THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, PETITIONERS, VS. LILIA A. ABAIRO, CELSO ABAIRO, AND THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ISABELA, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision dated
September 27, 1971 (pp. 17-18, rec.), of respondent Court of First Instance of Isabela confirming the ownership by Lilia A. Abairo and Celso Abairo, of a parcel of land.

The facts of this case are undisputed.  On March 1, 1971, respondent Lilia Abairo filed an application for registration under the Land
Registration Act of a parcel of land containing an area of about 573 square
meters situated in Centro, Cauayan, Isabela, alleging open, public, peaceful and uninterrupted
possession thereof in the concept of owner by herself and through her
predecessors-in­-interest since time immemorial up to the present (p. 12,
rec.).

Respondent Lilia Abairo and her counsel
appeared at the initial hearing but nobody appeared to oppose the petition for
registration of her title, except the assistant provincial fiscal who entered
his opposition in behalf of the Bureau of Lands and the Bureau of Forestry, but
who subsequently withdrew his opposition on the ground that there was a new law
extending the period for filing registration petitions up to 1976.  The fiscal submitted a report of the Director
of Lands to the effect that he is withdrawing his opposition.  The fiscal likewise submitted a letter from
the Bureau of Forestry showing that it has no opposition to the application
for registration of title.  These
facts are embodied in the Order of Judge Andres Plan, to wit:

“When this case was called for initial hearing, the applicant,
assisted by counsel, appeared.  The
Fiscal manifested in open Court that due to the amended bill which extends the
period of filing registration petitions up to 1976, the serious opposition
filed has become moot and academic.  The
Fiscal also submitted a report of the Director of Lands to the effect that the
Bureau of Lands is withdrawing its opposition. 
The Fiscal also submitted a letter from the Bureau of Forestry showing
that they have no opposition to the appli­cation for registration of title.

“With these manifestations of the fiscal, the Bureau of Lands
and the Bureau of Forestry, the lot has become non-contested.

“Upon motion of counsel for the applicant, let an order of
general default issue against the whole world. 
Upon his petition, the Clerk of Court, Atty. Raymundo
B. Neris, Jr., is hereby appointed Commissioner to
receive the evidence in support of the petition for registration.” (P. 16, rec.).

After the case was heard, respondent Court rendered a decision
dated September 27, 1971, con­firming the ownership of respondent Abairo over the land in question after finding that the
original owner of the land in dispute was a certain Pablo Rivera, who possessed
the land which formed part of his estate since 1912 or even much prior thereto;
that he sold said land to Inocencia Accad sometime in 1939 and the latter had been in
possession of said land up to the time when she sold it to her daughter, Lilia
A. Abairo, on December 31, 1969; that respondent has
a residential house on the land and that she has declared the lot for taxation
purposes in her name and has been religiously paying taxes thereon; that
respondent Abairo and her predecessors-in-interest
have been in open, public, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the land in
the concept of owners since 1912 up to the present; that the land is free from
all liens and encrumbrances; and that the land is the
conjugal property of spouses Lilia and Celso Abairo (pp. 17-18, rec.).

A motion for reconsideration dated November 18, 1971 (p. 19,
rec.) was filed by the Solicitor General on the ground that respondent Court
did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application for registration of
title as it was filed on March 1, 1971, after December 31, 1968, the date set
by R.A. No. 2061 as the time limit for the judicial
confirmation of imperfect and incomplete titles like that of applicant, and
before the effectivity on June 19, 1971, of R.A. No. 6236 extending the time limit for such purpose.

Respondent Court denied the aforesaid motion for reconsideration
in an order dated December 15, 1971
(p. 28, rec.).  Hence,
this petition.

It is the contention of petitioners that re­spondent Court should
have dismissed the application of respondent Lilia Abairo
because it has no jurisdiction over it inasmuch as it was filed on March 1, 1971, that is, after December 31, 1968, the expiry date
for filing such kind of applications based on imperfect or incomplete titles
under R.A. No. 2061.

Petitioner’s contention is without merit.

R.A. No. 6236, enacted on June 19,
1971, further amended Section 47 of C.A. No. 141 (which was previously amended
by R.A. No. 2061) by extending to December 31, 1976
the time limit for the filing of applications for the judicial confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete titles.

As amended by R.A. No. 2061, Section 47
of C.A. No. 141 reads:

“Sec. 47.  The persons specified in the next following
section are hereby granted time, not to extend beyond December thirty-one,
nineteen hundred and sixty-eight within which to take advantage of the
benefit of this chapter:  Provided, That
the several periods of time designated by the President in accordance with
section forty-five of this Act shall apply also to the lands comprised in the
provisions of this chapter, but this section shall not be construed as
prohibiting any of said persons from acting under this chapter at any time
prior to the period fixed by the President” (underlining Ours).

As amended by R.A. No. 6236, the
aforesaid Section 47 states:

“Sec. 47.  The persons specified in the next following
section are hereby granted time, not to extend beyond December thirty-one,
nineteen hundred and seventy-six, within which to take advantage of the
benefit of this chapter:  Provided, That
this extension shall apply only where the area applied for does not exceed 144
hectares:  Provided further, That the
several periods of time designated by the President in accordance with section
forty-five of this Act shall apply also to the lands comprised in the
provisions of this chapter, but this section shall not be construed as
prohibiting any of said persons from acting under this chapter at any time
prior to the period fixed by the President” (underlining Ours).

As amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, promulgated on January 25, 1977, the filing of such
application has been extended to December
31, 1987.

It is clear from the law itself that those who applied for
judicial confirmation of their titles at any time prior to the cut-off date
of December 31, 1976 (as provided for in R.A. No.
6236) did so on time, even if such application were filed during the
intervening period from January 1, 1969 to June 18, 1971, like the application
of respondent Abairo, who instituted the same on
March 1, 1971.

All the amendments to Section 47 of C.A. 141 expressly include
the proviso that “this section shall not be construed as prohibiting any
of said persons from acting under this chapter at any time prior to the period
fixed by the President.” No period has been fixed by the President despite
the authority granted him by the aforesaid proviso.

But even in the absence of the aforesaid proviso of Section 47,
as amended, the basis of the petition is too technical to merit serious consideration.  The extension until December 31, 1976 by R.A.
No. 6236 for the filing of such application, retroacted to, and covered the
applications filed after January 1,
1969 and before June 19,
1971.  Moreover, the
application which private respondent filed on March 1, 1971, could be considered as re-filed after the effectivity of R.A. No. 6236 on June 19, 1971, less than four months
thereafter.

Respect should be given to the obvious intention of the lawmaker
in extending the period for filing such applications time and time again, to
give full opportunity to those who are qualified under the law to own
disposable lands of the public domain and thus reduce the number of landless
among the citizenry.

Considering the area of the lot applied for — only about 573
square meters — it was quite unfair, if not oppressive, to put the private
respondent to such expense and anxiety, after the Director of Lands withdrew
his opposition, while the Director of Forestry interposed no opposition to
private respondent’s application.

WHEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE LOWER
COURT IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND THE PETITION IS
HEREBY DISMISSED.  NO COSTS.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Fernandez,
Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.