Scribd
Upload
54 views

Ayog V Cusi Case Digest

1) In 1953, land was awarded through bidding to Biñan Development Co. and occupants were ordered to vacate but protested. 2) In 1961, Biñan paid the purchase price and was found compliant with requirements. 3) In 1975, a sales patent was issued to Biñan but petitioners claimed longstanding occupancy and invoked the 1973 Constitution's prohibition on private corporations holding public land. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition did not apply retroactively as Biñan had acquired vested rights to the land before the new Constitution took effect.

Uploaded by

Jan Camele Lawsin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
54 views

Ayog V Cusi Case Digest

1) In 1953, land was awarded through bidding to Biñan Development Co. and occupants were ordered to vacate but protested. 2) In 1961, Biñan paid the purchase price and was found compliant with requirements. 3) In 1975, a sales patent was issued to Biñan but petitioners claimed longstanding occupancy and invoked the 1973 Constitution's prohibition on private corporations holding public land. 4) The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition did not apply retroactively as Biñan had acquired vested rights to the land before the new Constitution took effect.

Uploaded by

Jan Camele Lawsin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Land Title and Deeds

Original Registration of Title

LAUSAN AYOG, et.al. petitioner


Vs
JUDGE VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch I, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF DAVAO,
and BIÑAN DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., respondents

G.R. No. L-46729. November 19, 1982


AQUINO, J:

Facts:

In 1953, Director of Lands, after a bidding, awarded to Biñan Development Co., Inc. Cadastral Lot No.
281 located in Davao City. Some occupants protested against the sale but Director of Lands dismissed
the protests and ordered occupants to vacate the lot and remove their improvements.

Biñan Development filed in the Court of First Instance of Davao, an ejectment suit against the alleged
occupants and, thus, the issuance of patent was delayed.

In 1961, Biñan Development paid the purchase price and the Bureau of Lands submitted a report that it
complied with the cultivation and other requirements under Public Land Law.

In 1974, in a memorandum of Director of Lands recommended the approval of the sales patent because
it has complied with the requirements long before the effectivity of the Constitution and the land is free
from claims and conflicts and was an exception to the prohibition in Section 11, Article XIV of the
Constitution.

In 1975, Sales Patent No. 5681 was issued to Biñan Development and noted that it had acquired a
vested right to its issuance.

Petitioners testified that they entered the disputed land long before 1951 and that they planted it to
coconuts, coffee, jackfruit and other fruit trees.

Trial Court dismissed the protests against the sales award. During its ocular inspection of the land on
1964 found that the plantings on land could not be more than 10 years old, meaning that they were not
existing in 1953 when the sales award was made. Hence, it ordered to vacate the land and to restore the
possession to the company.

CA affirmed the trial court decision.

Petitioners opposed the execution and contended that the adoption of the Constitution, which took
effect on January 17, 1973, was a supervening fact which rendered it legally impossible to execute the
lower court's judgment. They invoked the constitutional prohibition, that "no private corporation or
association may hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease not to exceed one thousand
hectares in area."

Issue:

Whether Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution prohibition has a retroactive effect.
Land Title and Deeds
Original Registration of Title

Ruling of Justice Aquino:

No.

The said constitutional prohibition has no retroactive application to the sales application of Biñan
Development Co., Inc. because it had already acquired a vested right to the land applied for at the time
the 1973 Constitution took effect.

That vested right has to be respected. It could not be abrogated by the new Constitution. Section 2,
Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution allows private corporations to purchase public agricultural lands not
exceeding one thousand and twenty-four hectares. Petitioners' prohibition action is barred by the
doctrine of vested rights in constitutional law.

"A right is vested when the right to enjoyment has become the property of some particular person or
persons as a present interest". It is "the privilege to enjoy property legally vested, to enforce contracts,
and enjoy the rights of property conferred by the existing law" or "some right or interest in property
which has become fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or controversy".

Generally, "vested right" expresses the concept of present fixed interest, which in right reason and
natural justice should be protected against arbitrary State action, or an innately just and imperative right
which an enlightened free society, sensitive to inherent and irrefragable individual rights, cannot deny.

Before the Constitution took effect, the applicant had fully complied with all his obligations under the
Public Land Act in order to entitle him to a sales patent and fully paid the purchase price.

In the instant case, it is incontestable that prior to the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution the right of
the corporation to purchase the land in question had become fixed and established and was no longer
open to doubt or controversy.

Its compliance with the requirements of the Public Land Law for the issuance of a patent had the effect
of segregating the said land from the public domain. The corporation's right to obtain a patent for that
land is protected by law. It cannot be deprived of that right without due process.

Dismissed the petitions for lack of merit.

You might also like