Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > March 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-37050 March 17, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. SALVADOR C. REYES, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-37050. March 17, 1982.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE SALVADOR C. REYES, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch III, and ANGEL DE LA CRUZ, Respondents.

The Solicitor General, for Petitioners.

Feliciano F. Wycoco for Private Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Private respondent sought the registration of lot 2039 of the Rizal Cadastre (Nueva Ecija) consisting of 1.0335 hectares which had been previously declared public land by Cadastral Court on July 20, 1926. The respondent judge granted the reopening of the cadastral proceedings due to his belief that he was empowered to do so under R.A. 6236. Petitioners, in this appeal by certiorari, claim that the lower court was without jurisdiction to do so as what Act No. 6236 clearly permitted was merely the extension of the time limit for the filing of the applications for free patents and for the judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles.

The Supreme Court held that what was done by respondent judge was beyond his jurisdiction and, therefore, must be set aside. The fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law, construction and interpretation thereof to come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them.

The appealed decision was set aside and all proceedings in connection with said reopening of the cadastral proceedings were nullified. With regards however to the merits of the claim of private respondent over the disputed lot, the Supreme Court held that the Director of Lands could best determine how under the existing law, such claim can ripen into ownership.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; STATUTES; ACT NO. 6236. — Act 6236 cannot be any clearer. What was extended then was the time limit for the filing of applications for free patents and for the judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles. Its Section 1 amends Section 45 to read as follows: "The President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time fix by proclamation the period within which applications for free patents may be filed in the district, chartered city, province, municipality, or region specified in such proclamation, and upon the expiration of the period so designated, unless the same be extended by the President, all the land comprised within such district, chartered city, province, municipality, or region subject thereto under the provisions of this chapter may be disposed of as agricultural public land without prejudice to the prior right of the occupant and cultivator to acquire such land under this Act by means other than free patent.

2. ID.; ID.; REPUBLIC ACT NO. 931. — The applicable statute dealing specifically with cadastral proceedings is Republic Act No. 931, whose first section reads: "All persons claiming title to parcels of land that have been the object of cadastral proceedings, who at the time of the survey were in actual possession of the same, but for some justifiable reason had been unable to file their claim in the proper court during the time limit established by law, in case such parcels of land, on account of their failure to file such claims, have been, or are about to be declared land of the public domain, by virtue of judicial proceedings instituted within the forty years next preceeding the approval of this Act, are hereby granted the right within five years after the date on which this Act shall take effect, to petition for a reopening of the judicial proceedings under the provisions of Act No. 2259, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; DUTY OF THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW. — In Lirarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico, 24 Phil. 504 (1913), it was held: "The first and fundamental duty of courts, is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them." Such a doctrine has been reiterated time and time again.

4. ID.; SOCIAL JUSTICE; DIRECTOR OF LANDS TO DETERMINE HOW PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S CLAIM CAN RIPEN INTO OWNERSHIP.— Respondent judge’s decision reopening the cadastral proceedings and decreeing the registration of a lot previously declared public land to private respondent was beyond his jurisdiction and must be set aside. This ruling does not go further than that. There is no adjudication on the merits of the claim of private respondent over the disputed lot, barely a hectare. This decision is not to be interpreted that he is left remediless. This is one case where the Director of Lands, certainly is in the best position to determine how under existing law such claim can ripen into ownership. If that could be done, then what is sought to be achieved under the social justice provision of the Constitution may be attained. Moreover, it would bring closer to realization the hope for a truly Compassionate Society.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


In this appeal by certiorari taken by the Republic of the Philippines, 1 the letter of the law argues most persuasively for the stand taken by petitioner. Private respondent Angel de la Cruz sought to register Lot 2039 of the Rizal Cadastre (Nueva Ecija), with all the improvements thereon, consisting of 1.0335 hectares, previously declared public land by the Cadastral Court on July 20, 1926. Respondent Judge Salvador C. Reyes, now retired, did not only hear the case but also set aside the 1926 decision and decreed the registration of such lot to private Respondent. In fairness to respondent Judge, he accepted in good faith the allegation of private respondent that both the Commissioner of Land Registration and the Solicitor General were notified.

In the brief submitted by the Solicitor General, 2 it was shown that respondent Judge was aware that the land in dispute was declared public land by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija in a decision rendered on July 20, 1926. 3 This notwithstanding, respondent Judge granted the reopening of the cadastral proceedings due to his belief that he was empowered to do so under Republic Act No. 6236. In the lone error assigned, it was pointed out that the reopening of cadastral proceedings terminated on December 31, 1968. At the time then private respondent sought to reopen the case, the lower court was without jurisdiction. So it was contended.

The contention of the Solicitor General must be upheld. The Act 4 cannot be any clearer. What was extended then was the time limit for the filing of applications for free patents and for the judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles. Its Section 1 amends Section 45 to read as follows: "The President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time fix by proclamation the period within which applications for free patents may be filed in the district, chartered city, province, municipality, or region specified in such proclamation, and upon the expiration of the period so designated, unless the same be extended by the President, all the land comprised within such district, chartered city, province, municipality, or region subject thereto under the provisions of this chapter may be disposed of as agricultural public land without prejudice to the prior right of the occupant and cultivator to acquire such land under this Act by means other than free patent.." 5 There is an applicable statute to situations of this character, dealing specifically with cadastral proceedings. 6 Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico, 7 the ponente being Justice Moreland, is quite categorical: "The first and fundamental duty of courts, in our judgment, is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them." 8 Such a doctrine has been reiterated time and time again. There is thus ample justification for the appeal of the Republic of the Philippines. 9

So it is from the standpoint of strict law. What was done by respondent Judge was beyond his jurisdiction and, therefore, must be set aside. Our ruling does not go further than that. There is no adjudication on the merits of the claim of private respondent over the disputed lot, barely a hectare. This decision is not to be interpreted that he is left remediless. This is one case where the other petitioner, the Director of Lands, certainly is in the best position to determine how under existing law such claim can ripen into ownership. If that could be done, then what is sought to be achieved under the social justice provision 10 of the Constitution may be attained. Moreover, it would bring closer to realization the hope for a truly Compassionate Society.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby set aside and all proceedings had in connection with said reopening of cadastral proceedings are nullified. No costs.

Barredo, Concepcion, Jr., De Castro, Ericta and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


AQUINO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur. The petition for reopening was filed out of time. Hence, the lower court could not reopen the cadastral proceeding.

Endnotes:



1. The Director of Lands joins as co-petitioner.

2. Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Bernardo P. Pardo.

3. Appealed decision, Annex A of Brief.

4. The title of Act No. 6236 reads as follows: "AN ACT EXTENDING THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE FILING OF APPLICATIONS FOR FREE PATENTS AND FOR THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT OR INCOMPLETE TITLES." (1971).

5. Ibid.

6. Republic Act No. 931. Its first section reads: "All persons claiming title to parcels of land that have been the object of cadastral proceedings, who at the time of the survey were in actual possession of the same, but for some justifiable reason had been unable to file their claim in the proper court during the time limit established by law, in case such parcels of land, on account of their failure to file such claims, have been, or are about to be declared land of the public domain, by virtue of judicial proceedings instituted within the forty years next preceding the approval of this Act, are hereby granted the right within five years after the date on which this Act shall take effect, to petition for a reopening of the judicial proceedings under the provisions of Act Numbered Twenty-two hundred and fifty-nine, . . ." (1953).

7. 24 Phil. 504 (1913).

8. Ibid, 513.

9. In Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals, it was stressed: "It has been repeated time and time again that where the statutory norm speaks unequivocally, there is nothing for the courts to do except to apply it. The law, leaving no doubt as to the scope of its operation, must be obeyed. Our decisions have consistently been to that effect." L-27455, June 28, 1973, 51 SCRA 381, 385. The opinion cited twelve cases from People v. Mapa, L-22301, August 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 1164, to Allied Brokerage Corp. v. Commissioner of Customs, L-27641, August 31, 1971, 40 SCRA 555. An even later case is Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. Manila Railroad Company, L-25316, February 28, 1979, 88 SCRA 616.

10. According to Article II, Sec. 6 of the Constitution: "The State shall promote social justice to ensure the dignity, welfare, and security of all the people."




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-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 57883 March 12, 1982 - GUALBERTO J. DE LA LLANA, ET AL. v. MANUEL ALBA, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-30205 March 15, 1982 - UNITED GENERAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. JOSE PALER, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 130

  • G.R. No. L-30314 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 134

  • G.R. No. L-34845 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO ESPINOSA

    198 Phil. 147

  • G.R. No. L-37603 March 15, 1982 - CONSUELO LAZARO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    198 Phil. 156

  • G.R. No. L-37687 March 15, 1982 - PICEWO, ET AL. v. PINCOCO, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 166

  • G.R. No. L-38100 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO VARROGA, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 183

  • G.R. Nos. L-38507-08 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL S. MEMBROT, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 200

  • G.R. No. L-41302 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO BOSTON, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 212

  • G.R. No. L-44063 March 15, 1982 - VICTORIANO F. CORALES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 224

  • G.R. No. L-44972 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO M. MARTIJA

    198 Phil. 250

  • G.R. No. L-49858 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ABING

    198 Phil. 257

  • G.R. No. 52741 March 15, 1982 - SALUD RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 263

  • G.R. Nos. L-55243-44 March 15, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 273

  • G.R. No. L-55538 March 15, 1982 - IN RE: DIONESIO DIVINAGRACIA, JR., ET AL.

    198 Phil. 287

  • G.R. No. 57068 March 15, 1982 - JOSEPH HELMUTH, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    198 Phil. 292

  • G.R. No. L-58877 March 15, 1982 - PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 296

  • G.R. No. 59070 March 15, 1982 - PHIL. PACIFIC FISHING CO., INC., ET AL. v. ARTEMON D. LUNA, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 304

  • G.R. No. 59713 March 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO F. ARIZALA, ET AL.

    198 Phil. 314

  • G.R. No. L-28256 March 17, 1982 - SEVERO DEL CASTILLO v. LORENZO JAYMALIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37050 March 17, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. SALVADOR C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44943 March 17, 1982 - SOCORRO MONTEVIRGEN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49436 March 17, 1982 - IRENEO SALAC, ET AL. v. RICARDO TENSUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-45283-84 March 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCILA V. VALERO

  • G.R. No. 57735 March 19, 1982 - LUIS ESTRADA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2599 March 25, 1982 - HON. ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY v. AMELIA GARCIA SUAREZ

  • G.R. No. L-37223 March 25, 1982 - IN RE: CHUA SIONG TEE, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-40005 March 25, 1982 - IN RE: JOSE NGO, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-46001 March 25, 1982 - LUZ CARO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49659 March 25, 1982 - RUBEN L. ROXAS v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 51122 March 25, 1982 - EUGENIO J. PUYAT v. SIXTO T. J. DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 53869 March 25, 1982 - RAUL A. VILLEGAS v. VALENTINO L. LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58265 March 25, 1982 - DIONISIO EBON, ET AL. v. FELIZARDO S.M. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 58854 March 25, 1982 - BELEN MAZO v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF TAMBULIG, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57540 March 26, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II

  • G.R. No. 58133 March 26, 1982 - MERCEDES AGUDA, ET AL. v. AMADOR T. VALLEJOS

  • A.M. No. P-2390 March 29, 1982 - LUCAS D. CARPIO v. FRANCISCO M. GONZALES

  • A.M. No. P-2694 March 29, 1982 - MARCOS JUMALON v. CLODUALDO L. MONTES

  • G.R. No. L-25771 March 29, 1982 - URBANO JACA, ET AL. v. DAVAO LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30849 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MABINI GARACHICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33427 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS GABIERREZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-33488 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO MATIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33757 March 29, 1982 - BAYANI QUINTO, ET AL. v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

  • G.R. No. L-35474 March 29, 1982 - HONORATO C. PEREZ v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36099 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO S. TABIJE

  • G.R. No. L-39333 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO R. SACAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-39400 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO G. SY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45650 March 29, 1982 - CRESENCIO ANDRES v. BONIFACIO A. CACDAC, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-47069 March 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ORSAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49061 March 29, 1982 - PEDRO YUCOCO, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50238 March 29, 1982 - CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52091 March 29, 1982 - TERESO V. MATURAN v. SANTIAGO MAGLANA

  • G.R. No. 57460 March 29, 1982 - FILIPINAS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC. v. PHIL TRANS. & GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 2680-MJ March 30, 1982 - CORPORATE MANAGERS AND CONSULTANTS, INC. v. MANUEL B. ACOSTA

  • G.R. Nos. L-26915-18 March 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO BALADJAY

  • G.R. Nos. L-31901-02 March 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO M. HILARIO

  • G.R. No. L-33582 March 30, 1982 - OVERSEAS BANK OF MANILA v. VICENTE CORDERO

  • G.R. No. L-36553 March 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLASCO FAMADOR

  • G.R. No. L-37309 March 30, 1982 - RAMON AGTON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37494 March 30, 1982 - MANUEL SY Y LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38960 March 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO DEMATE

  • G.R. No. L-49430 March 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BELINDA V. LORA

  • G.R. No. 52188 March 30, 1982 - MD TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 52363 March 30, 1982 - OFELIA G. DURAN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53560 March 30, 1982 - PETRA GABAYA v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA