Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1936 > August 1936 Decisions > G.R. No. 43094 August 31, 1936 - MATEO C. SANCHEZ v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

063 Phil 378:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 43094. August 31, 1936.]

MATEO C. SANCHEZ, applicant-appellee, v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, MARTINA ARIZALETA, ET AL., oppositors. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Appellant.

Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellant.

Leonardo Abola for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL; BILL OF EXCEPTIONS; FILING OF, WHILE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IS STILL PENDING RESOLUTION. — It is admitted by the appellant Director of Lands that the provincial fiscal of Masbate who represented him, filed the bill of exceptions while the motion for new trial was still pending resolution by the trial court. The presentation of the bill of exceptions prior to the resolution of a motion for new trial has the effect of withdrawing such motion for new trial. (Cases cited.) The fact that the case before us in one of registration is immaterial because the rule with reference to the order of filing the motion for new trial, exception, appeal and bill of filing the motion for new trial, exception, appeal and bill of exceptions is the same in ordinary civil actions and in registration proceedings.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REVIEW OF EVIDENCE BY THE APPELLATE COURT. — It is well-settled that in order that the evidence adduced before the trial court may be reviewed by this court it is necessary, under section 497, subsection 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, (a) that the exception party file in the trial court a motion for new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision; (b) that the said motion be overruled by the trial judge; (c) that due exception be taken to the overruling of the motion. (Cases cited.)

3. ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO INCORPORATE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND EXCEPTION IN THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS; ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. — It has also been held that the motion and exception should be incorporated in the bill of exceptions (Rubert and Guamis v. Luengo and Martinez [1907[, 8 Phil., 732), and that in his brief the appellant should assign errors raising questions of fact. (Cases cited.) We are, therefore, constrained to accept the findings of fact made by the trial judge.

4. SALE OF LANDS; AREA AND BOUNDARIES. — As stated in the case of Loyola v. Bartolome ([1919], 39 Phil., 544, 550): "It is not of vital consequence that a deed or contract for the sale of land should declare the area with mathematical accuracy. It is sufficient if its extent is objectively indicated with sufficient precision to enable one to identify it; and where the boundaries given are adequate for this purpose, an error as to the superficial area is immaterial." (Cases cited.) But a careful review of the applicable cases will show that it is only when the boundaries given are sufficiently certain and the identity of the land clearly proved by the boundaries thus indicated that an land erroneous statement concerning the area can be disregarded or ignored. Otherwise, the area stated is followed.

5. ID.; ID.; SPANISH ROYAL DECREES. — The Royal Decrees in force at the time of the acquisition by J.P. de T. did not recognize any grant of public land in excess of one thousand hectares. (See Valdez v. Director of Lands, 62 Phil., 362.)

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; AMOUNT OF PERMISSIBLE ERROR. — It should also be observed that the amount of permissible error in the measurement of public lands was only five per cent of the total area. (Royal Decree of January 19, 1883, article 27.)

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; UNIT OF MEASURE OR FIXED PRICE PER HECTARE. — Under the laws in force at the time the purchase by T was made, lands of the public domain were sold only by unit of measure, that is to say, at a fixed price per hectare or per quiñon, and not in the mass (cuerpos ciertos). (See Valdez v. Director of Lands, supra.)

8. ID.; ID.; ID.; RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, SPANISH CIVIL CODE. — Articles 1469 and 1470 of the Spanish Civil Code embody a rule or construction which has been followed, according to Manresa, by the Spanish Government in the sale of public lands.

9. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRINCIPLE GOVERNING SALE OF PUBLIC LANDS. — This court recognized and gave effect to the principle governing the sale of public lands in the case of Barretto v. Director of Lands (G.R. No. 29717, promulgated December 29, 1928, not reported).


D E C I S I O N


LAUREL, J.:


On January 9, 1932, Mateo C. Sanchez filed with the Court of First Instance of Masbate an application for the registration of three parcels of land situated in the barrio of Uson, municipality of Dimasalang, Province of Masbate, described in the plan (Exhibit A) and in the technical description (Exhibit A-1) attached to the application. The application was opposed by the Director of Lands on the ground that the said parcels of land are public lands and that the petitioner does not possess any title fit for registration; by the Director of Forestry on the ground that portions thereof are public forests; and by Martina Arizaleta and Jose, Isidro and Francisco Moraza who claimed lot No. 1 indicated in the plan. The oppositions filed by the last-named persons and by the Director of Forestry were later on withdrawn.

On October 8, 1934, the trial court rendered a decision overruling the opposition of the Director of Lands and ordering the registration of the three parcels of land in question in favor of the conjugal partnership of Mateo C. Sanchez and Priscila Zamora subject to a right of way indicated by the red line in Exhibit 1 of the Bureau of Forestry.

On December 12, 1934, the provincial fiscal of Masbate, on behalf of the Director of Lands and the Director of Forestry, filed a motion for new trial on the ground that the decision of the trial court was contrary to law and the weight of the evidence, which motion was set for hearing on December 22, 1934. On December 15, 1934, prior to the date set for the hearing of the motion for new trial, the provincial fiscal of Masbate, on behalf of the Director of Lands and the Director of Forestry, filed the bill of exceptions in this case which was approved by the trial court on January 7, 1935.

It is admitted by the appellant Director of Lands that the provincial fiscal of Masbate who represented him, filed the bill of exceptions while the motion for new trial was still pending resolution by the trial court. The presentation of the bill of exceptions prior to the resolution of a motion for new trial has the effect of withdrawing such motion for new trial. (Conspecto v. Fruto [1915], 31 Phil., 144, 147, cited with approval in Dimaliwat v. Dimaliwat [1931], 55 Phil., 673, 679; Heirs of Advincula v. Imperial [1932], 56 Phil., 837; Laxamana v. Carlos [1932], 57 Phil., 722, 725, 726.) The fact that the case before us is one of registration is immaterial because the rule with reference to the order of filing the motion for new trial, exception, appeal and bill of exceptions is the same in ordinary civil actions and in registration proceedings. (Laxamana v. Carlos, supra, citing sec. 14, Act No. 496, as amended by Act No. 1108, and Director of Lands v. Court of First Instance of Tarlac [1928], 51 Phil., 805.) It is well-settled that in order that the evidence adduced before the trial court may be reviewed by this court it is necessary, under section 497, subsection 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, (a) that the excepting party file in the trial court a motion for new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision; (b) that the said motion be overruled by the trial judge; and (c) that due exception be taken to the overruling of the motion. (See Lopez v. Orozco [1908], 11 Phil., 53, 54; De la Rama v. De la Rama [1906], 201 U.S., 303; 11 Phil., 746, 751; Lazarte v. Nolan [1921], 42 Phil., 563, 566, citing Singayan v. Mabborang [1908], 10 Phil., 601, Sandeliz v. Reyes [1909], 12 Phil., 506, Buencamino v. Soriano [1915], 29 Phil., 230, and Layda v. Legazpi [1918], 39 Phil., 83; Granados and Granados v. Bandelaria [1923], 45 Phil., 505, 507-509 and cases cited; Dais v. Torres and Ibañez [1933], 57 Phil., 897, 904.) It has also been held that the motion and exceptions (Rubert and Guamis v. Luengo and Martinez [1907], 8 Phil., 732) and that in his brief the appellant should assign errors raising questions of fact (Granados and Granados v. Bandelaria, supra; Dais v. Torres and Ibañez, supra; Enriquez v. Enriquez [1907], 8 Phil., 565, 566; Capellania de Tambobong v. Antonio [1907], 8 Phil., 683, 684; Paterno v. City of Manila [1910], 17 Phil., 26-29; Santiago v. Felix [1913], 24 Phil., 378, 383, 384) and cite the pages of the record where evidence relied upon may be found. (Palarca v. Baguisi [1918], 38 Phil., 177, 178.) We are, therefore, constrained to accept the findings of fact made by the trial judge.

Even accepting, however, the facts found by the trial judge, we do not feel justified in granting to the applicant, Mateo C. Sanchez, more land than what his title calls for.

The findings of fact of the lower court are contained in the following paragraph of its decision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Se ha demostrado por las pruebas de solicitante, a satisfaccion de Juzgado, que desde el año 1886 Juan Perez de Tagle estaba en posesion de los tres lotes de terreno cuyo registro se solicita, y desde el año 1889 hasta 1894 se han tomado los pasos por el mismo para adquirir dichos terrenos por compra del Estado, habiendo sido dichas parcelas medidas y tasadas por la Inspeccion General de Montes (exhibits B y B-1); que en 1896, dichos tres lotes de terreno, que forman una sola parcela, fueron vendidos por Juan Perez de Tagle a favor de Dolores Ramirez; que a la muerte de esta, occurrida en 1904, le heredo y le sucedio en la posesion su hija Remedios Medina, quien, asu vez, en 10 de abril de 1917 lo vendio, con consentimiento de su esposo, el testigo Antero Zafra, a favor de Jose Y. de Egurrola (Exhibit C), y este a su vez, en 10 de septiembre de 1921, lo traspaso en venta a favor del aqui solicitante Mateo C. Sanchez y que tanto la posesion de este asi como la de sus antecesores sobre el terreno en cuestion, ha sido simpre quieta, publica, continuada y adversa y en concepto de dueño, habiendolo dedicado desde entonces hasta ahora para pasto de ganados."cralaw virtua1aw library

It should be observed that the land found to have been occupied by Juan Perez de Tagle since 1886 is that in reference to which "se han tomado los pasos por el mismo para adquirir dichos terrenos por compra del Estado, habiendo sido dichas parcelas medidas y tasadas por la Inspeccion General de Montes (exhibits B y B-1)" Exhibit B refers to the preliminary steps of inspection and survey ordered in connection with the application of Juan Perez de Tagle for the acquisition by purchase from the Government of one parcel of land "que linda por el norte con bosques del Estado, por el sur con cogonales del Estado, por el este y oeste con bosques tambien del Estado."cralaw virtua1aw library

Exhibit B-1 is entitled "expediente general referente a la enajenacion en publica subasta de un terreno situado en la jurisdiccion del Pueblo de Uson (Masbate y Ticao) promovido por D. Juan Perez de Tagle" and adjudicated on May 13, 1894 to the applicant Tagle "el terreno de referencia radica en el Sitio de Bagsulan jurisdiccion de dicho pueblo y fuera de la que por la principalia se considera como legua comunal, sus limites son: al norte, este, sur y oeste con terrenos del Estado cuya superficie es de Ciento treinta y una hectareas y mil trescientos metros cuadrados tasados a tres pesos cincuenta centimos la hectaria," for P458.88.

Mateo C. Sanchez, however, seeks the judicial confirmation of a title to 1,107 hectares, 91 ares and 70 centares of public land. Why is there a difference of 976 hectares, 78 ares and 70 centares between the area stated in the grant and that stated in the application? In his brief, the applicant accounts for this gross discrepancy by stating that "surveys made during the Spanish regime were in most cases imperfect and inaccurate, because of lack of proper means and scientific instruments", so that, in his opinion, the area of 131 hectares and 13 ares stated in Exhibit B-1 "can not be exact."cralaw virtua1aw library

We are not inclined to hold that the area stated in Exhibit B-1 is erroneous. In accordance with the Royal Decree of June 25, 1880 (published in the Gazeta de Manila on September 8, 1880), said to have marked the beginning of modern Spanish land legislation in the Philippines (Vargas & Mañalac, Philippine Land Registration Law, pp. 11-14), the "Decreto del Gobierno General de 20 de agosto de 1880" was promulgated providing, among other things, that no title could be issued without a correct survey of the land covered thereby being first made and without the corresponding plan thereof showing the correct boundaries and exactitud (de) la cabida y linderos." For a better understanding of the said decree, we shall quote its pertinent provisions:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Considerando que al demanda de terrenos baldios realengos y de composiciones de tierras cultivadas, aumenta diariamente en proporcion considerable, haciendo cada vez mas imposible que los empleados de Montes puedan desempeñar el servicio de medicion tasacion, con la brevedad conveniente.

"Considerando que es de sumo inters facilitar todo lo posible el establecimiento de la verdadera propiedad rural, este Gobierno General viene en decretar lo siguiente:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. � La clasificacion de los terreno realengos que los particulares deseen adquirir por compra o composicion, se hara siempre por los empleados facultativos de Montes, los cuales previo reconocimiento si fuere necesario, o con omision del mismo si tuviese ya conocimiento detallado de la localidad en que el terreno denunciado, radique, determinaran si por razones cosmologicas, hidrologicas o de aptitud para el cultivo agrario permanente, debe o no accederse a la enajenacion.

"2. � Los interesados presentaran un croquis del terreno levantado a su costa por un agrimensor, debiendo hacer constar en aquel con exactitud la cabida y linderos.

"3. � A las operaciones de medicion asistiran el gobernadorcillo o un teniente de justicia y dos principales, extendiendose un acta firmada por todos los concurrentes en que conste la distancia del predio a la iglesia del pueblo, si el terreno esta o no baldio en todo o en parte, si contiene o no arbolado maderable y de que clase, quienes son los poseedores de las roturaciones en caso de haberlas, la cabida de cada una de estas y si se han presentado o no reclamaciones antes de la operacion o durante la misma, a cuyo efecto se anunciara por bandillo, durante tres dias consecutivos, aquel en que las operaciones hayan de ejecutarse, constando dicha publicacion en el acta.

"4. � Los gobernadorcillos no podran negar el concurso de la comision antes indicada, a los particulares que lo soliciten quendando de lo contrario incursos en la multa que en cada caso se determine." (Berriz, Guia del Comprador de Terrenos, pp. 336-338.) (Emphasis ours.) .

It is to be presumed that in the grant (Exhibit B-1) the requirements of the law above-quoted have been followed. (Sec. 334, pars. 14 and 31, Code of Civil Procedure.) The area of the land sold to Juan Perez de Tagle as stated should, therefore, be accepted as true.

The applicant also cites the cases of Escudero and Marasigan v. Director of Lands ([1922], 44 Phil., 83) and Smith, Bell & Co. v. Director of Lands ([19240, 50 Phil., 879, 882), as authority for the proposition that the area given is not the principal element for the identification of land. The applicant, indeed, could have cited many more cases holding that what really defines a piece of land is not the area mentioned in its description but rather the boundaries therein laid down. As stated in the case of Loyola v. Bartolome ([1919], 39 Phil., 544, 550): "It is not of vital consequence that a deed or contract for the sale of land should declare the area with mathematical accuracy. It is sufficient if its extent is objectively indicated with sufficient precision to enable one to identify it; and where the boundaries given are adequate for this purpose, an error as to the superficial area is immaterial." (See also Government of the Philippine Islands v. Franco [1926], 49 Phil., 328, 329; Prieto v. Director of Lands [1926], 50 Phil., 971-973; Government of Philippine Islands v. Abaja [1928], 52 Phil., 261, 265.) But a careful review of the applicable cases will show that it is only when the boundaries given are sufficiently certain and the identity of the land clearly proved by the boundaries thus indicated that an erroneous statement concerning the area can be disregarded or ignored. Otherwise, the area stated is followed. A few illustrative cases will be given.

In the case of Pamintuan v. Insular Government ([1907], 8 Phil., 512, 515), it appears that the Spanish Government made a grant of 92 hectares and 10 ares of public land to the ancestors of the petitioner. The petitioner, however, claimed in his application 626 hectares, 38 ares and 95 centiares of land. This court said:red:chanrobles.com.ph

"While the proposition of law laid down by the court below may be true to the effect that natural boundaries will prevail over area, yet when the land sought to be registered is almost seven times as much as that described in the deed, the evidence as to natural boundaries must be very clear and convincing before that rule can be applied. No such evidence was given in this case, and the judgment of the court below can not stand."cralaw virtua1aw library

For a quite similar reason, in the case of Paras v. Insular Government ([1908], 11 Phil., 378), the petitioner failed in his attempt to prove his ownership of 67 hectares of land by presenting a patent from the Spanish Government for 43 hectares, and in the case of Carrillo v. Insular Government ([1908], 11 Phil., 379), the petitioner failed in his attempt to prove his ownership of 107 hectares of land by presenting a patent from the Spanish Government for 26 hectares.

In the case of Waldroop v. Castañeda ([1913], 25 Phil., 50, 56), it appears that the Spanish Government conveyed to Hilario Castañeda 23 hectares, 11 ares and 12 centiares of public land. This parcel of land was later on conveyed to the petitioners. Due to the absence of proof that the land which Hilario Castañeda had obtained from the Government had natural boundaries sufficient to clearly segregate it from the adjoining lands, it was held that the only land to which the petitioners were entitled was the land which Hilario Castañeda had obtained from the Spanish Government. In this case, the following doctrine was laid down by this court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In order that natural boundaries of land may be accepted for the purpose of varying the extent of the land included in a deed of conveyance, the evidence as to such natural boundaries must be clear and convincing. Such natural boundaries must be of such a character as to definitely and accurately segrate the land in question from the adjoining property. There must be no doubt left that the land included within the natural boundaries is the same land which was intended to be sold by the deed of conveyance." (See also Sales v. Director of Lands, 61 Phil., 759.)

As already indicated above, the boundaries of the land purchased by Juan Perez de Tagle from the Spanish Government in 1894 were as follows: "Al norte, este, sur y oeste con terrenos del Estado." (Exhibit B-1.) Nothing can be more uncertain and indefinite!

It should be observed in this connection that the Royal Decrees in force at the time of the acquisition by Juan Perez de Tagle did not recognize any grant of public land in excess of one thousand hectares. (See Valdez v. Director of Lands, 62 Phil., 362.)

The Royal Decree of November 25, 1880 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Considerando que la naturaleza e importancia del asunto aconsejan adoptar algunas precauciones para evitar ciertos abusos de transcendencia, que al amparo de disposiciones transitoriales pudieran cometerse, y que redundarian en perjuicio del Tesoro publico y de los particulares que se dedican a cultivar y no a especular con la venta a otros, de los terrenos que se les conceden: Considerando por ultimo que deben exigirse por el Estado ciertas garantias para aceptar las madiciones y tasaciones que practiquen los agrimensores particulares en terrenos que practiquen los agrimensores particulares en terrenos que son de su pertinencia; S. M. el Rey (q.D.g.) ha tenido a bien aprobar el decreto de ese Gobierno General de 28 de agosto ultimo con las modificaciones siguientes:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘1. � La extension de los terrenos a los cuales se refiere dicho decreto, no podra exceder de mil hectareas para los terrenos de secano; quinientas para los de igual clase poblados de arbolado maderable, y ciento para los clasificados en el articulo 6. � del mismo decreto con la frase "que a poca costa puedan hacerse de regadio." ’"

The Royal Decree of October 26, 1881, repeats the same restriction in more vigorous terms:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Es asimismo preciso, que para favorecer la division de la propiedad territorial y el fomento del cultivo intensivo y el de las producciones como el tabaco, la caña de azucar, el cafe y otros semejantes, que se atienda con mas interes a las solicitudes en demanda de pequeñas extensiones de terreno para dedicarlos a los cultivos citado, que a las que no se hallen en ese caso y se comprenda que no solo no han de ponerse desde luego en condiciones de produccion, sino que lo que busca es acaparar los mejores terrenos para poderse despues lucrar con su venta. - En su consecuencia S.M. del Rey (q.D.g.) ha tenido a bien disponer lo siguiente:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘1. � Que a fin de favorecer la division de la propiedad, en las ventas de terrenos se tenga en cuenta lo prevenido en el parrafo 1. �de la Real Orden de 25 de noviembre de 1880, para que no se verifique ninguna concesion que exceda de mil hectareas en terrenos de secano, de quinientas cuando esten poblados de arbolado y de ciento cuando sean tierras que a poca costa puendan hacerse de regadio.’"

It should also be observed that the amount of permissible error in the measurement of public lands was only five per cent of the total area. (Royal Decree of January 19, 1883, article 27.)

There is still another point which weights heavily against the claims of the applicant. It appears that Juan Perez de Tagle contracted with the Spanish Government for the sale of the parcel of land in question to a fixed price per unit of measure or at P3.50 per hectare, to be exact. There can be no mistake as to the intention of the parties, no doubt as to the area conveyed by the Government to Tagle. And if Tagle bought 131 hectares and 12 ares of land paying the sum of P3.50 per hectare, it is not seen why the same land having been conveyed to the applicant, the latter should now be allowed to claim a bigger tract of land. This would be unfair to the State.

Under the laws in force at the time the purchase by Tagle was made, lands of the public domain were sold only by unit of measure, that is to say, at a fixed price per hectare or per quiñon, and not in the mass (cuerpos ciertos). (See Valdez v. Director of Lands, 62 Phil., 362.) .

Article 1469 and 1470 of the Spanish Civil Code embody a rule of construction which has been followed, according to Manresa, by the Spanish Government in the sale of public lands. Article 1469, in part, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"If a sale of real property should be made with a statement of its area, at a certain price for each unit of measure or number, the vendor shall be obliged to deliver to the vendee, if the latter should require it, all that which has been specified in the contract; but should this not be possible, the vendee may choose between a proportional reduction in the price or the rescission of the contract, provided that in the latter case the deficiency be not less than one-tenth of the stated area of the property." And article 1470 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"If in the case mentioned in the next preceding article the area of the realty should be greater than that specified in the contract, the vendee shall be obliged to pay the price of the excess if the greater area should not exceed one-twentieth of that specified in the contract; but should it be more than one-twentieth, the vendee may choose between paying the greater value of the property or withdrawing from the contract."cralaw virtua1aw library

This court recognized and gave effect to the principle governing the sale of public lands in the case of Barretto v. Director of Lands (G.R. No. 29717, promulgated December 29, 1928, not reported). In this case, the title conveying a tract of public land in the Province of Zambales to Antonio Lorenzo Barretto was described by natural boundaries as follows: "Baldios y realengos unos terrenos situados en la Provincia de Zambales, jurisdiccion del Pueblo de Cabungan, Sitio de Balintagac, lindando al sur, con el Monte de Carmen; al norte, el Rio Anonang; el este, el rincon de Balintagac y al oeste el Monte de Tictic." The area was stated to be 200 quiñones and for each quiñon four reales were paid.

This court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Dado que, excepto el Rio Anonang al lado norte, los demas linderos consignados en este titulo no son puntos o lineas especificas por no constar claramente ni en tal documento ni en las pruebas aportadas donde empiezan determinadamente el monte del Carmen, el rincon de Balintagac o el Monte de Tictic, y teniendo en cuenta que la venta efectuada por el Gobierno español a favor de D. Antonio Lorenzo Barretto causante del aqui solicitante, no fue a cuerpo cierto toda vez que los linderos son inciertos sino de 200 quiñones a razon de cuatro reales cada quiñon, es decir, a un tanto por unidad de medida, entendemos acertada la alegacion de los abogados del apelante de que la verdadera intencion del Estado como vendedor y del referido D. Antonio Lorenzo Barretto como comprador fue transferir a este 200 quiñones de terreno en aquel Sitio de Balintagac extendiendose desde el Rio Anonang hacia el sur, este u oeste. Y tal intencion del Estado de celebrar la venta, no a cuerpi cierto, sino a un tanto por unidad de medida y que, antes del 7 de abril de 1869 todavia daba lugar a incertidumbres en casos dudosos, quedo desde dicha fecha definitivamente reconocida por el orden del Poder Ejecutivo, a la cual se refiere Manresa en el parrafo que trascribimos a continuacion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘Desde esta fecha de 7 de abril de 1869 es, por lo tanto, indudable que las ventas de bienes del Estado no se hacen a cuerpo cierto, sino a razon de un tanto por unidad de medida o numero. Por otra parte, las sentencias del Tribunal Supremo de 5 de mayo de 1870 y de 11 de febrero de 1877, y el Real Decreto sentencia de 20 de marzo de 1885, coinciden en afirmar que la doctrina de los cuerpos ciertos no pueden tener aplicacion a las ventas del bienes del Estado, sea cual fuere su fecha." (10 Manresa, Comentarios al Codigo Civil Español, pag. 164, Edicion de 1908.)"

The same principle has been embodied in several decrees. In the Royal Decree of November 27, 1880, published in the Gaceta de Manila, No. 65, of March 6, 1881, it was said, among other things:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Acreditado por los mismos titulos que presenta Ramirez, que lo que verdaderamente adquirio de Estado o mejor sus causantes D. Mariano Albea y D. Felix Guianzo, se reduce solo a 2438 hectareas, poco mas o menos, es evidente que la pretension de que se le reconozca como legitimo poseedor de 16,000, a pretexto de lo que adjudicado ha de enterderse como cuerpo cierto, si se apoya en disposicion alguna positiva, ni en doctrina, ni principios atendibles bajo ningun concepto, pues la teoria de cuerpos ciertos, desechada ya en la Peninsula absolutamente, segun se declara en varias disposiciones del Gobierno, no ha regido nunca en Filipinas, ni aun cuando hubiera estado en vigor, seria aplicable a este caso dados los terminos en que se hicieron las respectivas adjudicaciones. Otro tanto puede decirse de las demas pretensiones formuladas por el recurrente Ramirez, invocando los principios de equidad porque esta no puede ser decisiva cuando se perjudican los intereses de una de las partes; y es notorio que aqui se perjudicarian notablemente los del Estado, tolerando una usurpacion tan considerable o recibiendo como precio muchisimo menos del que realmente tienen los terrenos que al mismo Estado pertenecen."cralaw virtua1aw library

In paragraph 5 of the "Decreto del Gobierno General de 20 de agosto de 1880", hereinbefore referred to, the principle regarding the conclusiveness of area was plainly recognized:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"En cualquiera epoca en que se descurba error o ocultacion en la medida del terreno, que exceda de un quinto de la cabida total, y en case de que se averig�e que no ha sido consignada en el acta la reclamacion hecha por alguna persona, o que los limites no se han expresado con exactitud, se anulara la adjudicacion y el Estado reivindicara la propiedad del terreno, cualesquiera que sean las condiciones en que se halle, sin indemnizacion alguna por las mejoras que el poseedor hubiere hecho, ni reintegro de lo satisfecho." Of the same tenor is paragraph 3 of the Royal Decree of June 22, 1882:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Si entablase reclamacion sobre exceso o falta de cabida del terreno subastado y del expediente resultase que dicha falta o exceso iguala a la quinta parte de la expresada en el anuncio, sera nula la venta; quedando en el caso contrario, firme y subsistente y sin derecho a indemnizacion la Hacienda ni el comprador." Article 27, Royal Decree of January 19, 1883, provided:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"El error tolerable en las mediciones de baldios realengos sera el de cinco por ciento de la cabida total. Cuando exceda de dicha cantidad y no pase del quince por ciento, el mismo poseedor del terreno tendra derecho a la composicion de la parte sobrante por el precio de la tasacion que corresponda considerado como baldio; pero si el exceso fuese mayor de quince por ciento se sacara a subasta con obligacion por parte del rematante de indemnizar al poseeder el importe de las mejoras se hara por un perito nombrado por cada parte y por un tercero nombrado por la Administracion en caso de discordia. Cuando el error de la medicion exceda del quince por ciento, se instruira expediente para exigir a los peritos la responsibilidad que corresponda."cralaw virtua1aw library

In three recent cases involving also lands situated in the Province of Masbate, this court applied the foregoing principle governing the sale of lands of the public domain and denied the application for registration of lands in excess of those stated in the titles concerned. These are the cases of Rosado v. Director of Lands (58 Phil., 833); Martinez v. Director of Lands (G.R. No. 37303, promulgated January 19, 1934 [59 Phil., 958]); and Valdez v. Director of Lands (62 Phil., 362).

In the first of these cases, the title described the land as follows: "Al norte y oeste, terrenos del Estado; al este, playa, y al sur, bosque y terrenos del Estado." The area was stated to be 144 hectares, 89 ares and 76 centiares. The applicant, however, sought the registration in his favor of 966 hectares, 30 ares and 95 centiares of public pasture land. In rejecting the application, this court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is doubtless true that when a deed describes a tract of land by definite and ascertainable boundaries, an additional statement as to the area included is a secondary importance, because it is presumed that the parties to the deed contracted with reference to the land specifically delimited in the description. But this rule, has no application in the present case for two reasons: First, because the land is not specifically delimited by definite and ascertainable boundaries; and , second, because the record shows, as above set out, that the Spanish Government and Alejandro Danao contracted with reference to a definite area, because the minimum acceptable bid was based on the area of 144 hectares, 89 ares and 70 centares."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the second case, the title described the land as bounded on the north by the Boracay River and public land; on the east by the sea; on the south, by the Bangad River and public land; and on the west, by public cogon land. The area was stated to be 80 hectares, 71 ares and 30 centiares but the applicant sought the registration of 866 hectares, 54 ares and 17 centiares of land. After quoting the rule laid down in the case of Rosado v. Director of Lands, supra, this court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the case before us the price of the grant was estimated on the basis of two pesos per hectare and the price paid for 80 hectares, 71 ares and 30 centares amounted to only about P161. This does not show a right to the 866 hectares and a fraction claimed by the appellant."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the third and last case, the total area sold by the Spanish Government and purchased by the grantees in 19 titles was 2,225.9194 hectares of land. The lands were sold to the grantees at a fixed price per hectare. In denying the application for 28,006.5959 hectares of public land, this court referred to the two cases above discussed and said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Under the Royal Decree of October 28, 1869, the decisions of the Intendencia General de Hacienda adjudicating titles to public lands were required to be published in the Gaceta de Manila of which we take judicial notice. (Director of Lands v. Absolo, 46 Phil., 282, 307.) From these decisions as well as from the recitals in the nineteen titulos themselves, which are the origin of the claimants’ title in the case before us, it appears that each of the nineteen tracts was sold to the purchaser at a fixed price per hectare, that is to say, both the government and the purchaser contracted specifically with reference to the area stated in the titulos. For each title the government was paid by the hectare for the number of hectares indicated in the title and no more. Any area granted to these applicants in excess of the percentage of permissible error would be a pure gift without consideration whatever to the State."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the applicant, Mateo C. Sanchez, is entitled to the registration only of 131 hectares and 13 ares of the land claimed by him and to the issuance to him of a certificate of title covering this area. Judgment is accordingly modified and upon the submission of an amended and approved plan in conformity with this decision, the lower court will order the issuance of the corresponding decree of registration and confirmation of title. No costs will be charged in this instance. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz and Recto, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1936 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 42737 August 11, 1936 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PEDRO AGUAS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 279

  • Adm. Case No. 778 August 14, 1936 - BENEDICTO M. JAVIER v. SILVERIO Q. CORNEJO

    063 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 43199 August 14, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE GARCIA

    063 Phil 296

  • G.R. No. 44291 August 15, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO A. SANTOS

    063 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. 44356 August 15, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO BORDADOR, ET AL.

    063 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 42928 August 18, 1936 - MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA v. JOSE FERNANDO RODRIGO

    063 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 45128 August 18, 1936 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. JUDGE OF CFI OF MANILA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 320

  • G.R. Nos. 45274 & 45275 August 21, 1936 - EDUARDO C. GUICO v. ESTANISLAO MAYUGA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 42516 August 22, 1936 - DOMINGO NICOLAS v. TIMOTEA NICOLAS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. 44337 August 22, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO NATIVIDAD

    063 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 45264 August 22, 1936 - ROSARIO DE LEON v. BALBINA PASION

    063 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. 45106 August 25, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE Y. LOPEZ

    063 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 44753 August 26, 1936 - ADORACION FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. FELICIANO CONSING

    063 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. 42952 August 28, 1936 - VALENTIN PACIA, ET AL. v. ISIDORO LAGMAN

    063 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. 43435 August 28, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. F.E. GREENFIELD

    063 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 45043 August 28, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. KOC SONG

    063 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. 42518 August 29, 1936 - WISE & CO. v. DIONISIO P. TANGLAO

    063 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 44336 August 29, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKABAÑGAN

    063 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 43094 August 31, 1936 - MATEO C. SANCHEZ v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 378