SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, vs. LUIS ADELANTAR, ET AL., claimants.
MARTA ESPINOSA, TERESO SAZON, DONATO DEOCAMPO, GRACIANO JARODA, BALBINO DEQUILLA Y BELANDRES, GREGORIA PANAGUITON, BERNARDO SIAOTONG, CATALINA SARROSA, LEONARDO ARANETA, ALFONSO DORONILLA, CAROLINA BLANCAFLOR, AGUSTIN PEREZ, JESUS BUENSUCESO, JESUS BIONA, NICOLAS BARRIDO, VALENTIN BUENSUCESO and NICOLAS BUENSUCESO, appellants.
THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY and THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, appellees.

Tre�as & Laserna for appellants Marta Espinosa, Graciano Jaroda, Balbino Dequilla, Gregoria Panaguiton, Bernardo Siaotong, Catalina Sarrosa, Leonardo Araneta, Carolina Blancaflor, Agustin Perez, Jesus Buensuceso, Jesus Biona, and Nicolas Barrido.
Hervas & Concepcion for appellant Tereso Sazon.
A. E. Soque�a for appellant Donato Deocampo.
God. P. Escalona for appellants Valentin Buensuceso and Nicolas Buensuceso.
Alfonso Doronila in his own behalf.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellees.

OSTRAND, J.:

On September 14, 1925, the Philippine Government instituted a cadastral proceeding of a tract of land situated in the municipality of Barotac Nuevo, Province of Iloilo, in accordance with section 1855 of the Administrative Code. A large part of the tract appears to be mangrove swamps, the administration of which is claimed by the Bureau of Forestry. The Bureau of Lands also claimed the lots with the exception of lot No. 1081. The same lots are also claimed by private individuals.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Upon trial the Court of First Instance declared the lots to be public lands with the exception of certain portions which had been under cultivation, and the herein claimants appealed to this court. The names of the claimants and the numbers of the lots, as well as the numbers of the cases appealed, are as follows:

Lot No.	Private claimant	G. R. No.
725	Marta Espinosa and Quirino S. Cabrero	32133
1081	Tereso Sazon	32155
841	Donato Deocampo	32156
743	Graciano Jaroda	32179
2668	Vicente Catequista, Feliciano Cartagena	32179
850 and 851	Balbino Dequilla y Belandres	32198
783	Gregorio Panaguiton	32238
855	Bernardo Siaotong	32239
1086 and 1094	Catalina Sarrosa	32272
1097	Leonardo Araneta	32273
1265	Alfonso Doronila	32274
1266 and 1267	do	32275
1193	Carolina Blancaflor and heirs of Quirino Agudo	32301
1210	Leonardo Araneta	32302
1253	Aguston Perez	32303
1198	Jesus Buensuceso, Blas Gonzalez, and Higino Belmonte	32304
1199	Jesus Biona	32305
1232	Nicolas Barrido	32333
1197	Valentin Buensuceso	32353
1233	Nicolas Buensuceso and Feliciano Cartagena	32354

After a careful examination of the various cases included in the brief of the Attorney-General we can see no error in the findings of the court below. The claimants pretend that they, by themselves, and their predecessors in interest have had possession of the respective parcels of land for long periods, but, if so, the occupancy of the land can only have been precarious. As stated above, the tract in question consists principally of mangrove swamps and the administration thereof has been in the hands of the Bureau of Forestry. Only for of the lots, namely, Nos. 725, 841, 850 and 851 have been declared for taxation and that was only in the years 1916 and 1917. The remaining lots do not seem to have been declared by anyone for the purpose of taxation, and in the past the Bureau of Forestry has generally issued licenses to cut wood and to construct fishponds on the tract in question. Some of the licensees and permitees are claimants herein and it seems evident that the present opposition of the appellants is comparatively a recent undertaking. It will be noted that there is no proof whatever that the lands in question had ever been acquired by the appellants or their supposed predecessors in interest either by composition title from the Spanish Government or by possessory information title or by any other legal means to acquire public lands and no such title papers have been offered in evidence in the trial.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is also apparent that the appellants have not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the lands in controversy, as required by law. Under section 45 ( b) of Act No. 2874, the possession of public land, without title derived from the Government, must have commenced before July 26, 1894, and have been continuous thereafter at least until July 1, 1919, when said Act No. 2874 became effective. The appellants having failed to comply with the provisions of the law, the lots claimed cannot be registered in their favor under the aforesaid section 45 ( b) of Act No. 2874. The statute of limitations in regard to public land does not run against the Government.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The decision of the court below in regard to all of the cases above enumerated is hereby affirmed without costs. So ordered.

Avance�a, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.