MODESTO LIMJOCO AND TEODORA HONSAYCO, APPLICANTS AND APPELLEES, VS. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, SANTIAGO QUIJANO, AND RAFAEL VILLAROMAN, OPPONENTS. DIRECTOR OF LAND…

The application for registration filed by the spouses Modesto
Limjoco and Teodora Honsayco was opposed by the Director of Lands, the
Director of Forestry, Santiago Quijano, and Rafael Villaroman. After
legal notice and the entry of an order of general default, the
application was set for the taking of evidence; and the evidence having
been adduced by the parties, the judge then presiding over the Court of
First Instance of Pampanga rendered judgment denying the application
and ordering the dismissal of this proceeding for insufficiency of
evidence.

The applicants filed a motion for reconsideration praying the court
to set aside the dismissal of this proceeding and to order the
opponents to present their evidence. Later, said applicants filed an
exception and a motion for a new trial, praying the court to declare
the case reopened for further evidence.

By its order of February 6, 1928, the court granted the motion of
new trial giving the applicants an opportunity to adduce further
evidence, on condition that the portions claimed by Santiago Quijano
and Rafael Villaroman be excluded, to which the applicants agreed.
Then, with Judge Hermogenes Reyes presiding, the court overruled the
oppositions filed by the Director of Lands and the Director of
Forestry, and after entering a general default decreed the registration
and adjudication of the land in question in favor of the spouses
Modesto Limjoco and Teodora Honsayco. The court also ordered the
presentation of an amended plan excluding the lands involved in the
oppositions of Santiago Quijano and Rafael Villaroman.

The provincial fiscal of Pampanga, in behalf of the Director of
Lands, appealed from the judgment of the court below to the Supreme
Court through the proper bill of exceptions, and now alleges that the
trial court erred: (a) In failing to hold that the applicants
have not proved the identity of the land they allege belongs to them
and which they seek to register; (b) in holding that the
applicants have sufficient right to warrant the registration and
adjudication of the land described in their application in their favor;
(c) in holding that the applicants are entitled to the benefits of paragraph 4, section 54 of Chapter VI, Act No. 926; and (d)
in overruling the oppositions filed by the Director of Lands; in
decreeing the registration and adjudication of the parcel of land in
question in favor of the applicants, and in denying the motion for a
new trial filed by said opponent.

As to the identity of the land in question, the court below held:
“The applicant and his witnesses Benito Pangan and Fidel Sanguyo
explained the difference in the eastern and southern boundaries, and
therefore the boundaries to the north and west being creeks and rivers
of the same name, that is, natural boundaries, except for certain parts
thereof, the identity of the estate may be deemed proved.” We have gone
over the record and find that the evidence supports this conclusion of
the trial court. The land in question is described in plan Exhibit A,
and represents the eastern part of the land described in Exhibit C,
which we shall discuss later on. A creek runs through the land from
north to south, thus dividing it into two portions, one to the east of
the “Pamicatigan,” and the other to the west of said creek. It is the
registration of the portion to the east of the “Pamicatigan” that we
are concerned with in this proceeding. The witnesses for the applicants
identified the land in question, and the difference in the western
boundary is due to the fact that the application is confined to the
portion of land to the east of the Pamicatigan creek. The difference
in area between the land described as the second parcel in Exhibit C,
containing some 800 hectares, and the land, the registration of which
is here sought, containing about 400 hectares, is explained by the fact
that the application for registration refers only to the eastern
portion which is approximately one-half of the land described as the
second parcel in the document Exhibit C.

The applicants’ claim is based on a purchase of the land from
Meliton Limjoco on May 12, 1926 for P5,400, according to the document
Exhibit B. On September 12, 1911, Meliton Limjoco acquired the land
from Raymundo Pangan for P3,100, as per Exhibit H. In 1906 Raymundo
Pangan bought said land from the heirs of Isabel Gatbonton for P2,500
(Exhibit G). On July 12, 1906 Isabel Gatbonton’s heirs acquired the
land in question by repurchase from Adriano Samson for P1,066.45
(Exhibit F). On May 15 of the same year, Adriano Samson acquired the
land in question, together with other lots at a public auction for
P1,000 (Exhibit E). The lands sold at public auction were those
described in Exhibit C, which were mortgaged by the original owner,
Isabel Gatbonton, to the sons of Jose Ma. Venegas, and for default in
payment of the debt, were attached and sold at public auction in
pursuance of a writ of execution of the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga.

Exhibit C is a public document, executed before the notary public,
D. Pedro Garcia Enrico, and noted in the book called “Libro de
Anotaciones de Hipoteca de la Ciudad de Manila,” on December 10, 1886.
By virtue of said deed, Isabel Gatbonton, its maker, mortgaged eight
parcels of iand described therein. It must be noted that the notary who
authorized it states the following: “Which parcels of land are her
(Isabel Gatbonton’s) exclusive property, as proved by her composition
titles issued by the ‘Direcci6n General de Administracion Civil’ on the
nineteenth of last July, which, together with other documents dealing
with said estates, consisting of sixteen pages in all, were exhibited
to me, and, upon being read and signed by me, shall be attached to a
copy hereof,”

Counsel for the appellant contends that the trial court erred in
holding the applicants sufficiently entitled to the registration and
adjudication of the land described in the application. In our opinion
this contention is groundless. The composition title referred to by the
notary who certified Exhibit C has not been produced for the reason
that said document was lost during the confusion which followed the
change of sovereignty. But we believe that said title of composition
with the State was doubtless issued to Isabel Gatbonton, not only on
the authority of Notary Pedro Garcia Enrico’s assurance, but also
because of Exhibit D. Exhibit D is certainly not the composition title
issued to Isabel Gatbonton. The applicants do not allege it, nor has
the trial court so held. It is simply a true copy of the record of a
composition of lands in the barrio of Calauitan, within the
jurisdiction of the town of Candaba, Province of Pampanga, initiated by
Dona Isabel Gatbonton on April 17, 1884, which record is in the files
of the Bureau of Lands, being certified to by the Director of Lands.
Said Exhibit D narrates the steps taken in that proceeding, and shows: (a)
That on October 31, 1884, the “Direction General de Administracion
Civil” had decreed to Isabel Gatbonton the composition with the State
of the land she owned in the barrio of Calauitan, within the
jurisdiction of Candaba, Province of Pampanga, in accordance with
article 5 of the “Regulations on Composition” of June 25, 1880; (b)
that Isabel Gatbonton had paid the P432.45 which was 10 per cent of the
“assessed value of the land, which had been measured and surveyed by an
employee of the Forestry Department,” as required by the decree of the
Governor-General of December 12, 1882; (c) that she had obtained and delivered to the “Hacienda Publica” the piece of paper with the 3d seal of the Ilustres
for the issuance of the proper title; and that Isabel Gatbonton thereby
closed the proceeding as far as she was concerned; and (d) that the receipt and the Ilustres
sealed paper having been sent to the Director General of Civil
Administration on April 29, 1886, the latter issued the “proper title”
on July 19, 1886.

Thus it is seen that the original owner of the land in question had
a composition title with the State obtained from the Spanish
Government, having paid P432.45 therefor, being 10 per cent of the
reglementary assessment of said land. As stated, the ownership of this
land was successively transmitted to several persons until it came to
the applicant, Modesto Limjoco. And these persons as successive owners
held possession of the land from 1886, using the lowlands as a fishery,
and the elevated portions for the cultivation of rice, corn and
vegetables. In referring to the cultivation of the land, it should be
noted that the talajal growing thereon which appears to have
been abandoned, was left for the purpose of shading and keeping the
water of the fishery cool. It would not be superfluous to add that the
applicant has been paying the land tax thereon, and that the land is at
present assessed at P13,000.

In view of the evidence adduced by the applicants, we are of opinion
that the lower court was correct in holding that they are entitled to
the registration and adjudication of the land described in the
application.

Failure to present the composition title with the State cannot
prejudice the applicants’ right, for, its loss having been proved, its
contents could be proved by a copy or a recital of its contents in
some authentic document, or by the recollection of a witness. (Sec.
321, Code of Civil Procedure.) And in the instant case it is evident
that the recital of its contents was made in the authentic document,
Exhibit C.

Inasmuch as it has been proved in the record that the applicants
have been in possession of the land the registration of which is
sought, as well as their predecessors in interest, Meliton Limjoco,
Raymundo Pangan, the heirs of Isabel Gatbonton, the purchaser at public
auction, Adriano Samson, and the original owner, Isabel Gatbonton,
there is no need to discuss the third assignment of error made by the
appellant, inasmuch as the land in question is not public land, but
private land granted by the Spanish Government by means of a
composition with the State, to the original owner, Isabel Gatbonton.

Therefore, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby,
affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Johnson, J., dissents.