MANUEL LOCSIN RAMA, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. ALEJANDRO MONTELIBANO RAMOS, OBJECTOR AND APPELLANT.

This appeal by bill of exceptions was filed by counsel for Alejandro
Montelibano Ramos from the judgment of October 8, 1915, in which the
Court of First Instance, overruling the opposition to the registration
applied for, awarded to the conjugal partnership formed by Manuel
Locsin Rama and

his wife Romualda Lacson all the land included in
the application, with the proviso that, in accordance with the terms of
the grant of that portion of the land marked as lot A on the plan
Exhibit A, no building should be erected thereon.

By a written application of November 2, 1914, counsel for Manuel
Locsin Rama applied to the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental
for the registration of a parcel of land containing 1,072 square
meters, together with the improvements thereon of which he claimed his
client to be the absolute owner, situated in the municipality of Silay
of the Province of Negros Occidental, the description, metes, and
bounds of which are given in detail in the plan and technical
description Exhibit A, made a part of the application. The application
stated that on April 17, 1906, this land was purchased by the applicant
from its previous owners Eusebio Conlu, Emilia Conlu, Marciano Lacson,
and Pedro Respall; that the applicant was then in possession; and that
said property was unencumbered,although Alejandro Montelibano Ramos
claimed 202 square meters of the same, or the part thereof designated
as lot A on the plan Exhibit A.

On April 19, 1915, Alejandro Montelibano Ramos, as the natural
guardian of his minor children Jose, Alfredo, Concepcion, and
Alejandro, jr., and in their representation, opposed the registration
of the said parcel of 202 square meters, alleging that this land had
belonged to his late wife, Liceria Montelibano, mother of his said
minor children, and consequently that it now belonged to these latter.
He therefore asked that a guardian be appointed for these children, and
that after the hearing of the case the registration of the said lot A
be denied.

After the trial, wherein evidence was submitted by both parties,
the court rendered the aforementioned judgment, to which counsel for
Alejandro Montelibano Ramos excepted, moved for a new hearing and
announced his intention of filing a bill of exceptions. Upon denial of
this motion, the defendant-objector requested that all the evidence
presented in this case be made an integral part of the bill of
exceptions, which, upon presentation, was approved and transmitted to the clerk of this court.

In this case Manuel Locsin Rama seeks to register a parcel of land
containing 1,072 square meters, situated in the pueblo of Silay, Negros
Occidental. There is no dispute whatever with regard to the identity of
the land. As described in the plan Exhibit A, it is composed of two
parcels. One of them, containing 870 square meters, was that on which
stood the house that belonged to the presbyter Eusebio Manuel Locsin,
which, together with this land, was inherited by his grandchildren and
a female cousin under the willexecuted by him on August 28,1881, a copy
of which appears in Exhibit D. These heirs, named Eusebio Conlu, Emilia
Conlu (married to Marciano Lacson), and Gema Conlu (wife of Pedro
Respall) sold this property so inherited to the applicant Manuel Locsin
Rama on April 17,1906, for P1,000 (Exhibit B). The other parcel is a
strip of land having a frontage of three and a depth of 19 brazas,
which, by a resolution passed by the municipal council of the pueblo of
Silay on August 26, 1894 (a copy of which, as Exhibit E, is found in
the record), was ceded to Locsin’s heirs on
condition that no
building should be erected on it. This land ceded by the municipal
council is designated as lot A on the plan Exhibit A, has an area of
202 square meters and is the bone of contention between the parties,
each of whom claims to be the exclusive owner thereof.

The question, then, submitted to the decision of this court is: Who
is the true and lawful owner of the strip of 202 square meters of land
designated as lot A on the plan of the land sought to be registered by
Manuel Locsin Rama?

The applicant’s contention, sustained by the judgment appealed from,
is that the parcel in question was ceded to the heirs of the presbyter
Eusebio Manuel Locsin by the municipal council of Silay in 1894 and was
included in the conveyance of the property made by these heirs to the
applicant in 1906. This grant and conveyance are proven by Exhibit B.
Besides the proofs furnished by the applicant’s Exhibits B and D with
respect to the lawful origin of the major part of the land sought to be
registered, and Exhibit E whereby, through a resolution of the
municipal council of Silay dated August 26, 1894, the lot or parcel of
land in question was ceded to the applicant’s predecessors in interest,
we have also the testimony of the witnesses Domingo Barnuevo, Vicente
Gamboa Benedicto, Juan Abaygar, Felipe Tiongko and Eusebio Conlu, all
of whom unanimously testified that the applicant had been in possession
of the disputed land for the past nine years; that prior to the
applicant’s possession of the property it had been held during thirteen
years by Locsin’s heirs; that it was occupied under lease by Juan
Viaplana for about ten years, from 1896 to 1906; that it had always
been fenced in; that the fence was built by order of the said heirs;
that the land was planted with plantain trees, the fruit from which was
gathered by the applicant’s ancestors. Furthermore, the witness Eusebio
Conlu, one of the applicant’s predecessors in interest, added that even
prior to the year 1892, when he was a student in Manila and used to
pass his vacations with his family, he lived in the house that stands
on the land sought to be registered; that he knew at that time that the
land now in litigation was a part of the lot that belonged to his great
uncle, the presbyter Locsin; that in 1892 he took up his residence in
the said house; and that in 1894 the municipal council of Silay ceded
the said parcel of land to the witness and his coheirs. Felipe Tiongko,
a witness who was formerly the attorney in fact of Emeterio
Montelibano—this latter being the predecessor in interest of the
objector Montelibano’s wife—testified that title was awarded to his
principal, Emeterio Montelibano, for a piece of land 15 brazas in area
only, and that between this land and the property here in dispute there
was left a strip 6 brazas wide that was not awarded to anybody.

The objector Alejandro Montelibano y Ramos claims lot A as belonging
to his minor children, issue by his wife Liceria Montelibano, now
deceased, inasmuch as the latter, on April 3, 1895, had purchased two
properties from Emeterio Montelibano under pacto de retro for
one year for P5,000; both of these were situated in the pueblo of
Silay, the second of which—described in the deed of sale Exhibit 1,
entered in volume 11, provisional registry of Silay, as property No.
158—comprises the disputed parcel of land and is bounded as follows: To
the north, by the lands of Vicente Mateo Conlu, father of Emilia, Gema
and Eusebio Conlu (see the will found on the back of page 14 of the
record), a distance of 75.15 meters; to the south, a street, a distance
of 75.15 meters; to the east, another street, 41.75 meters; and to the
west, the land of Emeterio Montelibano, a distance of 41.75 meters. A camarin stands on the land sold. (Exhibit 1.)

The objector claims that the lot A belonged to his wife Liceria
Montelibano by reason of the purchase of the land by her father,
Emeterio Montelibano,. and that the use of this lot was granted to Juan
Viaplana by the objector’s brother-in-law, Vicente Montelibano, because
Viaplana, who had under lease the house and lot of Locsin’s heirs,
hadno ground of his own. These statements were corroborated by Vicente
Montelibano, who added that the description of the lot A, as shown in
Exhibit 1, was erroneous, for the eastern and western boundaries should
be understood to be the reverse of those given in the said document. As
against this testimony, Felipe Tiongko testified in rebuttal that
the property No. 15, described in Exhibit 1, does not include the
disputed lot A, but is another parcel of land belonging to the same
party Emeterio Montelibano, the boundaries of which are correctly
stated in the deed of sale, Exhibit 1.

In rebuttal the applicant also presented the document Exhibit G,
which is a copy of the minutes of the session held on May 20, 1893, by
the provincial board of land adjustments (compositions) of Occidental
Negros. In that session the council considered the application filed by
Erneterio Montelibano, and the majority of the members of the board
were of the opinion that the said Montelibano should not be granted the
composition of a lot more than 15 brazas in frontage. They based their
opinion on the grant made to the latter by the principalia of
the pueblo of Silay, and on the fact that, although from the
measurements taken it appeared that the lot had a frontage of 21
brazas, it was not proper and there was no reason whatever to grant him
the excess. Therefore, to avoid difficulties, the board excluded from
the grant the strip of land measuring one and a half meters that was
claimed by the owners of the house of Eusebio Locsin as being covered
by the eaves of the house, and an additional 4.17 meters that was also
claimed by them as pertaining to the said house. The board also
resolved that it was improper to grant the excess area to the heirs of
Eusebio Locsin.

Exhibit F duly proves that by resolution of the board of land adjustments dated May 20, 1893, the Direceion de Administracion Civil de Filipinas,
on August 10, 1894, granted Emeterio Montelibano a royal title to a
parcel of land containing 8 ares and 90 centares, bounded on the north
by a strip of land 11.99 meters wide, of no known owner, which
separated the house of the heirs of Eusebio Luching (who must be
Locsin) from the applicant’s lot; on the south, by a street of the
town; and on the west, by the main street of the pueblo. According to
the rough sketch and “notes regarding the lot” attached to the record
of the proceedings, Severo Rama and his coheirs then claimed a strip of
land 1 1/2 meters wide as pertaining to the eaves of the house, and
beside this strip, another, measuring 2 1/2 brazas in width, as a space
that belonged to the house. The said rough sketch and “notes regarding
the lot” set forth that the land contains 8 ares and 90 centares and
has a frontage of 15 brazas, that is, 25.05 meters on Calle Real, now
Rizal, without including therein the following three strips of land, to
wit: (1) a strip 1 1/2 meters wide under the eaves of the house
belonging to Severo Rama and his coheirs; (2) a strip 2 1/2 brazas
wide, that is, 4.17 meters, as land belonging to the house; and, (3)
another strip 6.27 1/2 meters wide, which was the excess that resulted
from the survey of the land sought to be registered by Montelibano. The
area of these strips aggregates 11.94 1/2 meters, which is the
measurement of the land that lies between the wall of the house of
Presbyter Locsin, the herein applicant, and the boundary of the land
granted by “composition” to Emeterio Montelibano. The resolution passed
by the board of land adjustments, Exhibit G (record, p. 92), is of the
same tenor as the preceding resolution, in that this board unanimously
decided to grant to Emeterio Montelibano title to 15 brazas or 25.05
meters of frontage applied for in his application, excluding the 11.95
meters shown as excess in the measurement made and which extended to
Severo de la Rama’s house, that is to say, to the house that belonged
to the Presbyter Locsin.

So that it very clearly appears that neither the applicant nor
Liceria Montelibano’s predecessor in interest was or has been at any
time the lawful owner of the strip of land 11.95 meters wide that
separates the properties of these adjacent owners, for if Severo de la
Rama and his coheirs had proven their right of ownership in this strip
of land,the provincial board of land adjustments would unquestionably
have respected it; otherwise, the said interested parties would have
sought other lawful means to vindicate the same inasmuch as their
dominical rights in the strip of land of one meter and a half,
corresponding to the projection of the eaves of the house, and in
the other 4.17 meters of land also pertaining to the same house, could
not be the subject matter of an administrative resolution.

It is not to be wondered at that the said strip of land was not
adjudicated to the applicant Emeterio Montelibano, for, as he applied
for composition with the state for a lot having a frontage of 15
brazas, or only 25.05 meters, the board of land adjustments was unable
to grant him a larger area than that which he applied for.

Notwithstanding that the provincial board of land adjustments had
already stated that the claim of the heirs of Father Locsin, from its
very nature, did not come within its jurisdiction, but pertained to
that of the courts of justice (Exhibit G) yet none of the interested
parties went into court to settle the conflict of interests between
them. This clearly indicates that Emeterio Montelibano was convinced
that he could not secure a larger tract from the Government, seeing
that he had applied for a smaller one, and that Father Locsin’s heirs
also were convinced that the strip of land in their possession belonged
to the municipality, which on August 26, 1894, ceded to Father Locsin’s
heirs the said strip having a frontage of 3 brazas and a depth of 19
brazas—a vacant, unoccupied, town lot—on the sole condition that the
grantees should not construct any building on it (Exhibit E; record, p.
18).

Alejandro Montelibano’s opposition relates solely to this strip of
land of 202 square meters, marked A on the plan found on page 5 of the
record; he contends that it is not a part of the applicant’s lot but
that it is an integral part of the land, the composition title of which
Montelibano’s ancestor or predecessor in interest had obtained from the
State. However, from the certificate Exhibit G it appears that Emeterio
Montelibano obtained a composition title for a piece of land or a lot
having only 15 brazas in frontage or containing 25.05 square meters,
instead of 21 brazas, there being excluded the 11.95 meters which on
their survey were found to be in excess, and as the objector had not
furnished evidence that would offset the contents of the certificate he
himself presented, there is no legal reason for sustaining his
opposition, and the applicant is entitled to ask for the registration
of the said, parcel of land, lot A, containing 202 square meters.

In effect, by the action of the municipal council of Silay in
allowing Father Locsin’s heirs to occupy the said lot A, as owners,
there was left a vacant strip of 11.95 meters of land, without any
holder, which intervened between the said lot A and the land acquired
by Montelibano by composition, according to the boundaries given in the
certificate Exhibit G. Therefore, if the objector’s ownership cannot be
extended to this intervening strip of land which does not belong to
him, much less can he be deemed to be the owner of the 202 square
meters of land, lot A, since it is situated on the other side of the
said vacant strip of land, and which lot the applicant’s predecessors
had expressly obtained by grant from the municipal council of Silay.

It is true that municipal councils are not authorized to alienate or
make grants of Government lands, nor could any right whatever be
transmitted to the grantee; but the said lot is one that formed a part
of the territory of the pueblo of Silay, and although the grant of this
lot A was improperly made to Father Locsin’s heirs by the municipal
council of the said pueblo, it is a proven fact that from the date of
the grant the applicant’s predecessors and the applicant himself for
the past twenty years have been holding the property so ceded, with the
best of faith and in the belief that they were lawfully occupying it as
owners.

If Father Locsin’s heirs had occupied the said lot by themselves
without permission of the municipal council, even without good faith,
they would have acquired the ownership of the property through the
lapse of the long period of time fixed by law, because the parcel in
question is not public Government land, but one which is included
within the area of the land assigned to the people of Silay and to the
territory of the pueblo at the time of its foundation.

However, even if, in view of its origin, the land or lot in question
be considered as public land belonging to the State, if account be
taken of the fact that the grantees, the predecessors of the applicant,
were natives of this country, as is also the petitioner, it is
unquestionable that after ten years of possession they have, by
prescription, acquired title to the said land in accordance with the
original laws in force in these Islands, especially some of those of
title 12, book 4 of the Recopilacion de las Indias. The royal
decree approving the regulation of June 25, 1880, touching the
composition of public lands, was inspired by the said former legal
provisions, since article 4 of the said regulation provided that for
all legal purposes such persons as shall prove that they have held
possession of unappropriated public lands, of the kind here in
question, without interruption for ten years by virtue of just title
and in good faith, shall be considered to be the owners thereof.

It was fully proven at trial that on August 26, 1894, according to
the certified copy of the minutes found on page 18 of the record,
Father Locsin’s relatives obtained a grant of the strip of land in
question with the best of good faith, for they confidently believed
that the gobernadorcillo and the principales of
Silay who granted them the said strip of land and who for this purpose
set out the grant of the property they had decided to make in an
official document, acted legally and were authorized to perform that
act; and although this grant was improper in the eyes of the law, yet
it is certain that the grantees believed it to be lawful, and in that
character they were lawful possessors and held a just title which they
later formally transmitted to the applicant who, with equal good faith,
believing himself to be the lawful owner of the land, applied to have
it entered in the property registry, together with another parcel owned
exclusively by him, for the purpose of obtaining the necessary title
thereto.

Although the title acquired by the grantees to the said strip of
land of 202 square meters in area was not genuine and legal, yet it is
undoubtedly clothed with the appearance of legality, reason and
justice; it was issued by the local authorities for the purpose of
transferring the ownership of the property therein specified, and this
title, supported as it was by possession as owner and in good faith,
that is by prescription, accredits ownership and constitutes what in
law is known as color of title. Taking into consideration that the
applicant, Manuel Locsin Rama, is now and has been for twenty years, in
possession of the said property, counting that of his predecessors, it
may be said that beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ownership in the
said strip of land has prescribed, pursuant to the provisions of
section 41 of Act No. 190, since the possession of the applicant has
been actual, open, public, and continuous, under a claim of title
exclusive of any other right and adverse to all other claimants, among
them, the objector Montelibano.

For the foregoing reasons, whereby the errors assigned to the
judgment appealed from have been refuted, the said judgment should be,
as it is hereby, affirmed, with the costs against the appellant. So
ordered.

Carson, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.