CASIANO AMPOLOQUIO, LUCIO BURLESA, MIGUEL DE CASTRO, NORBERTO GUBERTO, PANFILO DONAYRE, BENITO ESTREMOS, MARCIAL FERNANDEZ, ADRIANO FLORENTINO, RUBEN GUBATO, EMILIANO INGLES, KW…

This petition for review on certiorari seeks to
annul and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 06 January 1977,
in CA-G.R. Nos. 39514-R and 39515-R, entitled “Salvador Zartiga
(substituted by the Heirs of Salvador Zartiga) vs. Emilio Guinoo, et al.,”
and “Director of Lands vs. Salvador Zartiga, the Municipality of Bansalan,
et al., and Anatacio Florentino, et al.,” respectively, which affirmed,
with modification, the trial court’s decision in Civil Case No. 670 and Cadastral Case No. N-8, LRC Record No. N-95, and
awarded Lots No. 2326, 2325, 2342, 2343, 2344 and 2416 in favor of
plaintiff-appellant (herein private respondent) Salvador Zartiga.

Respondent Salvador Zartiga claimed ownership over nine (9) lots
with a total area of 289.9920 hectares, more or less, so delineated as the
Bansalan Public Lands Subdivision Case No. 6, Cadastral No. 275 (ig­-1013), and
divided into lots 2305, 2319, 2325, 2326, 2342, 2343, 2344, 2416 and 2417. He averred that he had been the absolute
owner and possessor of said parcels of land, having bought the same from Datu
Julian Bagobo under a deed executed in 1927, but that petitioners had occupied
certain portions of the nine (9) lots, about forty-nine (49) hectares of the
285 hectares, without his knowledge and consent.

Petitioners, on the other hand, denied private respondent’s
ownership and alleged that the land in question is public land; that neither
private respondent nor his predecessor-in-interest had occupied the property.

The instant litigation started when private respondent filed a
complaint for recovery of possession and damages (Civil Case No. 670) in the Court of First Instance (now
Regional Trial Court) of Davao against twenty-one (21) defendants.

The Director of Lands intervened, asserting the property subject
matter of Civil Case No. 670 to be “public agricultural land, owned by the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines.” The court granted the motion
to intervene and admitted the answer in intervention. Thereafter, the Director of Lands was directed by the court to
institute compulsory registration proceedings in view of private respondent’s
allegation that the area claimed by him was covered by pending pre-war
cadastral proceedings, the records of which were destroyed and had not as yet
been reconstituted (cf. p. 3, id.). In
compliance therewith, the Director of Lands filed a petition for compulsory
registration. An order was also issued by the trial court
holding in abeyance the hearing of Civil Case No. 670 and requiring that it be
set for hearing together with the compulsory registration proceedings
instituted by the Republic of the Philippines.

The Municipality of Bansalan, on its part, filed an opposition to
the petition on the ground that the nine (9) parcels of land included in the
petition for registration were reserved
for townsite of, and actually occupied by, the Municipality of Bansalan.

During the trial of Civil Case No. 670, evidence was introduced
to the effect that about 10,000 people inhabited the poblacion of
Bansalan and that approximately 500 buildings, private and government-owned, as
well as schools, markets, religious, commercial and residential structures, and
other constructions, including municipal roads and other infrastructures,
already stood in place within the disputed area.

On 29 June 1966, the lower court rendered a decision, the
dispositive portion of which read:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
as follows:

“(a) – Under Civil Case No. 670, adjudging in favor
of plaintiff; ordering defendants to vacate therefrom and restitute to
plaintiff’s possession of the respective portion occupied by them, with the
exception of those mentioned above.

“The claim for
damages, not having been duly established and proven is hereby denied.

“Under the Registration Case, granting and confirming Zartiga’s title to the litigated portion
of the Lot, with the exception of those mentioned above in the decision.

“(b) – Ordering the cancellation of whatever title
that have been granted by the Land Department to the claimants, with the
exception of those mentioned in the decision, with costs against defendants.

“SO ORDERED.” (pp. 473-478, Record on Appeal.)

From the judgment, Salvador Zartiga, the Municipality of Bansalan
and nineteen (19) defendants, excluding Atanacio Florentino and Cristobal
Gutierrez whose title to their lots were upheld by the trial court, appealed to
the Court of Appeals.

On 06 January
1977, respondent Court of Appeals promulgated the herein questioned decision
affirming, with modification, the decision of the lower court in Civil Case No.
670 and Cadastral Case N-8, LRC Record No. N-95, thus:

“WHEREFORE, with the modification that Lot No. 2326 is awarded
in plaintiff-appellant Salvador Zartiga’s favor, along with Lots No. 2325,
2342, 2343, 2344 and 2416, the judgment appealed from is in all other respects
affirmed, with cost against defendants-appellants.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 60, Rollo of G.R. No. 46800)

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari, which
involves Lots No. 2325, 2342, 2343, 2344 and 2416, raising the following
issues:

“(1) Whether or not by virtue of the alleged deed of sale respondent
Zartiga was able to establish ownership or lawful acquisition over the parcels
of land in question.

“(2) Whether or not there is possession by
private respondent and if there is any, could it ripen to ownership?

“(3) Whether or not respondent Zartiga was able to
identify the land in question so that there may be a valid sale.”

Similar petitions were filed with us, likewise questioning the
same decision of the appellate court by the other defendants-appellants
therein, which were consolidated and decided by this court in G.R. No. L­46068-69
(Director of Lands vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Salvador Zartiga), L-46247-48
(Emilio Guinoo vs. Salvador Zartiga), and L-47353 (Municipality of Bansalan,
Davao del Sur vs. Court of Appeals, et al.) on 30 September 1982 (117 SCRA 346,
359-361). This Court there ruled:

“Evidently, the litigated area was forestal land. The fact that Datu Julian Bagobo and the
other occupants had to make kaingin in order to clear the lots is certainly
indicative of the forestal nature of the same. Datu Julian Bagobo and his predecessors who claimed possession over the
area did not and could not have acquired ownership over the said land
considering that the same was then inalienable and non-­disposable. ‘It remained so for many years. In fact, it was only on February 4, 1956
when the contested portions of the public domain were declared and classified
as alienable and disposable per Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-480 issued
on aforecited date by the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
(Exhibit ‘32,’ p. 112, CFI rec.).

“xxx                                       xxx                                         xxx

“The picture becomes clear enough. Respondent Zartiga knew that he could not directly acquire the
lots since they were part of the public domain. So, he had to get access to the land indirectly. He also realized that the indirect way was
Datu Julian Bagobo who claimed possession over the area. He had to clothe the datu with a color of
ownership so that the latter could subsequently transfer the land to him. Respondent accomplished this in a haphazard
manner – by railroading the issuance of a tax declaration to the uneducated
datu and manipulating the alleged sale within the same day. This explains why there could not be
sufficient and concrete evidence of the alleged deed of sale, why the contested
lots could never be accurately identified (boundaries were not uniformly
identified) and why private respondent never raised a hand when the townsite of
Bansalan was being developed (per TSN
dated November 27, 1957, pp. 90-91).

“xxx                                       xxx                                         xxx.

“WHEREFORE, the decision dated January 6, 1977 and the
resolution dated April 19, 1977 of the Court of Appeals are hereby reversed and
set aside and Lots Nos. 2325, 2326, 2342, 2343, 2344 and [2416] are hereby
declared public lands subject to the rights of herein petitioners under the
public land law, with the exception of lots 2305 and 2317 which had been titled
in the name of Atanacio Florentino and Cristobal Gutierrez; and private
respondent’s reinvindicatory action is hereby dismissed. Costs against the heirs of Salvador
Zartiga.”

Since it is evident that the instant petition raises coincident
issues with the same decision ap­pealed from, involving identical real
property, i.e., Lots No. 2325, 2342, 2343, 2344 and 2416 (Lot No. 2326 is not involved in the present petition), and
originating from the consolidated Civil Case No. 670 and Cadastral Case
No. N-8, the Court needs merely to adopt, as it so hereby does, the
pronouncements of this Court, hereinabove aforequoted, declaring the lots in
dispute to be public lands.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby resolves to REITERATE its
decision, dated 30 September 1982, in G.R. Nos. L-­46068-69, L-46247-48 and
L-47353 in the cases, entitled “Director of Lands vs. Hon. Court of
Appeals and Salvador Zartiga, Emilio Guinoo vs. Salvador Zartiga, and
Municipality of Bansalan, Davao del Sur vs. Court of Appeals,”
respectively, and to deem it equally binding to the instant petition.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concur.