoncia Liboon’s said land was then (in 1884) a straight line running from north to west, separating her land from the applicant’s (second) according to the certified copy (Exhibit G, record pp. 70-71) of the entries in the property registry of Occidental Negros, the original owner of the Bayabas hacienda, Leandro Linares, applied for the composition of the land in his possession, was adjudicated same by a decree of the Government on December 9, 1891, title to same awarded him on April 1892, and entered in the registry in 1896 (Exhibit d, p. 20), and his application for composition was accompanied by a plan of said land (a copy of which is Exhibit E, record, p. 64), drawn in June, 1891, which shows the southern boundary to be an undulating and broken line whose angles enter the land of the Sunlay hacienda.
So, then, it appears from the applicant’s own plan (Exhibit E) that in 1891 the whole of the southern side of his land adjoined the Sunlay sapa or estuary, but the record shows no proof of the lines between the points from 65 to 75 of the plan, and of the land on this said being bathed by the said Sunlay sapa or estuary, or of this land adjoining the former. It should be noted that for distance of 948 meters on the southwest this estuary is the boundary of the applicant’s land and that on the southeast of the land there is located the Tacdo sapa which marks the boundary for a distance of about 437 meters (see the plan and technical description Exhibit A). But the true southern boundary of the land does not appear to be the said Sunlay sapa, since, in the plan Exhibit E which accompanied the application for composition filed in 1891, the applicant’s predecessor in interest clearly shows that the said Sunlay sapa runs along the entire southern boundary of the land. According to the plan the Sunlay sapa runs toward the south and according to the ownership titles of the objector Abelarde’s predecessor in interest this sapa crosses the Sunlay hacienda, as in fact its plan Exhibit 1 so shows, an runs from north to south along the western half of the objector’s land. This plan drawn in 1913 corroborates the other one drawn in 1884 and marked as Exhibit F.
The adjudication to Leoncia Liboon of the land that comprises the Sunlay hacienda was made on November 19, 1890, and the northern boundary that separates it from the lands of Leandro Linares was given in the plan Exhibit F as a straight line. The adjacent owner Leandro Linares could hardly have obtained subsequently, on December 9, 1890, the adjudication of the land situated to the north and described as having a broken boundary line as shown by its plan Exhibit E that accompanied his application.
The first to obtain a land title from the Government was Leoncia Liboon, wherefore she must be given preference in the designation of the boundaries of her land; and, inasmuch as that dividing line of her property was fixed as a straight one, the subsequent title of the applicant’s redecessor in interest could not alter it in such a way as to exceed said boundaries and to comprehend land already adjudicated to Leoncia Liboon.
That the parcel of land in question, claimed by Francisco Abelarde, is crossed by a railway belonging to The Negros Philippine Lumber Company which (as shown in the document Exhibit 4, record, pp. 82-3) executed a contract for right of way through same in October, 1913, with the representative of Maria Javier, the daughter and heir of Leoncia Liboon, is unquestionable. In the instrument Exhibit 4 appears the said contract duly entered in the prohibit 4 appears the said contract duly entered in the property registry of Occidental Negros, notwithstanding which said exhibit was not admitted in evidence by the trial judge on the ground that it was res inter alios acta (record, pp. 198-9. The doctrine of res inter alios acta is sufficiently expounded in the case of Aldecoa & Co. v. Warner, Barnes & Co. (30 Phil. Rep., 153). In contradistinction with the point discussed in that case and with the decisions therein cited, this said document should have been admitted as evidence of the contract for right of way executed by The Negros Philippine Lumber Company with the attorney in fact of Maria Javier inasmuch as, from the sole fact that the contract contained in aid document was entered in the property registry, it may, by imperative mandate of law, affect and prejudice third persons, wherefore, in accordance with the provisions of the Mortgage Law, this document is not only evidence of the facts it contains but also prejudices third persons as regard the legal effects of the said contract.
It is presumed that one year before the applicant filed his application for registration he consented to and apparently approved — there being no evidence to the contrary — the installation on the land then owned by Maria Javier, now claimed by himself, of the railway line constructed by the said lumber company.
It was a matter of public knowledge that the track was laid and that afterward the said company’s cars and locomotives travelled over same with the applicant’s full knowledge and permission. If, in truth, he was the owner of the land occupied by the said railroad, why has there been no explanation of his silence and why has he not used his dominical right? Why did he not protest against such usurpation and against the use of the land authorized by Maria Javier to the said company? And why did he limit the railway was to pass should be included in the survey of his land, in order afterwards to claim it as his exclusive property.
Subsection 1 of section 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure proves: "Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or mission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it."cralaw virtua1aw library
All discussion of this point is superfluous. As Eusebio Lopez kept silent in 1913 when it was his duty to object to and protest against the occupation of the strip of land over which The Negros Philippine Lumber Company’s railway passes and as the record does not show that it was in any way proven at trial that the said company obtained permission from the applicant to use the land in litigation, it must be concluded that by his own acts he is now estopped from alleging ownership in the strip of land specified in the contract, to which the document Exhibit 4 refers.
In the contract relative to the right of way over Maria Javier’s lands the width of the said right of way was fixed at twenty meters. On the assumption that the rails of the railway track were to be laid in the center of the strip, there should remain a space of ten meters on each side of the track. Under said supposition there should be excluded from the land adjudicated to Eusebio Lopez all the land situated to the south of the Bayabas hacienda for a width of twenty meters, from the point of entrance of the railway to the point of exit in the disputed land taking an intermediate line between the rails as the center of the railway track, so that all the land for a width of twenty meters occupied by the said railway over the parcel of land in question is considered as not included in the Bayabas hacienda.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from should be affirmed in so far as it agrees with this decision, and should be excluded from the land adjudicated to Eusebio Lopez all the lad situated to the south of the Bayabas hacienda for a width of twenty meters, from the point of entrance of the railway to the point of exit in the disputed land taking an intermediate line between the rails as the center of the railway track, so that all the land for a width of twenty meters occupied by the said railway over the parcel of lad in question is considered as not included in the Bayabas hacienda.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from should be affirmed in so far as it agrees with this decision, ad should be reversed in so far as it does not. Therefore, sustaining the opposition, we hold that there shall be excluded from the registration of the land comprised by the Bayabas hacienda the parcel of land, 20 meters in width, in the center of which the rails of the said railway track are laid, throughout the whole length of the land, question occupied by the said track; this parcel of land, together with the rest of the land on the south, is deemed to be an integral part of the Sunlay hacienda. No special finding is made as to the costs. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.
Moreland, J., concurs in the result.
