THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER, VS. JUAN M. AGUSTIN ET AL., CLAIMANTS; LADISLAO DAYRIT, CLAIMANT AND APPELLEE ; AMADO L. SANTOS, CLAIMANT AND APPELLANT.

Some time prior w the 29th day of July, 1918,
the Director of Lands presented a petition in the Court of First
Instance of the Province of Pampanga for the registration of a certain
piece or parcel of land under the Cadastral system. On the 29th day of
July, 1918, the appellant Amado L. Santos presented a claim lots Nos.
122 and 123, alleging that said lots belonged to him, and prayed that
the same be registered in his name. To the claim of the appellant Amado
L. Santos, Ladislao Dayrit presented his opposition, alleging that he
was the owner of lot No. 124 and that there existed in favor of said
lot (No. 124) an easement upon said lots Nos. 122 and 123, and
requested that said easement be noted upon whatever title might be
issued to Amado L. Santos for said lots Nos. 122 and 123.

Upon the issue thus presented with reference to the registration of said lots Nos. 122 and 123, two questions arose, namely:

(1) Was Amado L. Santos the owner in fee simple of said lots Nos.
122 and 123, and entitled to have the same registered under the
Cadastral system (Torrens system)?

(2) Whether the owner of said lot No. 124 was entitled to have his
alleged easement noted upon whatever certificate of title might be
issued to Amado L. Santos for lots Nos. 122 and 123.

That no person is entitled to have land registered under the
Cadastral or Torrens system unless he is the owner in fee simple of the
same, even though there is no opposition presented against such
registration by third persons, has been decided by the courts many
times. One of the primary and fundamental purposes of the registration
of land under the Torrens system is to secure to the owner an absolute
indefeasible title, free from all encumbrances and claims whatsoever,
except those mentioned in the certificate of title issued, and, so far
as it is possible, to make the certificate issued to the owner by he
court, absolute proof of such title. In order that the petitioner for
the registration of his land shall be permitted to have the same
registered, and to have the benefit resulting from the certificate of
title, finally issued, the burden is upon him to show that he is the
real and absolute owner, in fee simple, of the land which he is
attempting to have registered. The petitioner is not necessarily
entitled to have the land registered under the Torrens system simply
because no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the
registration of his land. He must show, even though there is no
opposition, to the satisfaction of the court, that he is the absolute
owner, in fee simple. Courts are not justified in registering property
under the Torrens system, simply because there is no opposition
offered. Courts may, even in the absence of any opposition, deny the
registration of the land under the Torrens system, upon the ground that
the facts presented did not show that the petitioner is the owner, in
fee simple, of the land which he is attempting to have registered.
(Maloles and Malvar vs. Director of Lands, 25 Phil., 548; De los Reyes vs. Paterno, 34 Phil., 420, 424; Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa vs. Municipality of Taal, 38 Phil, 367, 376.)

The lower court, at the close of the hearing, reached the
conclusion that Amado L. Santos had not adduced proof sufficient to
show that he was the owner in fee simple of said lots Nos. 122 and 123,
but granted to him sixty days within which to present additional proof
showing his right to have said lots registered, subject, however, to
the easement which the said Ladislao Dayrit claimed against said lots.
In other words, while the lower court found that the evidence was
insufficient to justify a registration of said lots Nos. 122 and 123
under the Cadastral system, it did find that the evidence showed that
there existed in favor of lot No. 124 an easement of the right to take
water through a canal across said lots Nos. 122 and 123.

The said Amado L. Santos, instead of presenting additional proof
showing his right to have said lots Nos. 122 and 123 registered,
subject to said easement, immediately appealed to this court, and
attempts to show, among other things, that said lots (Nos. 122 and 123)
should not be subjected to the said easement in favor of lot No. 124,
and that the evidence adduced during the trial was sufficient to show
that he was the owner in fee simple of said lots.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause,
the lower court made an ocular inspection of the existence of the
easement in question, and became thoroughly convinced, not only from
the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, but from said
ocular inspection, that there existed the easement in question in favor
of said lot No. 124.

With reference to the sufficiency of the evidence to show that
Amado L. Santos was the owner in fee simple of said lots (Nos. 122 and
123) and entitled to have the same registered in his name, it may be
said (a) that the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause is not sufficient his contention, and (b)
that in his argument in support of that assignment of error, he cites
no proof nor any part of the record in support of his contention.

After a careful examination of the entire record we are forced to
the conclusion that the judgment of the lower court should be, and is
hereby, affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Araullo, Street, and Avancena, JJ., concur.