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

Empamano versus Director of Lands

The Case

This is an appeal by the Director of Lands from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Gumaca Branch, which adjudicated to the applicants a parcel of land in San Narciso, Quezon. The applicants are the widow and sons of the deceased Marciano Jovellana, who sought original registration of two parcels under the Land Registration Act. The Director of Lands opposed on the ground that the applicants and their predecessors had not shown sufficient title or the required possession. The case matters because it teaches when an admission and waiver in a sales application with the Bureau of Lands binds an applicant, and whether such a statement estops her from later seeking registration. It is a compact lesson on the conditional nature of waivers and on the personal reach of an admission.

Procedural History

The heirs of Marciano Jovellana filed an application for original registration in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Gumaca Branch. The Director of Lands opposed the application. The court entered an order of general default except as against the Director of Lands. After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment adjudicating the land to the applicants. The Director of Lands appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal is the ordinary appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance, and the Supreme Court resolved it on the merits.

Facts

On the second of October, 1954, Emiliana Empamano, widow of Marciano Jovellana, and their sons Antonio Jovellana and Apolinar Jovellana, filed an application for original registration of two parcels of land in San Narciso, Quezon. The first, described in plan PSU-47182, has an area of 68.6867 hectares. The second, described in plan PSU-47164, has an area of 13.0252 hectares. The Director of Lands opposed, asserting that neither the applicants nor their predecessors had sufficient title, that the lands had not been acquired by composition title from the Spanish Government nor by possessory information title under the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, and that they had not possessed the lands openly, continuously, adversely, and under a bona fide claim of ownership since July 26, 1894.

The evidence showed that the applicants and their predecessors had been in open, continuous, adverse possession in the concept of owner of both parcels prior to July 26, 1894, up to the present, and had paid the taxes due, as shown by tax declarations and tax receipts. As to the parcel in PSU-47182, the only one affected by the appeal, the deceased Marciano Jovellana acquired it by purchase from Francisco Endrinal in 1914, and enjoyed possession until he died, his heirs continuing thereafter. Francisco Endrinal had inherited the property from his father, Fermin Endrinal, who had possessed it since the Spanish time.

The sole issue arose from the fact that Emiliana Empamano, before the institution of the proceeding, executed on the seventeenth of February, 1953, a sales application under oath and filed it with the Bureau of Lands, covering the parcel in PSU-47182. Paragraph 6 of that application contained an admission that the land was of the public domain and a relinquishment of rights by virtue of continuous occupation and cultivation. The Bureau of Lands had taken no action on the application. The Director of Lands contended that by that paragraph the applicants recognized the land as belonging to the Government, relinquished their rights, and were estopped from applying for registration.

Issues

• Whether or not paragraph 6 of the sales application operated as an admission and waiver that estopped Emiliana Empamano and the other applicants from applying for registration of the land.
• Whether or not any such admission and waiver could bind the children of Emiliana Empamano, who were co-applicants.

Applicable Provisions

The decision quotes paragraph 6 of the sales application, which is the statement relied upon by the Director of Lands:

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.

This statement is the basis of the claim of estoppel, and its conditional wording determines whether the waiver took effect.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the contention of the Director of Lands is untenable. A reading of the statement shows that whatever admission and waiver were made by Emiliana Empamano with respect to the public character and ownership of the land were expressly made to depend upon the approval by the Government of her sales application. The application had not yet been approved nor disapproved at the time the lower court decided the case. Moreover, the statement is clear that if the sales application was disapproved, the applicant reserved her right to apply for Torrens title to the land. As her application remained unacted upon in the Bureau of Lands, she had the right to exercise that right.

On the second issue, the Court held that 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.

Doctrine

First, an admission and waiver contained in a sales application with the Bureau of Lands is conditional when its own terms make it depend on the approval of the application. Where the application remains unacted upon, the waiver has not taken effect, and the applicant retains the right to apply for Torrens title. Second, an admission and waiver made by one applicant binds only that person, and cannot prejudice co-applicants who did not authorize it. These rules flow from the quoted paragraph 6, whose express condition, "if this application is approved, otherwise, I shall apply for Torrens title to this land," limits the relinquishment to the event of approval.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision appealed from, with costs, and the land was adjudicated to the applicants.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a waiver in a sales application that is expressly conditioned on approval does not take effect while the application remains unacted upon, and it binds only the person who made it. Examiners use this case to test estoppel by admission and the conditional nature of waivers in public land applications.