Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 3539 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

011 Phil 617:



[G.R. No. 3539. March 27, 1908. ]

MANUEL RAMIREZ ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, Defendant-Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta for Appellant.

Manuel Ramirez for Appellees.


1. REGISTRATION OF LAND; ADMINISTRATION DECISION UNDER SPANISH REGIME. — Plaintiffs petitioned for the registration of certain lands in the Province of Nueva Ecija including valley and land located on the mountain slopes surrounding the valley The petitioners set up as evidence of title an administrative decision, under date of March 2, 1898, approved by the Director General de Administracion Civil, in which the plaintiff Manuel Ramirez was declared the owner Counsel for the Government contended that this decision should be declared void and should not have been admitted and the provisions of chapter VI, section 54, of Act No 926, as evidence of title, and that title by prescription was not shown: Held, That the administrative decision of March 2, 1898, was in full force and effect at the time of the transfer of sovereignty is not subject to review by this court. Roara v. Insular Government, 8 Phil. Rep., 214.)



Manuel Ramirez y Rodriguez Trujillo together with his sisters petitioned the Court of Land Registration for the inscription and registration of "the mountain slopes surrounding and forming the Sabani Valley," to the extent of 6,000 hectares. This tract of land is situated in the Province of Nueva Ecija, Island of Luzon.

The said Sabani Valley, which measured 5,103 hectares, was the object of a similar application in the case No. 407, and the petitioners were declared to be the owners thereof, without opposition.

1. Origin. — Manuel Ramirez, predecessor of the applicants, had originally acquired the lands known as "Sabani Valley" from Mariano Alvea on January 25, 1856, and the lands situated "at the bottom of the Sabani Valley" at "Irorulong" from Felix Guianzo. It is to be noted that the lands are described in Guianzo’s title as follows: "They include on the N., S., and E., the lands at Irorulong, the slopes of the Ibonan passage and the Mingan mountains, and the cogon fields surrounding them," and those of Alvea "enclosed within the sides of the mountains called Cogonales and Mingan in the direction of Irorulong . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. Extent. — "Both the purchaser Ramirez and the vendors" — the trial court . says — "thought that the Spanish Government, on issuing the above mentioned titles, conveyed not only the valley but also the mountain sides as integral parts of the lands described therein. This belief, to a certain extent erroneous, but held in good faith, is inferred from the acts executed by Mr. Ramirez since the year 1866, when by his instructions, Esteban Peñarrubia, captain of infantry, survevor, detailed with the Corps of Engineers, made a report dated February 16, of the said year 1866, and, after a proper survey, made a map of the Sabani Valley, in which documents, attached to the record as evidence adduced by the respondent, it is set forth that the valley and the surrounding mountain sides have always been considered as a large portion of land known as ’The Sabani Valley,’ which portion is made up of the valley itself, consisting of about 5,000 hectares, and the mountain sides, amounting to 6,000 hectares, according to the above mentioned report and map." (B. of E. 9.)

3. Operation. — "Mr. Ramirez himself," — the trial court continues — "granted Messrs. Roesset and Falconet, two French citizens, by means of a public deed, dated February 4, 1876, the exclusive rights to the forest products of every kind that might be found in the Sabani Valley as described in the report and map drawn up by Peñarrubia, for the period of 30 years from the date last mentioned. In clause 24 of the deed it is set up that, according to the surveys executed and the calculations of the writer of the report, there were about three millions and a half of timber trees of different kinds in the Sabani Valley . . . ." (B. of E. 9.)

4. Commencement of the suit. — When Falconet applied for authority for the gratuitous cutting of the timber from the Sabani forests, and the Direccion, General de Administration, Civil had knowledge of Peñarrubia’s report, the said Administracion declared that the boundaries of the lands adjoining those of the valley were to be fixed, and informed the owner of the said estate that, in addition to observing the provisions of the decree dated April 26, 1870, in the future he would be obliged to deposit as a bond the price of the wood he might obtain from such lands. Such was the object of the decree of the Direccion de Administracion Civil dated September 11, 1876.

5. Appeal. — From this decree, the owner of the Sabani estate appealed, and his appeal gave rise to a series of reports upon his claims and the status of possession of unappropriated lands and rural property in relation with the various statutes then in force. This appeal of Ramirez was the fundamental cause, according to the opinion of the Council of State, of the regulations concerning uncultivated lands, which commenced with the royal decree of June 25, 1880.

Regarding Ramirez’s appeal, the Council of State was of the opinion: 1. That the decree issued by the Direccion, de Administracion Civil of the Archipelago, on September 11, 1876, should be approved. . . . and 3. "That the resolution that may be adopted on this matter (regarding the regulations for uncultivated lands) may be applied to Manuel Ramirez and to all similar cases." In fact, the Royal Order of November 27, 1880, was issued, approving that decree from the Direccion, General de Administracion Civil and providing "that the lands of the Sabani Valley referred to by Mr. Ramirez be in every way subject to the provisions of the Reglamento de Composiciones approved by Royal Decree of June 20 last."cralaw virtua1aw library

6. Proceedings. — The appeal from the decree ordering the fixing of the boundaries having been decided, proceedings were continued for the purpose of fixing the true extent of the Sabani Valley, purchased from the state, and to subject the same to composicion as to the excess, as was expressly provided in the Royal Decree of November 27, 1880. The boundaries were fixed in March, 1894, and approved by a decree from the Administracion General de Administracion Civil on June 17, 1896.

Regarding the excess, however, nothing was decided, and this was the cause of the suit between the appellant and the administracion, until the question was sent to the proper department in February, 1898, in order that a report might be submitted without delay and a statement of the facts rendered.

What might be and should be called excess, must be taken into account because all the parties interested in the case foresaw that some would result. According to the respondent, as well as the administrative officers who took part in the fixing of the boundaries, the excess was in the valley itself, whereas, according to the opinion of the petitioner, and taking into account the origin of the suit, such excess was principally on the mountain sides in the tract of 6,000 hectares which Ramirez understood as incorporated with his estate in the valley, considering the purchase of the latter not at a rate of so much for a certain measure, but as a total amount for a fixed price within the limits expressed in the title deeds of Alvea and Guianzo, especially in those pertaining to the latter, which expressly "included the sides of the Ibonan passage and the Mingan mountains" or, as stated in the second of the reasons supporting the decree appealed from, of September 11, 1876: "That, according to the same documents, the estate should not include the sides of the mountains surrounding the valley."cralaw virtua1aw library

If the excess was in the valley itself and the latter was more than 2,564 hectares in extent, yet, in the case No. 407, there has been no opposition to the registration of the valley, including the excess in question, that is to say, an extension of 5,003 hectares, as the legal property of the petitioners.

7. Decision of the case. — On March 2, 1898, the chief of the department of the Direccion de Administracion Civil rendered his report in which, among other things, he alleged as facts, "that Manuel Ramirez was in possession of that valley, which, at the present time, measures 5,003 hectares, by a just title and uninterrupted dominion; that he believed himself to be the owner of the mountain sides, that is, 6,000 hectares, by an uninterrupted possession also, although without any title, which matters Your Excellency is now requested to decide," and he suggested, as a decision, the following

"(1) Manuel Ramirez y Carvajal is hereby considered as the legal owner, with all legal effects, of the 5,003 hectares included in the low lands of the Sabani Valley, he having been in uninterrupted possession of the same for more than thirty years, whether the extent set forth in the former documents be greater or less. (2) The said Ramirez is hereby acknowledged as the legal owner, for all legal effects, of the 6,000 hectares to which, united with and surrounding the said valley, form the sides of the mountains around, he having been in uninterrupted possession of the same for more than 41 years. So that, joining the latter with the former portion, they form one single estate having an extension of 11,003 hectares. (3) The prohibition imposed by this Direccion General against cutting and taking good from the lands belonging to Mr. Ramirez, is hereby canceled; and (4) That the interested party be informed of this decision as a resolution to the suit commenced and to the petition filed; that no indemnity for losses and damages as asked for be granted."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is a note at foot reading as follows: "The Direccion General having jurisdiction of these matters (art. 11 of the Regulations of June 25, 1880), kindly decide what Your Excellency may deem convenient. Manila, March 2, 1898. Antonio Escartin. Rubric. — Agreed. — Moncada. — rubric."cralaw virtua1aw library

The resolution, in addition to the foregoing word "agreed," continued in the following language: "This Direccion General, deciding the case brought as a consequence of the petition filed by you with His Excellency, the Minister for the Colonies; in compliance with the provisions of the Royal order of November 27, 1880, which directs the strict application to this case of the Reglamento de Composicion of June 25, of said year; after hearing the opinion of the technical authorities; in view of articles 4 and 5 of said regulations, has agreed to the opinion rendered by the department, and held accordingly that: (1) Manuel Ramirez v Carvajal is hereby considered as the lawful owner, for all the effects. . . . (2) He is also acknowledged . . . (3) The prohibition imposed by this Direccion General for cutting . . . is hereby canceled . . . All of which I beg to inform you for your knowledge and for the proper effects . . . Greeting, . . . Date." There is a seal reading: ’’Direccion, General de Administracion Civil — Issued March 8, 98."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of the foregoing, and after proper proceedings, the Registration Court rendered its decision, decreeing the adjudication and registry of the land described in the petition, in the name of Manuel Ramirez y Rodriguez Trujillo, Irene Ramirez y Salgado, and Amalia Ramirez y Rodriguez Trujillo.

The decision was based on the previous resolution of the Direccion General de Administracion of the former sovereignty and on subsection 4, section 54, of Act No. 926, according to which "all persons who were entitled to apply and did apply for adjustment or composition of title to lands against the Government under the Spanish laws and royal decrees in force prior to the royal decree of February thirteenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, but who failed to receive title therefor through no default upon their part," may apply to the Court of Land Registration of the Philippine Islands for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor.

Counsel for the Government impugns this decision, alleging three assignments of error committed by the trial court.

1. "In not declaring the above-mentioned resolution of the Direccion General Administracion Civil, acknowledging Manuel Ramirez as the owner of the lands on the sides of the Sabani Mountain, null and void, and, consequently, in assigning said lands to the petitioners, holding them as being included in paragraph 4, section 54, of Act No. 926.

2. "Because neither do the petitioners come within the conditions of paragraph 6, section 51, of Act No. 926, and they can not, therefore, under such provision, apply for the ratification of their right nor for the issue of a certificate of title in their favor regarding the mountain slopes in question.

3. Because neither Manuel Ramirez nor his predecessors have been in possession of the slopes of the mountains surrounding the Sabani Valley under the conditions required by the law in order that the ownership of an estate may be acquired by prescription by means of simple possession."cralaw virtua1aw library

It does not seem necessary to consider the 2d and 3d assignments of error, the latter, because, as a matter of fact, we find no reason showing that the fact on which it is based, admitted by a resolution of the former sovereignty and by the trial courts is not supported by the evidence in the proceedings: nor the former, because the grant for the registration and for the title is founded on subsection 4, section 54, of Act No. 926.

As regard to the first assignment of error, we do not deem possible or feasible, in good law, that the courts of the present sovereignty should declare null a final resolution, adjudged during the former sovereignty. In the case of Roura v. The Insular Government (S Phil. Rep., 214) this court held:" (1) That all unappealled administrative decision becomes firm and constitutes a judgment in the matter between the interested parties; (2) that, whatever may have been the nature of the decision of the former sovereignty — whatever may have been the defects it contained or the injulies thereby inflicted upon private individuals — the logical and proper thing, to do was to take exception to the error, to the violution of law, the absence of jurisdiction, the excess of powers, the infringement of private rights, in fact to everything that could be objected to in the form of a petition for remedy, filed due course with the higher authorities either through administrative channels or, through the contencioso-administratratiro procedure with the courts of said jurisdiction, which existed under the former sovereignty."cralaw virtua1aw library

The decision in question was final, and the contencioso appeal against the same should have been filed within the period of three months. From March 2, the date of the decision, to August 13, 1898, the date on which the city of Manila was occupied by the military, the Spanish contencioso-administrativo court did not cease its functions, and there were five months for the appeal. And although the contencioso proceedings had only just been commenced, yet according to section 38 of Act No. 136, the Supreme Court would have had jurisdiction to try the same, after the suspension of the judicial proceedings on account of the war had been ended.

There was a decree of composition in favor of the predecessor of the petitioners. The jurisdiction of the Direccion General de Administracion which issued the same, as set forth in the decision itself, was well known.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment appealed from, without costs in this instance. So ordered.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

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