EMILIANA EMPAMANO, ET AL., APPLICANTS AND APPELLEES, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

Appeal by the Director of Lands from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Quezon (Gumaca Branch) in Land Registration Case No. N-302, G.L.R.O.
Record No. 8943, adjudicating to the applicants therein a parcel of land
situated at Bato, San Narciso, Quezon, with an area of 68.6867 hectares
described in PSU-47182 (Exh. D). 

On October 2, 1954, the heirs of the deceased Marciano Jovellana—Emiliana
Empamano, his widow, and their sons, Antonio Jovellana and Apolinar
Jovellana—filed an application for original registration of one parcel of land
located at barrio Bato, Municipality of San Narciso, Quezon, with an area of
68.6867 hectares (plan PSU-47182, exhibit D) and of another situated at barrio
Abuyao of the same municipality, with an area of 13.0252 hectares (plan
PSU-47164, exhibit E). The Director of Lands opposed the application asserting
thai neither appellees nor their predecessors in interest had sufficient title
to the lands aforementioned, the same not having been acquired by composition
title from the Spanish Government nor by possessory information title under the
Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, nor had they or their predecessors in
interest possessed said lands openly, continuously, adversely and under a bona
fide claim of ownership since July 26, 1894.

An order of general default, except as against the Director of Lands, was
entered by the Court, and on December 9, 1955, after due hearing, the Court
rendered the appealed judgment.

It is not now disputed that appellees and their predecessors in interest have
been in open, continuous, adverse possession in the concept of owner of the two
parcels of land applied for registration in their names prior to July 26, 1894
up to the present time, having paid the taxes due thereon as evidenced by their
tax declarations and tax receipts (Exhibits G/H, H-1 to H-11, and E).

With respect to the parcel of land described in PSU-47182 of the
application—which is the only one affected by the present appeal—the evidence
discloses that the deceased Marciano Jovellana acquired the same from Francisco
Endrinal by purchase in 1914 (Exhibit F) and enjoyed possession thereof since
then until he died, his heirs thereafter having enjoyed such possession until
the present; that Fermin Endrinal, in turn, had inherited the property from his
father, Fermin Endrinal, who had possessed it since the Spanish time.

The sole issue raised by appellant arises from the fact that appellee
Emiliana Empamano, prior to the institution of the present proceeding, executed
on February 17, 1953 a saies application under oath and filed the same with the
Bureau of Lands, covering the parcel of land in Bato, San Narciso, Quezon,
described in PSU-47182 (Exhibit D), paragraph 6 of which reads as follows:

“6. I understand that this application conveys no right to occupy the land
prior to its approval, and I recognize that the land covered by the same is of
the public domain and any and all rights I may have with respect thereto by
virtue of continuous occupation and cultivation, are hereby relinquished to the
Government. * * * if this application is approved,otherwise, I shall apply
for Torrens title to this land“. (Exhibits 1 & 1-A). The italicized
clause has been inserted in the printed form prescribed.

No action has thus far been taken by the Bureau of Lands on said application.
Appellant contends that, by virtue of paragraph 6 of the sales application,
appellees not only recognized that said parcel belongs to the Government but
have also relinquished in favor of the Government whatever rights they may have
acquired therein by reason of their continuous occupation and cultivation of the
same, and that they are now estopped from applying for the same under the
provisions of the Land Registration Act.

Appellant’s contention is untenable. A reading of the statement relied upon
in support thereof readily discloses that whatever admission and waiver were
made therein by Emiliana Empamano with respect to the public character and
ownership of the parcel of land in question were expressly made to depend upon
the approval by the government of her sales application. Said application, as
already stated, had not yet been approved nor disapproved at the time the lower
court decided this case. Moreover, the statement is clear in that if the sales
application was disapproved, the applicant reserved her right to “apply for
Torrens title to said land”. As her application remained unacted upon in the
Bureau of Lands, she had the right to exercise this right.

On the other hand, even granting that a clear and definite admission and
waiver were made, the same could bind Emiliana Empamano alone, because there is
no evidence in the record that her children had authorized her to make such,
admission and waiver.

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with
costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.