MODULE 1

A. BACKGROUND AND BASIC LAND LAWS

a. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND – PALABRICA
i. GR No. 133250 07-09-2002
The Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias declared that: "We, having acquired
full sovereignty over the Indies, and all lands, territories, and possessions not
heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name,
still pertaining to the royal crown and patrimony, it is our will that all lands
which are held without proper and true deeds of grant be restored to us
according as they belong to us, in order that after reserving before all what to
us or to our viceroys, audiencias, and governors may seem necessary for
public squares, ways, pastures, and commons in those places which are
peopled, taking into consideration not only their present condition, but also
their future and their probable increase, and after distributing to the natives
what may be necessary for tillage and pasturage, confirming them in what
they now have and giving them more if necessary, all the rest of said lands
may remain free and unencumbered for us to dispose of as we may
wish." See concurring opinion of Justice Reynato S. Puno in Republic Real
Estate Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 199 (1998).

(The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is

rooted in the Regalian doctrine which holds that the State owns all lands and
waters of the public domain. Upon the Spanish conquest of the Philippines,
ownership of all "lands, territories and possessions" in the Philippines passed
to the Spanish Crown.

ii.

G.R. No. 95608 January 21, 1997

SPOUSES IGNACIO PALOMO and TRINIDAD PASCUAL, and CARMEN

PALOMO VDA. DE BUENAVENTURA, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, FAUSTINO J. PERFECTO, RAFFY SANTILLAN, BOY
ARIADO, LORENZO BROCALES, SALVADOR DOE, and other
DOES, respondents.

ROMERO, J.:

The issue in the case at bar pertains to ownership of 15 parcels of land in

Tiwi, Albay which form part of the "Tiwi Hot Spring National Park." The facts
of the case are as follows.
On June 13, 1913, then Governor General of the Philippine Islands, William
Cameron Forbes issued Executive Order No. 40 which reserved for
provincial park purposes some 440,530 square meters of land situated in
Barrio Naga, Municipality of Tiwi, Province of Albay pursuant to the
provisions of Act 648 of the Philippine Commission. 1

Subsequently, the then Court of First Instance of Albay, 15th Judicial District,
United States of America, ordered the registration of 15 parcels of land
covered by Executive Order No. 40 in the name of Diego Palomo on
December 9, 1916; December 28, and January 17, 1917. Diego Palomo
2 3 4

donated these parcels of land consisting of 74,872 square meters which were
allegedly covered by Original Certificates of Title Nos. 513, 169, 176 and
173 to his heirs, herein petitioners, Ignacio and Carmen Palomo two months
5

before his death in April 1937. 6

Claiming that the aforesaid original certificates of title were lost during the
Japanese occupation, Ignacio Palomo filed a petition for reconstitution with
the Court of First Instance of Albay on May 30, 1950. The Register of Deeds
7

of Albay issued Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 3911, 3912, 3913 and 3914
sometime in October 1953. 8

On July 10, 1954 President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 47

converting the area embraced by Executive Order No. 40 into the "Tiwi Hot
Spring National Park," under the control, management, protection and
administration of the defunct Commission of Parks and Wildlife, now a
division of the Bureau of Forest Development. The area was never released
as alienable and disposable portion of the public domain and, therefore, is
neither susceptible to disposition under the provisions of the Public Land Law
(CA 141) nor registrable under the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496).

The Palomos, however, continued in possession of the property, paid real

estate taxes thereon and introduced improvements by planting rice,
9

bananas, pandan and coconuts. On April 8, 1971, petitioner Carmen vda. de

Buenaventura and spouses Ignacio Palomo and Trinidad Pascual mortgaged
the parcels of land covered by TCT 3911, 3912, 3913 and 3914 to guarantee
a loan of P200,000 from the Bank of the Philippine Islands.

In May 7, 1974 petitioner Carmen vda. de Buenaventura and spouses

Ignacio Palomo and Trinidad Pascual filed Civil Case No. T-143 before the
then Court of First Instance of Albay for Injunction with damages against
private respondents Faustino J. Perfecto, Raffy Santillan, Boy Ariado,
Lorenzo Brocales, Salvador Doe and other Does who are all employees of
the Bureau of Forest Development who entered the land covered by TCT No.
3913 and/or TCT 3914 and cut down bamboos thereat, totally leveling no
less than 4 groves worth not less than P2,000.00.

On October 11, 1974, the Republic of the Philippines filed Civil Case No. T-
176 for annulment and cancellation of Certificates of Title involving the 15
parcels of land registered in the name of the petitioners and subject of Civil
Case T-143. Impleaded with the petitioners as defendants were the Bank of
the Philippine Islands, Legazpi Branch and the Register of Deeds of Albay.
The case against the Bank of Philippine Islands was dismissed because the
loan of P200,000 with the Bank was already paid and the mortgage in its
favor cancelled.

A joint trial of Civil Case T-143 and T-176 was conducted upon agreement of
the parties and on July 31, 1986, the trial court rendered the following
decision:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered:

IN CIVIL CASE No. T-143, in favor of the defendants and

against the plaintiffs, dismissing the complaint for injunction
and damages, as it is hereby DISMISSED.

Costs against the plaintiffs.

In CIVIL CASE No. T-176, in favor of the plaintiffs and against

the defendants:

(1) Declaring null and void and no force and effect the Order
dated September 14, 1953, as well as the Original Certificate
of Titles Nos. 153, 169, 173 and 176 and Transfer
10

Certificates of Titles Nos. 3911, T-3912, T-3913, and T-3914,

all of the Register of Deeds of Albay and all transactions
based on said titles.

(2) Forfeiting in favor of the plaintiff Government any and all

improvements on the lands in question that are found therein
and introduced by the defendants;

(3) Declaring Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9,10, 11 and 12,

Plan II-9299 and Lots 1, 21, 3 and 4 of Plan II-9205 as part
11

of the Tiwi Hot Spring National Park;

(4) and Finally, the Register of Deeds of Albay is hereby

ordered to cancel the alleged Original Certificates of Titles
Nos. 513, 169, 173 and 176, Transfer Certificates of Title
Nos. T-3911, T-3912, T-3913 and T-3914.

Costs against the defendants.

So Ordered. 12

The court a quo in ruling for the Republic found no sufficient proof that the
Palomos have established property rights over the parcels of land in question
before the Treaty of Paris which ended the Spanish-American War at the end
of the century. The court further stated that assuming that the decrees of the
Court of First Instance of Albay were really issued, the Palomos obtained no
right at all over the properties because these were issued only when
Executive Order No. 40 was already in force. At this point, we take note that
although the Geodetic Engineer of the Bureau of Lands appointed as one of
the Commissioners in the relocation survey of the properties stated in his
reamended report that of the 3,384 square meters covered by Lot 2, Plan II-
9205, only 1,976 square meters fall within the reservation area, the RTC
13

ordered TCT 3913 covering the entire Lot 21 (sic) Plan II-9205 cancelled.

The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the
findings of the lower Court; hence this petition raising the following issues:

1. The respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse

of discretion in affirming in toto the decision of the lower court.

2. The declaration of nullity of the original certificates of title

and subsequent transfer certificates of titles of the petitioners
over the properties in question is contrary to law and
jurisprudence on the matter.

3. The forfeiture of all improvements introduced by the

petitioners in the premises in favor of the government is
against our existing law and jurisprudence.

The issues raised essentially boil down to whether or not the alleged original
certificate of titles issued pursuant to the order of the Court of First Instance
in 1916-1917 and the subsequent TCTs issued in 1953 pursuant to the
petition for reconstitution are valid.

Petitioners contend that the Treaty of Paris which ended the Spanish-
American War at the end of the 19th century recognized the property rights of
Spanish and Filipino citizens and the American government had no inherent
power to confiscate properties of private citizens and declare them part of
any kind of government reservation. They allege that their predecessors in
interest have been in open, adverse and continuous possession of the
subject lands for 20-50 years prior to their registration in 1916-1917. Hence,
the reservation of the lands for provincial purposes in 1913 by then
Governor-general Forbes was tantamount to deprivation of private property
without due process of law.

In support of their claim, the petitioners presented copies of a number of

decisions of the Court of First Instance of Albay, 15th Judicial District of the
United States of America which state that the predecessors in interest of the
petitioners' father Diego Palomo, were in continuous, open and adverse
possession of the lands from 20 to 50 years at the time of their registration in
1916.

We are not convinced.

The Philippines passed to the Spanish Crown by discovery and conquest in

the 16th century. Before the Treaty of Paris in April 11, 1899, our lands,
whether agricultural, mineral or forest were under the exclusive patrimony
and dominion of the Spanish Crown. Hence, private ownership of land could
only be acquired through royal concessions which were documented in
various forms, such as (1) Titulo Real or Royal Grant," (2) Concesion
Especial or Special Grant, (3) Titulo de Compra or Title by Purchase and (4)
Informacion Posesoria or Possessory Information title obtained under the
Spanish Mortgage Law or under the Royal Decree of January 26, 1889.

Unfortunately, no proof was presented that the petitioners' predecessors in

interest derived title from an old Spanish grant. Petitioners placed much
reliance upon the declarations in Expediente No. 5, G.L.R.O. Record
Decision No. 9820, dated January 17, 1917; Expediente No. 6, G.L.R.O.
Record No. 9821, dated December 28, 1916; Expediente No. 7, G.L.R.O.
Record No. 9822, dated December 9, 1916; Expediente No. 8, G.L.R.O.
Record No. 9823, dated December 28, 1916 and Expediente No. 10,
G.L.R.O. Record No. 9868, dated December 9, 1916 of the Court of First
Instance of Albay, 15th Judicial District of the United States of America
presided by Judge Isidro Paredes that their predecessors in interest were in
open, adverse and continuous possession of the subject lands for 20-50
years. The aforesaid "decisions" of the Court of First Instance, however,
14

were not signed by the judge but were merely certified copies of notification
to Diego Palomo bearing the signature of the clerk of court.

Moreover, despite claims by the petitioners that their predecessors in interest

were in open, adverse and continuous possession of the lands for 20 to 50
years prior to their registration in 1916-1917, the lands were surveyed only in
December 1913, the very same year they were acquired by Diego Palomo.
Curiously , in February 1913 or 10 months before the lands were surveyed
for Diego Palomo, the government had already surveyed the area in
preparation for its reservation for provincial park purposes. If the petitioners'
predecessors in interest were indeed in possession of the lands for a number
of years prior to their registration in 1916-1917, they would have undoubtedly
known about the inclusion of these properties in the reservation in 1913. It
certainly is a trifle late at this point to argue that the government had no right
to include these properties in the reservation when the question should have
been raised 83 years ago.

As regards the petitioners' contention that inasmuch as they obtained the

titles without government opposition, the government is now estopped from
questioning the validity of the certificates of title which were granted. As
correctly pointed out by the respondent Court of Appeals, the principle of
estoppel, does not operate against the Government for the act of its agents. 15

Assuming that the decrees of the Court of First Instance were really issued,
the lands are still not capable of appropriation. The adverse possession
which may be the basis of a grant of title in confirmation of imperfect title
cases applies only to alienable lands of the public domain.

There is no question that the lands in the case at bar were not alienable
lands of the public domain. As testified by the District Forester, records in the
Bureau of Forestry show that the subject lands were never declared as
alienable and disposable and subject to private alienation prior to 1913 up to
the present. Moreover, as part of the reservation for provincial park
16

purposes, they form part of the forest zone.

It is elementary in the law governing natural resources that forest land cannot
be owned by private persons. It is not registrable and possession thereof, no
matter how lengthy, cannot convert it into private property, unless such
17

lands are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable.

Neither do the tax receipts which were presented in evidence prove

ownership of the parcels of land inasmuch as the weight of authority is that
tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership in land registration
cases. 18

Having disposed of the issue of ownership, we now come to the matter

regarding the forfeiture of improvements introduced on the subject lands. It
bears emphasis that Executive Order No. 40 was already in force at the time
the lands in question were surveyed for Diego Palomo. Petitioners also
apparently knew that the subject lands were covered under the reservation
when they filed a petition for reconstitution of the lost original certificates of
title inasmuch as the blueprint of Survey Work Order Number 21781 of Plan
II-9299 approved by the Chief of the Land Registration Office Enrique Altavas
in 1953 as a true and correct copy of the Original Plan No. II-9299 filed in the
Bureau of Lands dated September 11, 1948 contains the following note, "in
19

conflict with provincial reservation." In any case, petitioners are presumed

20

to know the law and the failure of the government to oppose the registration
of the lands in question is no justification for the petitioners to plead good
faith in introducing improvements on the lots.

Finally, since 1,976 square meters of the 3,384 square meters covered by
TCT 3913 fall within the reservation, TCT 3913 should be annulled only with
respect to the aforesaid area. Inasmuch as the bamboo groves leveled in
TCT 3913 and subject of Civil Case T-143, were within the perimeter of the
21

national park, no pronouncement as to damages is in order.

22

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED

with the modification that TCT 3913 be annulled with respect to the 1,976
square meter area falling within the reservation zone.

SO ORDERED.

iii.