REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SATURNINO R. ARICHETA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This action was brought by the Republic of the Philippines to eject defendant
from a parcel of land which the latter is occupying or squatting on in the East
Triangle of the Quezon Memorial Park, Diliman, Quezon City.

It is alleged in the complaint that the Republic of the Philippines owns the
said park, having been established under Proclamation No. 42 dated July 5, 1954,
as amended by Proclamation No. 373 dated December 21, 1956, both of the
President of the Philippines. The defendant alleges in his answer that the land
subject of the action formerly belonged to Marcelino Tiburcio, who was granted a
Spanish grant on March 25, 1877; that defendant purchased the same from the
former owner in good faith, the deed of sale having been registered in Quezon
City under the provisions of Act 3344; that as the plaintiff had no valid title
and, on the other hand, it belonged to Marcelino Tiburcio, plaintiff acquired
title thereto merely by presidential proclamation; that there is a pending
action between Tiburcio and the plaintiff, through the People’s Homesite and
Housing Corporation, over the parcel of land in question.

It appears from the record that a pre-trial was had, during which plaintiff
presented a photostat copy of its title (Exhibit “A”), a copy of Proclamation
No. 42 of the President of the Philippines (Exhibit “B”), copies of letters of
demand to vacate dated July and September, 1955 (Exhibits “C” and “C-1”).
Defendant, in turn, presented a copy of Act 3915 (Exhibit “1”), a copy of deed
of sale executed by Filemon S. Custodio in favor of the defendant (Exhibit “2”);
a copy of the defendant’s petition for registration of real property under Act
3344 (Exhibit “3”), photostat copy of the agreement between Tiburcio and the
Custodio (Exhibit “4”), technical description and survey plan of the land
(Exhibits “5” and “6”) and the receipts for payment of registration fees
(Exhibit “3-a”). All these documents were admitted without objection. The
defendant also called attention to the fact that the land in question was
acquired by him from Tiburcio, who had applied for registration of the same
under Act No. 496, and that he (defendant) had acquired it by virtue of a deed
of sale executed by Tiburcio in his favor.

To rebut the evidence for the defendant, plaintiff presented Exhibits “D”,
“F”, and “G” to show that the Commissioner of Parks and Wildlife had opposed the
application for registration of Tiburcio and that the court afterwards denied
Tiburcio’s application for registration in its resolution dated October 17,
1955, which resolution has become final.

Upon consideration of the evidence as above described, the court rendered
judgment declaring that plaintiff is registered owner of the land as shown by
Certificate of Title No. 1356, Exhibit “A”; that the portion in question has
been converted into the Quezon Memorial Park by virtue of Presidential
Proclamation No. 42, as amended by Presidential Proclamation No. 473; that the
park is administered by the National Parks and Wildlife Office; that the
defendant has been occupying the premises for more than one year after the
filing of the action, and that the said Proclamation No. 42 is
constitutional.

After a denial of a motion for reconsideration and new trial, the defendant
perfected an appeal to this Court.

The first assignment of error, i. e., that the complaint is defective because
it is not verified in accordance with Section 1 of Rule 72 of the Rules of
Court, is without merit. The action, as the evidence shows, is one for the
recovery of title and possession of property. As a matter of fact, the defendant
alleged that he is the owner of the land, having presented a deed of sale in his
favor executed by one Marcelino Tiburcio. Be that as it may the supposed defect
in the complaint can not be raised on appeal, the same not having been raised at
the opportune time in the trial court.

The supposed second error is that there is a pending action between the
parties for the same cause. It may be true that a civil case No. Q-2623 entitled
“Marcelino Tiburcio vs. Republic of the Philippines” had been presented,
but at the trial it was shown that the action had already been decided, as
proved by Exhibits “D”, “F” and “G”, Exhibits “G” the last being the order of
the court denying registration, which order had already become final.

In the third assignment of error, it is claimed that error is committed in
holding that the property is covered by a valid title of the People’s Homesite
and Housing Corporation, the title Exhibit “A” having been anomalously and
fraudulently obtained. This is mere allegation without evidence to support the
claim.

In the fourth assignment of error, it is claimed that the court should have
found him a possessor in good faith. The defendant is an attorney at-law; he
should have known that no property around the City of Manila or in Quezon City
is as yet not covered by Torrens Title. Furthermore, his vendor had no Torrens
Title and the deed of sale states that the vendor bound himself to issue a clear
title to the land. This shows that the vendee must have doubted the validity of
his vendor’s title to the property.

In the fifth assignment of error, appellant questions the validity of the
presidential proclamation. As the whole land constituting the park is covered by
a certificate of title in the name of the People’s Homesite and Housing
Corporation and is, therefore, a property of the Government of the Philippines,
the authority of the President to convert the same into a park can not be
questioned.

Finding absolutely no merit in the appeal, which is frivolous, and
considering that the defendant-appellant is an attorney at law, the decision
appealed from is hereby affirmed, with treble costs against the
defendant-appellant.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ.,
concur.