MISAMIS LUMBER CO., INC., APPLICANT AND APPELLANT, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL., OPPOSITORS AND APPELLEES.

This
is an appeal for the registration of land under the Torrens system,
filed by Misamis Lumber Co., Inc., a Philippine corporation. The
Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry, as well as Jorge B. Neri,
Paulino and Leoncio Cebedo, Ramon Daomilas, Esteban Villanueva, Antero
Hinagdanan, Inocentes Angelio, Leoncio Bala and others, Agapito
Villanueva, Gregorio Gacasan, Leoncio Dico et al., Roman Mabanag et
al., Guillermo Amigable, Irineo Ocampos, Francisco Roa, Antonio
Murallon, Florencio Tormes, Gregorio Asne, Ignacio Gonzaga, Jose K.
Ledesma and sisters, Leoncio Catane, Teodoro Mante, Policarpo Pelito,
Eugenia Mahinay, Pedro Dalgo, Julio Garban, Tiburcio Serania, Isidro
Bitay, Rafael Bitay, Jose Salibay, Mariano Aldemita, Salvador and
Vicente L. Neri, Fortunato Buhisan, Datu Mamaki, Datu Tumbaga, Datu
Macatanong, Datu Banukang, Moro Rascal, Moro Daurog, Moro Manintal,
Moro Laundi, Valentin Minosa, Simeon Sobrino, Francisco Abangan, Pablo
Natividad, Enrique Pacana, Donato Fuentes, Tomas Fuentes, Pedro Durias,
Faustino Macamay, Luis Oliveros, Paterno Mabanag, Cenona Canilanza,
Isidoro Monarca, Laureana Monarca, Felipe Maglasang, Santiago
Maglasang, and others presented oppositions.

It appears from
the evidence that as late as the year 1925 most of the land involved in
the present proceedings, with an area of 709 hectares according to the
opposition presented by the Director of Lands and also according to the
decision of the court below, was covered with forest.

In the
year 1926, Marciano Aldemita, in the capacity of homesteader, took
possession of a portion of the land in question. From that time up to
the date of the trial no one had ever molested or interrupted this
homesteader in his possession of his homestead. At the time he entered
upon the land, it was covered with large trees.

In the same
year, another homesteader, Pablo Natividad, also entered upon another
portion of the said land, which was then also covered with forest. He
has cleared a portion of his homestead, planting it to coconuts, abaca,
and corn. He has built four houses on the homestead, and other portions
of the same land have also been in the possession and occupation of
other public land applicants.

The evidence for the
applicant, the Misamis Lumber Co., Inc., tends to show that by virtue
of a supposed possessory information title, Simeon Ledesma y Saligumba,
deceased, was in possession of a tract of abaca and pasture land with
an area of 237 hectares situated in Cagayan, Misamis; that Simeon
Ledesma was succeeded in his possession of the land by his children
Jose, Concepcion, and Soledad; that the Ledesma brothers later sold to
Vicente L. Neri and Salvador Neri two-thirds of said tract of land;
that afterwards, or on April 23, 1928, the Neris sold the said portion
to the applicant; and that on May 31, 1929, the Ledesma brothers also
sold to the applicant the remaining one-third part of the same land. At
the time the applicant took possession of the land in question, it was
covered with forest.

The Misamis Lumber Co., Inc.,
applicant-appellant, was in duty bound to identify sufficiently and
satisfactorily the land or lands which it claims as its own. Having
failed to do so, the applicant-appellant must necessarily fail.

“A
person who brings an action to recover possession is under the
obligation to fully prove, according to repeated judicial decisions,
not only his ownership, but also the identity of the thing claimed.

* * * * * * *

“The
possessor under claim of ownership has in his favor the legal
presumption that he holds the possession by reason of a sufficient
title, and he can not be forced to show it, because in an action to
recover possession of real estate, under an alleged title of ownership,
the plaintiff must rely upon the strength of his own title and not upon
the weak- ness of that of the defendant, and he must establish his
allegations by a preponderance of evidence. (Sanchez Mellado vs. Municipality of Tacloban, 9 Phil., 92.)

“In
order that an action for recovery may be maintained, it is
indispensable, according to the well-settled doctrine of the courts of
justice, that the person bringing the action shall fully prove not only
his dominion over the thing claimed, but also the identity of the same.
(Sison vs. Ramos, 13 Phil., 54.)

“A person who
brings an action to recover possession is under the obligation to fully
prove, according to repeated judicial decisions, not only his
ownership, but also the identity of the thing claimed.

“It
is an old and well settled rule of the courts1 that if the plaintiff,
upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to
show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim,
the defendant is under no obligation to prove his exceptions or
defense. (Belen vs. Belen, 13 Phil., 202, 205, 206.)

“The
applicant for registration of land under Torrens system must show to
the satisfaction of the court that he is the owner of the land in fee
simple. (Maloles vs. Director of Lands, 25 Phil., 548.)

“In
order to secure approval of an application for the registration of real
estate, whether rural or urban, in the property registry, in accordance
with the laws that govern in the matter, the petitioner must
satisfactorily prove that he is the owner and proprietor of the realty
which he seeks to have recorded. (De Liza vs. Director of Lands, 28 Phil., 208.)”^[1]

Counsel for the oppositors-appellees states that “the
applicant-appellant having failed to identify the land or lands, which
it has acquired by purchase from the Neris, his application was,
therefore, properly dismissed”. It must be said that notwithstanding
its efforts to identify the land mentioned in the application for
registration filed in this case, the evidence presented by the
applicant-appellant, as found by the learned trial judge, was
absolutely unsatisfactory and utterly insufficient to identify the land
described in the application or the portions thereof it claims to have
acquired from the Neris and the Ledesmas.

In view of the foregoing, the court below made the following findings:

“(1)
That the land Messrs. Salvador Neri and Vicente L. Neri sold to the
party applicant is that only which is described in Exhibit 6;

“(2)
That the land that Jose K. Ledesma and his brother Vicente Ledesma sold
to the party applicant is the difference between the one-third
belonging to them and all the portions they sold to others before the
execution of Exhibit 21, as stated above;

“(3) That the
party applicant has no right to have all the land applied for, as
described in Exhibit A, registered in its name, for that would include
considerable real estate belonging to other persons;

“(4) That the land sought to be registered has not been duly identified.”

The application for registration is hereby dismissed. Without costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Abad Santos, and Butte, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Quotations taken from brief of the appellees, pp. 23-25.