Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1912 > March 1912 Decisions > G.R. No. 6958 March 29, 1912 - GABRIELA SANTOS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

022 Phil 424:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 6958. March 29, 1912. ]

GABRIELA SANTOS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, opponent-appellant.

Attorney-General Villamor, for Appellant.

Gabriel & Diaz, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. REALTY; TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE. — The fact that land of private ownership is required to widen a public street or road does not authorize the Government to seize the land. Expropriation is the proper method in such cases, as provided by sections 241 to 253 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No person may be deprived of his property for public purposes, except by proper authority after due compensation. If property is taken otherwise, the courts will reinstate the owner in his possession. (Art. 349, Civil Code.)


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


The herein applicant seeks inscription in the land registry of five parcels of land situated in the Province of Rizal and which are described in the application and specified therein under the letters A, B, C, D, and E. The engineer of the thirteenth district of the Bureau of Public Works opposed the application with respect to the parcels A, B, and C, alleging that there should be segregated from the first two a strip of land 2.70 meters wide on the side thereof which borders the provincial highway known as "Pasig-Montalban," also called Calzada de Mabini, and from the third, a strip 3.30 meters wide along the northeast side of the same adjoining the highway leading to Montalban, which is an extension or continuation of the road just aforementioned.

After hearing the case, the Court of Land Registration overruled the opposition to the application and ordered the inscription of the five parcels of land in the name of the applicant.

It is shown by the evidence that the highway adjoining the Parcels A and B now measures 7 meters and 30 centimeters in width; and that which borders Parcel C, 6 meters and 70 centimeters. The opponent maintains that each of these highways should, in accordance with law, have a width of 12.90 meters, and that strips of land of a width equal to the difference between said 12.90 meters and the width of said highways at the present time, should be taken from the parcels which adjoin the said highways.

The judgment declares the following facts to have been proved:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the boundaries of the said three parcels adjoining the highway, have never been altered or changed and that the royal order of May 21, 1868 (cited as a ground by the opponent), which served as a basis for the instructions issued by the Bureau of Public Works providing that the said highway should have a width of 12 meters and 90 centimeters, was never complied with.

"2. That the highway in question has not until now been sought to be widened to a width of 12 meters and 30 centimeters, by taking from the adjoining properties the land necessary.

"3. That the applicant acquired the properties described in the application, by inheritance from the deceased Carmen Amado who was in possession of the same, as owner, for more than thirty years, including the time the land was in the possession of her predecessor in interest, her father, Valeriano Amado."cralaw virtua1aw library

These conclusions of fact are not controverted in the opponent’s brief, and in reality agree with the evidence adduced at the trial: wherefore, they should be maintained. It is clearly to be deduced from them that the strips of land, the subject of the adverse party’s claim, never formed a part of either the Mabini or the Montalban highway. The royal order cited by the opponent, which prescribes the width of highways, was never complied with as regards the two roads just named, neither did the latter ever have an actual width of 12.90 meters which now, and only now, the opponent claims they have. Such being the case, the allegations completely fail that are solely and exclusively founded on the fact, not only unproven but also conclusively contradicted by the evidence, that the strips of land in question constitute a part of the aforesaid highways and were aggregated to or incorporated with the applicant’s property to the prejudice and detriment of these roads.

For the same reason, the opponent’s allegation also completely fails, to wit, that the applicant’s possession of more than thirty years can not serve her as a title for the acquisition of ownership of the strips of land in question, because the same are parts of public roads or highways. It has already hereinabove been shown that this alleged fact is in no wise true, since these strips of land never were any part of such roads.

That these strips of land are necessary to give to the highways above named the width required by existing provisions of law, is not a reason which can-lawfully prevent the inscription sought by the applicant, it being, as has been shown, that she and her predecessors in interest have been in quiet, peaceable and uninterrupted possession, as owners, of the lands that are the subject of the application. The opponent could bring the proper action for expropriation, in conformity with the provisions of sections 241 to 253 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but it is not lawful, in the meanwhile, to deprive the applicant, for that sole reason, of the ownership of the lands in question and of the rights inherent thereto.

"No one shall be deprived of his property, except by competent authority and with sufficient cause of public utility, always after the proper indemnity.

"If this requisite has not been fulfilled the judges shall protect, and in a proper case replace the condemned party in possession." (Art. 349, Civil Code.)

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the opponent.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1912 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 6783 March 1, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS REOGILON, ET AL

    022 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 6183 March 2, 1912 - JUAN SAMBRANO v. BALDOMERO AR ZAGA, ET AL

    022 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 5902 March 7, 1912 - P. P. ANGEL ORTIZ, ET AL v. Chinaman FELIX MELLIZA

    022 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 6472 March 7, 1912 - MANUELA ROSARIO, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    022 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 6092 March 8, 1912 - TAN CHIONG SIAN v. INCHAUSTI & Co.

    022 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 6874 March 8, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CAYETANO RAMAYRAT

    022 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 6891 March 8, 1912 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ET AL.

    022 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 7350 March 8, 1912 - EUGENIA SAVILLA v. ESTEBAN SABELLANO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 5735 March 9, 1912 - ESTATE OF LUIS R. YANGCO v. ANTONINO DE ASIS

    022 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 7189 March 9, 1912 - ADOLFO RAZLAG v. SANCHO BALANTACBO

    022 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 6163 March 14, 1912 - SON CUI, ET AL v. ATANASIA M. GUEPANGCO, ET AL

    022 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 6801 March 14, 1912 - JULIANA BAGTAS v. ISIDORO PAGUIO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 6962 March 14, 1912 - INES FELICIANO v. ELISA CAMAHORT

    022 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 7117 March 14, 1912 - AGUSTINA RAFOLS v. EMILIA RAFOLS, ET AL.

    022 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 6622 March 15, 1912 - PAULA DIRILO v. INOCENCIO ROPERES, ET AL.

    022 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. 7020 March 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. DAMIAN SANTA ANA, ET AL

    022 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 7037 March 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE LAUREL, ET AL.

    022 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 6748 March 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AMBROSIO FIGUEROA

    022 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 6574 March 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CLEMENTE

    022 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 7027 March 20, 1912 - GEORGE E. WORCESTER v. BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP LINES

    022 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 5935 March 22, 1912 - STRACHAN & MACMURRAY v. SEGUNDO EMALDI

    022 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 6585 March 22, 1912 - EULALIO LAGARIZA v. COMMANDING GEN. OF THE DIV. OF THE PHIL.

    022 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 6809 March 22, 1912 - GREGORIO PEÑALOSA v. DEMETRIO TUASON, ET AL.

    022 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 7040 March 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMINO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    022 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 7203 March 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CHUA PUETE, ET AL

    022 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 7294 March 22, 1912 - G. URRUTIA & COMPANY v. PASIG STEAMER & LIGHTER CO.

    022 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7144 March 23, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. Co CHICUYCO

    022 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 6918 March 25, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. YAP KIN CO

    022 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 7075 March 25, 1912 - RODRIGO ALBANO v. CORNELIO AGTARAP, ET AL.

    022 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 7124 March 25, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MARIA ASUNCION

    022 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 7474 March 25, 1912 - HENRY ATHOLL EDWARDS v. H. B. McCOY

    022 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 6286 March 26, 1912 - GAVINA FERNANDEZ v. EULOGIO TRIA

    022 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 6579 March 26, 1912 - CHIENG AH SUI v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    022 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. 6694 March 26, 1912 - MARIANO NARCIDA, ET AL v. BURTON E. BOWEN

    022 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 6729 March 26, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO FIDELDIA

    022 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 7165 March 26, 1912 - DAMASA LAFORGA, ET AL. v. BRUNO LAFORGA

    022 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 6651 March 28, 1912 - PAULINO JACINTO v. JULIANA SALVADOR, ET AL.

    022 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 6733 March 28, 1912 - VICTORIANO S. LAZO v. MARIANO N. LAZO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 6920 March 28, 1912 - ALEJANDRA IRLANDA v. CATALINA PITARGUE, ET AL.

    022 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 7289 March 28, 1912 - ANDRES S. TOBIAS, ET AL. v. GABRIEL C. ENRICO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 6164 March 29, 1912 - JUAN MARBELLA v. DOMINGO SAMSON, ET AL.

    022 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 6664 March 29, 1912 - PEDRO GERALDO v. MATEO ARPON

    022 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 6690 March 29, 1912 - SILVESTRA V. TENORIO v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    022 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 6886 March 29, 1912 - GAUDENCIO TABOTABO v. GREGORIA MOLERO

    022 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 6958 March 29, 1912 - GABRIELA SANTOS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    022 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 7089 March 29, 1912 - JOSE T. PATERNO v. PEDRO AGUILA, ET AL

    022 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 7094 March 29, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO DE LA CRUZ

    022 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 7688 March 29, 1912 - MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT CO. v. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    022 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 6859 March 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS MATINONG, ET AL.

    022 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 6912 March 30, 1912 - JOSE ARGUELLES v. PEDRO SYYAP, ET AL

    022 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 7386 March 30, 1912 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. PEDRO P. ROXAS

    022 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 7180 March 30, 1912 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. A. S. WATSON & CO. LTD.

    022 Phil 623