Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > March 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4582 March 26, 1953 - FLORENTINO MANIPON v. GOV’T. OF THE U.S.

092 Phil 850:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4582. March 26, 1953.]

FLORENTINO MANIPON, Applicant-Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, Opponent-Appellee.

Filemon Cajator for Appellant.

Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. LAND REGISTRATION; DECREE OF REGISTRATION SET ASIDE BY REASON OF FRAUD. — Since the petition for review of the decree under section 38 of Act No. 496 was made within one year from the date of its entry, alleging that the land in question was part of the Clark Field Airforce Base, and that the registration had been secured through fraud in that the applicant intentionally failed to inform the court of that fact, the decree of registration entered into in the name of the appellant has to be set aside.


D E C I S I O N


TUASON, J.:


This is an appeal to reverse an order of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac which sets aside a decree of registration entered in the name of the appellants.

It appears that Florentino Manipon, one of the appellants (the other being his wife), on March 14, 1943, filed an application for the registration of a parcel of land described in the accompanying plan and containing an area of 108,374 square meters. With the opposition of the Director of Lands, who alleged that the land whose registration was applied for was part of the public domain and belonged to the Government of the Philippines, the application came on for initial hearing on January 5, 1944. On October 26, 1945, decision was handed down granting the application; and on June 28, 1946, there being no appeal, the corresponding decree was issued upon the motion of the Appellant.

On May 26, 1947, well within one year from the date of its entry, the Solicitor General of the Philippines, in behalf of the Government of the United States, filed a petition for review of the decree under Section 38 of Act No. 496, alleging that the land in question was part of the United States Military Reservation, known as Clark Field Airforce Base, and that the registration had been secured through fraud in that the applicant intentionally failed to inform the court of that fact. After proper hearing, the Court, on December 27, 1950, made the order from which the present appeal was taken and the dispository part of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby sets aside as null and void Decree No. 766655 and cancels as null and void the certificate of title issued thereunder in favor of the spouses Florentino Manipon and Ana Sibal. However, in view of the fact that there is a strip of the portion of the lot covered by the decree No. 766655 which is not included within the military reservation, the Court will, upon the applicant spouses Florentino Manipon and Ana Sibal filing a subdivision plan together with its corresponding technical description of the portion not included within the military reservation, order the issuance of a decree for the registration of the said portion outside the military reservation in the names of applicants spouses Florentino Manipon and Ana Sibal."cralaw virtua1aw library

The appellants make nine assignments of error, the first two of which question the finding that the land in question is included in the above-mentioned military reservation.

This question poses no serious problem. The appealed order is subject to the results of the segregation or subdivision plan which will have to be made in the execution of the order under consideration. This survey will show whether or not the sketch plan attached to the petition for review and which was not impugned by the appellants in the court below is wrong, and if wrong, the exact extent of the error.

The rest of the assignments of error raise a legal question. Briefly, the appellants take the position that the United States Government can not take and keep their land which, according to the findings of the court, the appellants point out, has been in their peaceful, public, continuous, and adverse possession for at least fifty years.

Among others, Government of the United States v. Judge of First Instance of Pampanga, 50 Phil., 976, is decisive against the appellants’ contention both in its factual and legal aspects. That case involved the validity of the registration in a cadastral case in the name of the Manila Railroad Company of certain lots which were inside the same military reservation that is now Clark Field Airforce Base and for which lots no claim had been made in the reservation proceedings. After noting that no irregularity appeared to have been committed in the said reservation proceedings, which had been commenced in 1903 and concluded in 1908, the Court held that the titles to all private lands included in the tract and which had been registered, without claims having been presented by their owners within the term fixed by section 4 of Act No. 627, were deemed definitely settled and their subsequent registration was without the court’s jurisdiction to order and so was null and void.

It may be of interest to note in this connection that the Manila Railroad Company’s lots were and had been in visible possession of the company and that the United States Military authorities had at least constructive notice of the cadastral proceedings and were in a position to file therein the United States Government’s claim or opposition; whereas here the appellants could have been mistaken for squatters and their application for registration was filed during the war, when the enemy was in absolute occupancy of the place. One other notable feature of the present case, which tends to lend weight to the charge of fraud, was that the appellants’ plan was made and approved as early as 1932, but the application was not filed until the rightful occupants had been driven away, albeit temporarily, from the country.

The order of the Court of First Instance from which this appeal has been taken is affirmed with costs against the appellants.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, 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






March-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5074 March 3, 1953 - IN RE: TAN CHONG YAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-5276 March 3, 1953 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASS’N.

    092 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-3517 March 4, 1953 - LAURA ADIARTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Division), ET AL.

    092 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-5098 March 10, 1953 - CERVERLEON T. DY v. REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS

    092 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-5302 March 11, 1953 - GERTRUDO FLORES, ET AL. v. ARSENIO ESCUDERO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-4263 March 12, 1953 - AMADO B. PARREÑO v. HON. JAMES P. MCGRANERY

    092 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-4998 March 13, 1953 - JOSE ALCANTARA, ET AL. v. MARIANO D. TUAZON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-5216 March 16, 1953 - LIM BING IT v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 799

  • G.R. No. L-4710 March 19, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIMACO TABUNARES

    092 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-5517 March 19, 1953 - DAMASO MADRID v. HON. ANATOLIO C. MAÑALAC, ET AL.

    092 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-6036 March 19, 1953 - IN RE: GERONIMO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-4640 March 23, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO AVILA

    092 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-4991 March 23, 1953 - COSME OIDA FOLLOSCO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET ALS.

    092 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. L-5369 March 23, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSEBIO FAJARDO

    092 Phil 818

  • G.R. Nos. L-5757 & L-5892 March 23, 1953 - PAULINA DE JESUS, ET AL. v. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 822

  • G.R. No. L-4463 March 24, 1953 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROV. OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    092 Phil 826

  • G.R. No. L-4883 March 25, 1953 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL. v. FELICIANO DE LA CRUZ

    092 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. L-5380 March 25, 1953 - FERMIN RAMOS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL ALBANO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-5555 March 25, 1953 - EUGENIO O. REYES v. PABLO G. CORNISTA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-5621 March 25, 1953 - PHIL. MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS’ ASS’N. v. PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

    092 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. L-4582 March 26, 1953 - FLORENTINO MANIPON v. GOV’T. OF THE U.S.

    092 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-5224 March 26, 1953 - DOMINGO LUIS, ET AL. v. ANTONIO BELMONTE ETC. ET AL.

    092 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-5371 March 26, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUINO MINGOA

    092 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. L-5952 March 26, 1953 - OTILLA SOLDER DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. ANATALIO C. MAÑALAC, ET AL.

    092 Phil 860

  • G.R. No. L-5204 March 27, 1953 - IN RE: HOSPICIO OBILES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 864

  • G.R. Nos. L-5853-54 March 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL BELENO

    092 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-4838 March 28, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX DACANAY, ET AL.

    092 Phil 872