G.R. No. L-47644. August 21, 1987
FELIPA S. LARAGAN, INDEPENDENCIO SIBBALUCA, AURORA C. SIBBALUCA, AND ZENAIDA S. VALDEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, TEODORO LEANO, TOMAS LEANO, FRANCISCO LEANO,…
PADILLA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
judgment* of the respondent appellate court in CA-G.R. no. 48353-R
which affirmed, with modifications, the decision** of the Court of First Instance of Isabela in Land Reg. Case No. N-275, Land Rec. No. N-36094, ordering the registration of
the parcel of land described in Plan HS-48806 in the names
of the petitioners.
The facts of the case are as follows: On 14 October 1968, the herein petitioners, Felipa Laragan, Independencio Sibbaluca, Aurora Sibbaluca, and Zenaida Valdez
filed an application with the
Court of First Instance of Isabela for the registration of their title over a parcel of land with an area of
221,667 sq. m., more or less, situated in
the Barrio of Sto. Tomas, Ilagan, Isabela, and described in Plan HS-48806. The applicants alleged that they acquired said parcel of land by way of an absolute deed of sale from the spouses Anastacio and Lucrecia Sibbaluca and that they have been in possession thereof for
more than 34 years[1].
The application was set
for hearing on 20 May 1969. The
Land Registration Commission issued a notice of initial hearing, copies of
which were furnished all the parties concerned. The notice was published in the Official
Gazette and also posted in the
municipal building of Ilagan, Isabela as well as
in conspicuous places where the land is situated.
On the date set for the initial hearing of the
application that is, 20 May 1969, Teodoro Leano, Tomas Leano, Vicente Leano, Francisco Leano, and Consolacion Leano appeared and
served notice that they were opposing the application for registration and
they asked the court that they be granted a period of thirty (30) days within
which to submit their opposition[2].
Thereafter, the court issued
an order of general default[3].
On 7 July 1969, the
Solicitor General filed a written opposition,
on behalf of the Director of Lands, alleging, among others, that the applicants and their predecessor-in-interest do not have sufficient title to the
parcel of land sought to be registered, the same
not having been acquired by composition title from the Spanish Government or by a possessory
information title under the Royal Decree of 13 February 1894,
nor by acquisitive prescription. He
prayed that the land be declared public land[4].
On 2 August 1969, Teodoro Leano, Tomas Leano, Vicente
Leano, Francisco Leano, and Consolacion Leano filed their opposition to the application for
registration. They claimed that they are the owners, pro indiviso, of the southern part of the land applied for, with an area of 16
hectares, which is covered by Homestead Application No. 58202 of their deceased
parents, the spouses Eleuterio Leano
and Victoria Sabido, and which has been in their possession for more that 30 years[5].
Hearings were then
conducted, after which, the trial court rendered judgment confirming the title
of the applicants over the parcel of land applied for and ordering its registration in the names of the
applicants[6].
From said judgment, only
the oppositors Teodoro Leano, Tomas Leano, Vicente Leano, Francisco Leano, And Consolacion Leano appealed to the
Court of Appeals. On 9 November 1977,
the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, but excluded the
southern portion of the land applied for, which is the portion covered by
Homestead Application No. 58202 (E-34962), the appellate court declaring such
excluded portion to be public land, and
part of the public domain, in view of the failure of the applicants and oppositors
to prove registerable title over the same[7].
The petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration of the decision[8], but their motion was denied[9].
Hence, the present
petition.
The application for
registration, filed with the lower court, was for the confirmation of an imperfect
title. The law applicable is Section
48(b) of the Public Land Act which provides, as follows:
“Sec. 48. The following
described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or
claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have
not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of
the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the
issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under
the Land Registration Act, to wit:
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain,
under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years
immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title
except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be
entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
(c) xxx xxx xxx
This Court has ruled that
an applicant for confirmation of imperfect title must first comply with
all the requisites prescribed before he can acquire a vested right over the
land applied for[10].
In the instant case, the
appellate court found that, while it may be true that the petitioners and their
predecessor-in-interest, Anastacio Sibbaluca, have been in continuous and adverse possession
of the land in dispute for more than 30 years, they were not bona fide
occupants thereof. Said the appellate
court:
“The evidence on record indicates the facts to be as
follows: Sometime in 1920, Eleuterio Leano, the father of
the oppositors-appellants applied for a homestead
patent for a parcel of land located in barrio Guinatan,
(now Sto. Tomas) municipality of Ilagan,
Isabela with boundaries: North – Domingo Ancheta;
East – Felipe Jamias; South – Guinatan
Creek; and West – Juan Salvador and others; with an area of sixteen (16)
hectares. The application was covered by
Homestead Application No. 5802
(E-34962). On August 20, 1920, the application was approved subject to the conditions set forth
in law. (Annex ‘2’ of the Opposition). The applicant, then started to cultivate the
land planting corn and tobacco with the help of some tenants. On May 27, 1928, Eleuterio Leano died, survived by his wife Victoria S. de Leano and his children, the oppositors-appellants.
On December 28, 1935, the
widow, Victoria S. de Leano executed a deed of sale of the homestead in favor of Hilario
T. Maggay and his wife, Batolomea
Adduro de Maggay. Hilario
Maggay gave the property as a ‘reward’ to his nephew Sibbaluca, who from then on, took possession of the
parcel of land. However, upon
investigation conducted by the Director of Lands, regarding the proposed transfer of the rights
over the said parcel of land, to Anastacio Sibbaluca, it was found out that ‘the intention of the
parties was merely to constitute a mortgage on the homestead as a security for
the widow’s indebtedness to Hilario T. Maggay and not a real transfer of his rights thereto.’
Thus, in the order, dated December 16, 1940, the Director of Lands said:
‘x x x the proposed transfer of the homestead under consideration should be,
as hereby it is, dropped; and
Homestead Application No. 58202
(E-34962) of Eleuterio (deceased) now his heirs, shall be given due course.’
(Exhibit 2)
“On February 10, 1941,
Anastacio Sibbaluca filed
a motion for reconsideration regarding the foregoing order, questioning among
other things, the fact that there was no mention whatsoever regarding
reimbursement of his expenses over improvements introduced by him. On June
6, 1946, the Director of Lands in an Order regarding the matter
said that under the Public Land Law, the Bureau of Lands could not enforce his
right to reimbursement. Nevertheless, he had ample remedy under
substantive law. In short, he could
enforce his right in the courts
of justice. (Exhibit 3) Despite this
order, Anastacio Sibbaluca
did not vacate the premises, so that on June 10, 1947, the heirs
of Leano filed a Motion for Ejectment. On February
2, 1949, the
Director of Lands thru a certain Clodualdo Garcia,
referred the matter to the district Land Officer District No. 4, Bureau of
Lands, Ilagan, Isabela for
proper action. A portion of the letter
says:
‘x x x in order that proper action could
be taken on the “Motion” you are
hereby directed to immediately take steps for the reconstitution of the
records relative to the
above-noted application.’ (Exhibit 4)
“Pursuant to this order, Alejandro Ramos, Junior Public Lands
Inspector was ordered to make an
investigation regarding the said parcel of land.
In a letter, dated May 11,
1950, addressed to
the Director of Lands thru the District Lands,
District No. 4, Bureau of Lands, Ilagan, Isabela, Alejandro Ramos recommended the cancellation of the homestead application of applicant Leano stating his personal findings of the improvements introduced by Anastacio Sibbaluca on the land in question. (Exhibit V) However, despite this recommendation, The Chief Legal
Division of the Bureau of Lands, in
a Memorandum, dated July 8, 1968, ‘In the matter of: HA No.
58202 (E-34962) Eleuterio Leano (deceased)
now his heirs, represented by
Victoria Sabido de Leano
(widow) (Proposed Transferor) Anastacio Sibbaluca (Proposed Transferee), Guinatan,
Ilagan, Isabela addressed
to the Chief, Land Management Division
of the same office, stated:
‘We are referring to you herewith the folder of Homestead Application No. 58202 (E-34962) of Eleuterio Leano (deceased) now
his heirs, represented by Victoria Sabido de Leano, for further action thereon, informing that the Order
of this Office in the above-noted case, dated June 9, 1941, had long been final and executory.’ (Exh. 7)
“Because of the
Memorandum, Clemente Dizon,
Land
inspector of the Bureau of Lands,
was ordered by the District Land Officer (the
original order coming from the Director of Lands) to conduct an ocular
inspection on the land. Thus, on October
25, 1968, after
proper notice was given to both parties,
Clemente Dizon conducted an
ocular inspection of said land. In the
course of his investigation, he
found out that the said land was fully cultivated,
planted with manggo trees, coconut trees, oranges,
etc. Furthermore, a house was built
inside the lot. By virtue of these
findings, Dizon, in his report recommended that HA application No. 58202 (Entry No.
34962) of Eleuterio Leano
be cancelled for having been alienated and conveyed to a second party without
previous knowledge and consent of the Director of Lands. However, the record does not show, whether
this recommendation was acted upon or not.
What appears on record is that on August 27, 1968, a Homestead
Application for Reconstitution Purposes, was filed by the heirs of Eleuterio Leano, represented by
Tomas Leano, oppositor-appellant,
herein, covering the parcel of
land in issue. Also, on October
3, 1968, a Deed of
Absolute Sale was executed by spouses Anastacio Sibbaluca and Lucrecia Sibbaluca in favor of the applicants-appellees,
of the parcel of land, now in controversy.
(Exhibit F)
“From the evidence adduced, we find the applicants-appellees lacking the prerequisite pursuant to Section 48(b) CA
141, of bona fide acquisition of the said parcel of land. xxx”
The
petitioners now seek the reversal of the respondent appellate
court’s decision. They claim that the respondent appellate court acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction in declaring
the parcel of land in question as public land, because the decision of the Court of First Instance of Isabela
ordering the registration of said parcel of land in their favor, had already
become final and executory for failure of the
Director of Lands to appeal therefrom.
The argument is
untenable. While it may be true that
the Director of Lands did not appeal from the decision of the trial
court, his failure to so appeal did not make the decision of the trial court
final and executory, in view of the appeal interposed by the other oppositors,
Teodoro Leano, Tomas Leano, Francisco Leano,
and Consolacion Leano, who also seek the confirmation of their imperfect title over the land
in question.
Neither did such failure
of the Director of Lands to appeal foreclose the appellate court from declaring the land in question to
be public land, since the oppositors and the herein petitioners are both
seeking the registration of their title pursuant to the provisions of Section 48(b)
of the Public Land Law where the presumption always is that the land pertains
to the state, and the occupants
and possessors claim an interest
in the same, by virtue of their imperfect title or continuous, open, exclusive
and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership for the required number of years. Thus, in their application for
registration, the petitioners alleged that they “hereby apply to have the
land herein-after described brought under the operation of the Land
Registration Act, and to have the title thereto registered and confirmed”[11]. The petitioners are deemed to thereby admit
that, until such confirmation, the land remains public.
Besides, it is an
established rule that an applicant for
registration is not necessarily entitled to have the land registered in his
name simply because no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the
registration of the land. He must show,
even in the absence of opposition, to the satisfaction of the court, that he is
the absolute owner, in fee simple. Courts
are not justified in registering property under the Torrens system, simply because there is no opposition
offered. Courts may, even in the absence
of any opposition, deny registration of the land under the Torrens system, if the facts presented do not show
that the petitioner is the owner, in fee simple, of the land which he seeks to
register.[12]
The petitioners also
contend that the bad faith of their predecessor-in-interest is of no legal
consequence to their application for registration as such, alleged bad faith is
not imputable to them, and what matters
is that they occupied and possessed the disputed parcel of land in 1934 by
virtue of a deed of absolute sale, executed in their favor by the spouses Anastacio and Lucrecia Sibbaluca, in utmost good faith and in concept of owners
under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, and that
they have been in open, peaceful, continuous possession and occupation in the
concept of owner for more than 34 years.
Petitioners’ claim is
devoid of merit. The evidence shows that
the petitioners acquired the land from Anastacio and Lucrecia Sibbaluca only on 3
October 1968, or 11
days prior to the filing of their application for registration[13], and it was Anastacio and Lucrecia Sibbaluca who had
allegedly possessed the land for about 34 years. Thus, in their application for registration,
the petitioners alleged the following:
“4. That the
applicants have acquired said land in the following manner: The parcel of land and its improvements
thereon have been acquired by the herein applicants by way of ABSOLUTE DEED OF
SALE from their vendors, namely, the
Spouses Anastacio B. Sibbaluca and Lucrecia Sibbaluca, the latter having been in possession,
occupation, and cultivation of said parcel of land for more than 34 solid
years, open, peaceful, continuous, public, notorious, and against third persons
and in concept of owner for that length of time.”[14]
It
would appear, however, that the possession and occupation of the land by the
spouses Anastacio and Lucrecia
Sibbaluca are tainted with bad faith so that the
petitioners are not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Section 48(b)
of the Public Land Law.
Finally, the petitioners
claim that the respondent
appellate court grossly erred in not dismissing the appeal of the private
respondents therein on the grounds that:
(1) the record on appeal does not state that an appeal bond was timely
filed; (2) the record on appeal does not contain sufficient data to show that
the appeal was perfected within the reglementary
period in that it does not state when the appellants received a copy of the trial court’s
decision; (3) the appellants failed to file their brief
since the brief filed for them by Atty. Teofilo Leonin was unauthorized
as their counsel of record was Atty. Dominador P. Nuesa of
Ilagan, Isabela and not
Atty. Leonin and there has been no substitution of counsel; (4) the appellants’
brief is deficient in that (a) it does not contain a subject index of the arguments and page references, and a table of cases alphabetically arranged; (b) the
“Statement of Facts” does not contain a clear and concise statement
in a narrative form of the facts admitted by both parties and those in
controversy, together with the substance of the proof relating to the facts in
controversy in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible; and (c) there
is no clear and concise statement of the issues of fact end/or law to be submitted to the court for
its judgment.
The contention is
likewise without merit. We find that there
has been substantial compliance with the Rules as to the filing of the appellants’ brief.
The appellants cannot
be rigidly tasked to adhere to
the provisions of Section 16, Rule
46 of the Rules of Court as to
what an appellant’s brief should contain, for the reason that the rules contained
in the Rules of Court are applicable to land registration cases only in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient14; and that said rules of procedure are to be liberally construed in order to
promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding[15].
As to the appeal bond and
record on appeal, suffice it to state that an appeal bond and a record on
appeal are no longer required for an appeal.
The filing of a record on appeal is required only in appeals under Rule
109 of the Rules of Court and in other cases where multiple appeals are
allowed. The present proceeding is not
one of such cases[16].
WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of
merit. Without costs.
SO ORDERED.
Yap, (Chairman), Paras,
and Sarmiento,
JJ., concur.
Melencio-Herrera, J., on leave.
* Penned by Justice Hugo E.
Gutierrez, Jr., with the concurrence of Justices Luis B. Reyes and Venicio Escolin.
** Rendered by
Judge Manuel A. Argel.
[1]
Record on Appeal, p. 2
[2]
Id., p. 9
[3]
Id., p. 10
[4]
Id., p. 11
[5]
Id., p. 13
[6]
Id., p. 25
[7]
Rollo, P. 32
[8]
Id., p. 45
[9]
Id., p. 52
[10]
National Power Corporation vs. CA, G.R. No.
L-46268, Sept. 24, 1986, 144 SCRA 318
[11]
Record on Appeal, p. 2
[12]
Director of Lands vs. Agustin, 42 Phil. 227, and other cases cited
therein.
[13]
Rollo, pp. 39-40
[14]
Record on Appeal, pp. 3-4
14 Rule 143, Rules of Court
[15]
Sec. 2, Rule 1, Rules of Court
[16]
No. 18, Interim Rules and Guidelines; See also Sec. 39, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129