MAURICIA MOPERA AND GERTRUDIS HOPILHA PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES VS. PABLO CABANELA ET AL. DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS MONICO CABAHELA INTERVENOR AND APPELLANT.

Mopera versus Cabanela

The Case

This is an action for the recovery of two parcels of land situated in the municipality of Daet, in the province of Camarines Norte, brought by the plaintiffs Mauricia Mopera and Gertrudis Hopilha against the defendants Pablo Cabanela and Laureano Cabanela, with Monico Cabanela intervening as a claimant of one of the parcels. The plaintiffs claim ownership by inheritance from their predecessor, Ignacio Mopera, while the defendants and the intervenor claim the lands as homesteaders, and the Director of Lands answers that the lands belong to the public domain and that the plaintiffs' right, if any, has been lost by abandonment. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a mere application for a possessory information title that was never perfected, and how long, unexplained silence by a claimant, set against the peaceful possession of a homesteader, produces a ruling for the public domain.

Procedural History

The action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte on July 25, 1928. After hearing the evidence, the trial judge, the honorable A. M. Recto, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them the owners of the parcels in question, but holding that the defendants and the intervenor, having planted the lands in good faith, were entitled to recover the value of their improvements, without pronouncement as to costs. From that judgment the defendants appealed, and later the Director of Lands withdrew his appeal. The appeal brought the case to the Supreme Court, which decided it in December 1931.

Facts

The plaintiffs trace their claim to Ignacio Mopera, their predecessor, in whose favor an exhibit was issued that the trial court treated as a possessory information title. The defendants Pablo and Laureano Cabanela were in possession of one parcel as applicants for homestead, while the intervenor Monico Cabanela claimed the other parcel of about thirty hectares, which he had acquired as a homestead from the Government.

When Monico Cabanela applied for lot number one as a homestead in 1917, the encargado of the plaintiffs filed an opposition with the Director of Lands. That opposition was denied in January 1918. From that denial the plaintiffs took no further step to assert their alleged right until the lapse of more than ten years, or on July 25, 1928, when this action was instituted. During that entire period of over ten years, Monico remained in the peaceful, quiet, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land as a homesteader.

On the evidence, the Court found that the two parcels in question are public land, occupied by the appellants as homesteaders.

Issues

• Whether or not the exhibits relied upon by the plaintiffs show that the two parcels of land in question form part of the land described in those exhibits.
• Whether or not the plaintiffs lost their right in the land by abandonment, in other words, whether or not their right of action has prescribed.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision; it turns on the nature of a possessory information title and on the effect of abandonment and lapse of time. The Court's controlling statement of the rule on the exhibits is this:

Exhibit D, which the lower court erroneously called possessory information title, is not such title. It is only an application for said title, filed with the Government by the father of the plaintiffs.

This bears on the case because the plaintiffs' claim of ownership rested on a document that was never perfected into a title.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that an examination of the exhibits fails to show that the lands therein referred to are the two parcels now in question, or that these two parcels form part of the lands mentioned in those exhibits. The boundaries of the lands described in the exhibits are different from the boundaries of the two parcels as given in the plaintiffs' plan, and no satisfactory explanation was given for the difference. More fundamentally, the exhibit that the lower court called a possessory information title is not such a title at all. It is only an application for that title, filed with the Government by the father of the plaintiffs, and no title was ever issued, evidently for the applicant's failure to prosecute. At the bottom of its last page appears a providencia setting the hearing of the application on a certain date in the presence of the promotor fiscal, but no such hearing was held and no adjudication of title was made to the applicant.

On the second issue, the Court held that abandonment or prescription is supported by the record. When Monico Cabanela applied for lot number one as a homestead in 1917, the encargado of the plaintiffs opposed before the Director of Lands, and that opposition was denied in January 1918. Yet the plaintiffs took no further steps to assert their alleged right until the lapse of more than ten years, when this action was instituted on July 25, 1928. Against that silence stood Monico's peaceful, quiet, continuous and uninterrupted possession as a homesteader throughout the same period. A great preponderance of the evidence showed the two parcels to be public land occupied by the appellants as homesteaders.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, a mere application for a possessory information title, unperfected because no hearing was held and no adjudication of title was made, confers no ownership; it is not itself a title. Second, a claim of ownership over public land is lost where the claimant, after an adverse ruling on his opposition, sleeps on his right for more than ten years while a homesteader holds the land peacefully, quietly, continuously and uninterruptedly; that inaction amounts to abandonment, and the land remains public land occupied by the homesteader. Third, the plaintiff in a land registration or recovery case must show by a preponderance of evidence that the land claimed is the very land described in his documents; a discrepancy in boundaries that is not satisfactorily explained defeats the claim.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment appealed from, relieved the appellants from all liability under the complaint, and ordered the appellees to pay the costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an application for a possessory information title that was never heard and never adjudicated is not a title, and more than ten years of silence against a peaceful homesteader is abandonment. Examiners use this case to test the difference between an application for title and a perfected title, and to test abandonment and prescription against occupants of the public domain.