ALFREDO RAMIREZ AND PAZ BAYOT DE RAMIREZ, APPLICANTS AND APPELLEES, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL., OPPOSITORS. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, APPELLANTS.

In this case the spouses Alfredo Ramirez
and Paz Bayot who are Filipino citizens applied for the registration in
their name of the parcel of land situated at Liang, in the municipality
of Siniloan, Province of Laguna, more particularly described in the
plan Exhibit A and annex Exhibit A-l, which is the technical
description thereof. Said land has a total area of 203 hectares, 85
ares and 44 centares. The Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry
and the municipalities of Siniloan and Famy, of the Province of Laguna,
opposed the application of said spouses on the alleged ground that the
parcel of land in question is public forestry land which was granted by
the Insular Government as communal forests to the above municipalities.

After due hearing which lasted two days according to the decision
of the trial court, judgment was rendered therein declaring the
applicants the true owners thereof with the right to have the same
registered in their name as conjugal partnership property under the
provisions of Act No. 496, as amended, and denying all the oppositions
filed by the four oppositors aforementioned. Said oppositors took
exception to and appealed from the said judgment on the ground that the
trial court committed the following six alleged errors, to wit:

“I. The lower court erred in admitting in evidence Exhibit D-2 and in not holding that the same is null and void ab initio.

“II. The lower court erred in finding that the applicants and their
predecessors in interest have been in the actual, material and physical
possession of the land openly, adversely, publicly and under a claim of
ownership before 1888 up to this time.

“III. The lower court erred in not holding that the applicants failed to establish the identity of the land in question.

“IV. The lower court erred in applying section 45, paragraph (b), of Act No. 2874 and in not finding that the land in question belongs to the class of inalienable public land.

“V. The lower court erred in not finding that Tomas Ilao never existed.

“VI. The lower court erred in denying the Government’s motion for a new trial.”

According to the applicants’ evidence, the land in question
constituted a third part of a piece of land which, for ten or eleven
years prior to the year 1897, belonged to one Tomas Ilao, also commonly
known by the name of Tomas Apat, of the municipality of Siniloan,
Province of Laguna. The same evidence likewise shows that, after having
been in possession of the said land for nearly ten years, that is, on
January 2,1896, said party obtained from the Spanish Government the
title, Exhibit D-2 of the record, wherein it is stated that: Whereas
said Tomas Ilao, who was then 52 years of age, married, farmer, and a
resident of the municipality of Siniloan, Laguna, had applied for the
adjustment with the Government of a parcel of land which he had in the
barrio of Liang in the aforestated municipality and province, the
provincial board for the adjustment of lands granted him the title in
question on condition that he register it in the registry of deeds
within one year. It likewise appears on the third page of the document
in question that on April 27, 1896, the same was registered as realty
No. 92, Santa Cruz, on page 36 of volume I of the records of Siniloan,
which indicates that the condition imposed by the aforesaid board was
complied with.

It may be noted, however, that the so-called title (Exhibit D-2)
does not bear the dry seal nor the rubric of the Inspector General of
Forests nor does it give the maiden name of Tomas Ilao’s mother.
Furthermore, the first paragraph of the title in question, which refers
to the cedula certificate of said person, reads in part as follows:

“* * * whose personal data are attested to by a
certificate issued by the ‘capitan municipal’ thereof on the
twenty-third instant, in connection with the cedula certificate 10th
class No. 1940344 exhibited to him by the grantee * * *” thereby giving
rise to a discrepancy therein because the so-called title (Exhibit
D-2), as hereinbefore stated, is dated January 2,1896, while the
certificate in question bears a very much later date. On the third page
of the said document it may also be noted that the two numbers “1896”,
which appear therein as the year when the proceedings therein mentioned
were had, have been plainly altered, to wit: the last two figures “96”
of the former number and the figures “8” and “6” of the latter, and
that the stamped paper which forms said page does not bear the year
“1896” but the years 1890-91. However, it is stamped “VALID FOR
1896-97” in red ink. It is also very apparent that the land granted
therein to Tomas Ilao has a total area of 300 hectares.

The same evidence of the applicants-appellees likewise shows that
twenty-two months and some days after Tomas Ilao had obtained his said
title (Exhibit D-2), he sold tht land covered thereby to Pablo Villegas
for the sum of two hundred Mexican pesos (Exhibits D-l and D). Thirty
years later, that is, on January 7,1928, said Pablo Villegas, in turn,
sold the same land-specified in Exhibit D-2 to Teodoro Kalambakal,
stating in Exhibit C that the price thereof was one thousand five
hundred pesos. It was only during the time said Teodoro Kalambakal was
in possession thereof, that is, on November 8, 1928, that the land in
question, which had belonged to Tomas Ilao, was declared for purposes
of taxation by the latter purchaser. In his declaration presented to
that effect it was stated that the cultivated portion thereof consisted
of an area of only two hectares and the uncultivated portion, 298
hectares (Exhibit E). On January 8,1929, that is, exactly one year and
one day from the date he purchased it from Pablo Villegas, Teodoro
Kalambakal sold one-third of said property to the herein
applicants-appellees, for the sum of four thousand pesos, having
executed Exhibit B to that effect, wherein it appears that the portion
sold by him had a total area of 100 hectares, although he stated in his
testimony that it was 200 hectares. Subsequently, he sold the remaining
portion thereof to Mauricio Cruz, which, according to his testimony,
had an area of 538 hectares.

On a certain portion of the land in question, there are around one
thousand young coffee trees about two years old, which were planted
among and under the shade of timber-trees growing on the portion of lot
No. 1 of the plan Exhibit A, indicated with the word “coffee”. At the
points marked 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 with red pencil on the same plan, there
are likewise traces of clearings (caingin) made thereon, approximately five years prior to September 28, 1931, the date of the hearing of the case in the trial court.

On the other hand, the evidence of the oppositors shows that lots
Nos. 1 and 2 of the aforesaid plan Exhibit A, which compose all of the
land in question, have always been thickly timbered forests and
mountains (Exhibits 17 to 29), for which reason many homestead
applications have been turned down by the Director of Lands on the
ground that, far from being agricultural in nature, it was forestry
land (Exhibits 52 to 62).

Said oppositors contend that instead of admitting Exhibit D-2, the
trial court should have rejected it on the ground that it was null and
void ab initio. In fact, when the document in question was
executed, the Royal Decree of August 31, 1888, was in full force and
effect in the Philippine Islands. The decree in question classified
public lands occupied by inhabitants, who were private individuals, and
which were subject to adjustment with the Treasury, into two groups:
the first comprised those which were bounded at any point thereof by
other lands belonging to the State, and those which, although entirely
bounded by private lands, had a total area of more than 30 hectares,
and the second comprised those which had an area of less than 30
hectares’ and were entirely bounded by lands of private ownership. The
aforecited Royal Decree provided that adjustment of lands of the first
group should continue to be heard and determined by the General
Directorate of Civil Administration with the intervention of the
Inspector General of Forests. The pertinent provisions thereof relative
to the question under consideration, read as follows:

“ARTICLE 1. All public lands occupied by private
individuals in the Philippine Islands, which are subject to adjustment
in accordance with the Regulation of June 25, 1888, shall be divided
into two groups: The first shall comprise those which at any point
adjoin other lands belonging to the State, and those which, although
entirely bounded by private lands, have a total area of more than 30
hectares, and the second shall comprise those having an area of less
than 30 hectares and adjoining only lands of private ownership.

“ART. 2. Adjustment of lands of the first group shall continue to be
made in accordance with the proceeding prescribed in the Regulation of
June 25, 1880, that is, with the intervention of the Inspector General
of Forests, under the supervision of the General Directorate of Civil
Administration.

* * * * * * *

“ART. 4. The different divisions of field personnel (brigadas
facultativas) shall be under the immediate supervision and control of
the Inspector General of Forests, and the chief of each division shall
forward to said Inspector General the records of all cases and the
plans drawn by the personnel directly in charge of the work on each
piece of land, accompanied by his report thereon. Said Inspector
General, in turn, shall make his recommendation as to the action to be
taken in each case to the General Directorate of Civil Administration.
“Art. 5. For the adjustment of lands of the second group, there shall
be established in each provincial capital a ‘provincial board for the
adjustment of lands’ composed of the Civil or Military-Civil Governor
as president, the Judge of the Court of First Instance, the Prosecuting
Attorney, the provincial treasurer, if any, the Parish Priest, a
continental Spanish freeholder designated by the General Directorate of
Civil Administration, the town head (Gobernadorcillo) and ‘Juez de
Sementeras’. An officer of the Department of Agriculture (Fotnento)
shall act as Secretary thereof, without voice or vote. There shall be
no such provincial board in the City of Manila, and the disposal of
cases for adjustment therein, whatever group they belong to, shall
devolve upon the General Inspector of Forests.

* * * * * * *

“ART. 7. There shall be established in every municipality a local
commission composed of a ‘teniente de justicia’ (in every case
designated by the ‘Gobernadorcillo’ to act by turns in all the
municipal districts), the ‘Juez de Sementeras’, and ‘Directorcillo’
(town head’s secretary) whose duty shall be to inspect the lands in
question.

* * * * * * *

“ART. 10. The town head shall forward the record to
the chief of the province on the day following the inspection of the
land and the provincial board shall be informed thereof within five
days from the date of its receipt. If the record shows that the land
under consideration has a total area of more than 30 hectares or is not
entirely bounded by private lands, the board shall refrain from taking
any cognizance thereof but shall only forward it to the General
Directorate of Civil Administration. Otherwise, it shall designate a
day, within 8 days from the date of the session at which it was
informed thereof, for the appearance of the owner of the land in
question and of those of the adjoining lands, upon whom summons1 to
that effect shall be duly served. Upon their appearance, they shall be
requested to show the board whatever rights they may have to the land
and the work performed thereon. In the absence of any protest or
adverse claim and if the board is convinced that the adjustment should
be gratuitous on the ground that the possessor has established his
right thereto by prescription as provided in articles 4 and 5 of the
Regulation of June 25, 1880, the record shall be approved and the chief
of the province, in his capacity as deputy of the General Directorate
of. Civil Administration, shall issue the corresponding title. Failure
of the aforesaid persons to appear before the board for the purpose
above referred to, shall not prevent the resolution of the case.

“If protests and claims are filed therein, the protestants and
claimants as well as the possessor of the land in question shall be
requested to appear before the board which shall immediately pass upon
the conflicting claims and render the decision it deems just. The chief
of the province shall issue the corresponding title to the property in
accordance with such decision.”

Pursuant to the provisions of article 17 of the aforecited Royal
Decree, the Overseas Minister (Ministro de Ultramar) issued
instructions defining and determining the functions and powers of the
provincial boards and local commissions referred to in articles 5 and 7
thereof. Said instructions, which were published in the “Gaceta de
Manila” on December 20, 1888, read as follows:

“ARTICLE 1. The provincial boards for the
adjustment of public lands shall take charge of the adjustment of those
which are situated outside the communal lands and are entirely bounded
by private lands, the area of which is less than 30 hectares’, whether
they be possessed under a just title or not.

“ART. 2. The
provincial boards shall likewise take charge of the adjustment of those
lands which, having an area of less than 30 hectares, entirely bounded
by private property and under cultivation, are situated within the
communal lands, whether the possessor thereof be a native or not.

“ART. 3. Uncultivated lands shall not be admitted to adjustment, unless
such adjustment had been applied for prior to September 8, 1881, the
date on which the period for the filing of applications for lands of
this kind expired, in accordance with the Royal Order of July 13, 1881.

“ART. 4. If any of the lands, the adjustment of which devolves upon the
provincial boards in accordance with the provisions of articles 1 and 2
of these Instructions, is under cultivation, possessed under a just
title, and happens to have an area in excess of that specified in said
title, the portion in excess thereof shall be admitted to adjustment if
it is cultivated or, if uncultivated, when the adjustment thereof had
been applied for prior to September 8, 1881.

“If under
cultivation, the adjustment thereof shall be made in accordance with
the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 6 of the Regulation of
June 25, 1880, and if not, adjustment shall be made under paragraph 3
of the same article and Regulation.

“Adjustment of lands the
area of which is in excess of the 30 hectares shall correspond to
provincial boards only when the area specified in the title together
with that of the portion in excess does not exceed that area.

“ART: 5. Adjustments shall be free only in the following cases:

“1. When the land is under cultivation, and has been possessed for ten
years under a just title, or for twenty years under no title whatsoever.

“2. When, possessed under just title and there being an excess in its
area of not more than one-fifth of that specified in said title, it has
been under cultivation.

“In all other cases’, adjustment
shall be onerous, and the amount which the possessor has to pay to the
Treasury shall be governed by the provisions of the Regulation of June
25, 1880.

* * * * * * *

“ART. 7. Provincial boards shall immediately remit
to the General Directorate of Civil Administration all petitions for
adjustment of lands not within their jurisdiction, viz: Lands having an
area of more than 30 hectares, such as are, or are not entirely bounded
by private lands; also all proceedings to be heard and determined by
said department.”

Judging from the area of the land in question and that of the
two-third portions from which it had been segregated, upon the
supposition that the three-third portions abovementioned constitute the
whole tract of land which had originally passed from Tomas Ilao, it is
obvious that the same belonged to the first group, as defined in the
aforesaid Royal Decree, on the ground that the area thereof greatly
exceeded thirty hectares and was not entirely bounded by private lands.
Notwithstanding such facts, the title Exhibit D-2 was not issued by the
General Directorate of Civil Administration with the intervention of
the Inspector General of Forests, but merely by the provincial board,
in open violation of the laws and regulations relative thereto.

During the period and on the date of the issuance of the title
Exhibit D-2 in question, the Maura Law was also in force in the
Philippine Islands by virtue of the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894.
Article 6 of said law, which prescribed the procedure for the hearing
and disposal of applications for adjustment, reads as follows:

“ART. 6. All petitions for adjustment, for which a
second petition insisting thereon has been made within the prescribed
time limit, shall be disposed of in the shortest time practicable
according to the laws in force prior to the present Decree, excepting
as to the provisions of article 8, by the General Directorate of Civil
Administration, assisted by the Inspector General of Forests, whenever
such property adjoins lands belonging to the State or contains more
than 30 hectares; in all other cases they shall be disposed of by the
provincial boards established by Decree on Municipal Organization
issued May 19, 1893.

“The provincial boards for the
adjustment of lands established by Royal Decree of December 26, 1884,
and confirmed by Royal Decree of August 31, 1888, are hereby dissolved,
as are also local commissions created by the latter decree. Municipal
tribunals of towns shall assume the duties of said local commissions.
Before dissolving, boards of adjustment are hereby directed to deliver
to their successors, the provincial boards, all records and documents
which they may hold in their possession.” Articles 9, 12, 13 and 40 of
the Regulation for the enforcement of the aforesaid Decree, provide as
follows:

“ART. 9. Lands subject to adjustment shall continue
to be classified as heretofore into two groups: The first shall
comprise those which have an area of more than 30 hectares, or, if
less, when bounded at any point by other state lands, and the second
shall comprise all others.

“Proceedings for adjustment of
lands of the first group shall be heard and determined by the General
Directorate of Civil Administration with the assistance of the
Inspector General of Forests.

“The adjustments of the second
group shall be heard and determined by the provincial boards
established by Royal Decree of 19th of May, 1893, which shall take the
place of the boards of adjustment existing up to the present time.

“ART. 12. When petitions referring to lands included in the second
group mentioned in article 9 are received by the General Directorate of
Civil Administration they shall be referred to the presidents of the
provincial boards for examination and report, including records. The
secretaries of said boards shall keep registers in which a record shall
be entered of the receipt of all petitions for adjustment.

“ART. 13. Provincial boards shall immediately remit to the General
Directorate of Civil Administration all petitions for adjustment of
lands not within their jurisdiction, viz: Lands having an area of more
than 30 hectares, such as are, or are not entirely bounded by private
lands; also all proceedings to be heard and determined by said
department.

“ART. 40. All title deeds shall bear the
father’s name in full and the mother’s maiden name of the persons to
whom they are issued, also their age, civil status, profession, and
residence, in compliance with the provisions of Royal Order of February
15, 1893, and article 2 of the Regulations for the manner of drafting
public documents subject to registration in the archipelago. Title
deeds deficient in any of the requisite provisions of law shall not be
admitted to registration. Said personal data covering the grantee must
compare with his personal cedula or certificate from the captain or gobernadorcillo
of his district, pursuant to circular dated August 9, 1893, issued by
the General Directorate of Civil Administration and published on the
11th in the Gazette of said month. Such credential shall be attached to
the record, and the fact of its being so attached shall be entered in
the instrument of title.”

The circular of the General Directorate of Civil Administration on
February 14, 1894, was likewise then in force. Said circular declared
null and void all titles issued after October 18, 1893, which did not
comply with the requirement that they bear the dry seal and rubric of
the Inspector General of Forests. The circular in question reads as
follows:

“GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

“CIRCULAR

“Inasmuch as article 28 of the Instructions for the
adjustment of public lands of the Philippine Islands expressly provides
that titles issued by the chiefs of provinces by virtue of such
adjustments be drawn up on the printed forms which this office shall
furnish to the provincial boards for that purpose, in order to fully
comply with the provisions of said article and to facilitate the
discovery of any violation thereof, this office has deemed it
convenient to order that all printed forms of this kind furnished to
the said boards for the aforesaid purpose bear a dry seal in the form
of mountains with the inscription ‘Office of the Inspector General of
Forests of the Philippine Islands-Adjustment of Lands’ and the rubric
of the said Inspector General of Forests. All titles issued by my
deputies after October 18, 1893, which do not comply with these
requirements are void. Furthermore each and every one of said papers
shall be serially numbered.”

Exhibit D-2 does not bear the serial number either printed or in
handwriting as required by the aforecited circular. Neither is it amiss
to repeat herein that the so-called title (Exhibit D-2) does not bear
the required dry seal and rubric of the office of the Inspector General
of Forests.

Similarly, the regulation to the effect that the maiden name of the
grantee’s mother should appear in the title issued to him was then in
force and strictly observed. The regulation in question which is dated
May 10, 1898, and countersigned by the Inspector General Off Forests,
is embodied in the circular of the Director General of Civil
Administration of the Philippine Islands which was published in the
“Gaceta de Manila” on May 14th of the same year. Said circular reads as
follows:

“GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

“CIRCULAR

“Considering that the printed forms which were
being used by the boards of adjustment in the issuance of titles to
lands adjusted with the State, do not conform strictly to the
provisions of the Mortgage Law now in force, and in compliance with the
Royal Order relative thereto which was issued on February 15th last,
this Directorate, at the instance of the Inspector General of Forests,
has resolved the following:

“1. The boards of adjustment of
lands shall discontinue issuing title from the date this resolution is
published in the ‘Gaceta de Manila’.

“2. The determination
of adjustment cases pending hearing before said boards shall be
suspended unless the interested parties furnish their father’s surname
and their mother’s maiden name, their age, civil status, profession and
domicile, all of which data must necessarily be stated in the titles to
lands which may henceforth be issued.

“3. Presidents of
boards shall publish the requirements of the preceding paragraph by
means of notices and town criers in order to enable the interested
parties to supply any omission in the above requisite data.

“4. In order that the adjustment work may not be interrupted for any
length of time, the presidents of boards shall remit all printed forms
used in the issuance of titles, which they may have in stock at the
first opportunity, so that they may be exchanged for others drawn up in
accordance with the provisions of the Mortgage Law in force in the
Philippine Islands, as expressly provided in the aforecited Royal Order
of February 15th, last.”

The circular of the General Directorate of Civil Administration of
the Philippines, dated August 9, 1893, and published in the “Gaceta de
Manila” on the 11th of the same month and year, demanded the same
requisite. Said circular reads as follows

“GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS—FORESTS

“CIRCULAR

“It being necessary, in conformity with the
provisions of the Royal Orders of January 12th and February 15th last,
to state in the adjustment titles to public lands the personal
circumstances of the grantees, as stated in their cedula certificates,
and deeming” it improper to require the interested parties to send said
cedula certificates either to the Inspector General of Forests or to
the presidents of provincial boards for adjustment of lands, for their
guidance in drawing up said titles, both for the reason that the
interested parties to whom they may be indispensable would be deprived
thereof for a long time and because of the likelihood that they may be
lost, this office, with the concurrence of the Inspector General of
Forests, has resolved that in all cases in which it is not possible to
examine the cedula certificate of the interested party in drawing up
the titles to adjusted lands, the Inspector General of Forests as well
as the presidents of provincial boards for the adjustment of lands may
demand a certificate in connection with such document through the chief
of the province.

“This certificate shall be drawn up de oficio
at the municipal court of the town where the interested party resides,
the issuing officer having before him the cedula certificate in force,
which the interested party shall be required to exhibit to that effect.

“The certificate shall contain a complete copy of the contents of the
cedula certificate and shall further indicate the maiden name of the
grantee’s mother, his age, civil status and profession, if such data
have not been stated therein.

“Said certificate shall be signed by the ‘gobernadorcillo‘
or captain, his assistants and the interested party, or by another
person of the same locality at his request if he does not know how to
do so.

“Your Honor will please have this circular published
by means of town criers, in Spanish and in the local dialects, in all
the municipalities of the province under you, for the information of
the general public.”

The contents of the document Exhibit D-2 show that it did not comply with the requirements above stated.

Everything said thus far shows that the title in question was not
valid. It follows, therefore, that it vested no title in Tomas Ilao.

If this should not be sufficient, it may be added that, in view of
the provisions of article 3 of the aforesaid Decree of the Overseas
Minister (Ministro de Ultramar), dated October 20, 1888, which reads:
“Uncultivated lands shall not be admitted for adjustment unless such
adjustment had been applied for prior to September 8, 1881, the date on
which the period for the filing of applications for lands of this kind
expired, in accordance with the Royal Order of July 13, 1881,” the
presumption is that the said interested party obtained the aforesaid
title Exhibit D-2 on the strength of his affirmation that the land
covered thereby was under cultivation, otherwise such title would not
have been issued to him. Under such circumstances, it is clear that he
obtained the title in question not only through error but also through
fraud, inasmuch as the evidence of record shows that, with the
exception of a portion thereof, the land covered thereby was never
cultivated during the five years prior to September 28, 1931, when the
case was heard in the trial court, judging from clearings (caingin),
which were in evidence in some portions thereof, and from the two-year
old coffee trees planted on the portion which is indicated with the
word “coffee” on the plan Exhibit A. This is shown more clearly by the
fact that on the entire land and on the portion planted with young
coffee trees, there are many timber-trees, some of which are more than
40 years old according to the evidence of the oppositors.

Exhibit 4, which is an authentic and genuine title to property
issued to Pablo Acero y Alcantara by the chief of the Province of
Laguna, seven months after the alleged issuance of Exhibit D-2, and
which refers to a parcel of land having an area of 6 hectares, 54 ares
and 82 centares, serves not only to show how strictly the provisions of
the aforecited decrees, laws, and regulations were then observed and
complied with, in connection with the manner in which titles were
issued and the persons issuing them when the land covered thereby did
not exceed 30 hectares in area, and, when they exceeded 30 hectares,
the dry seal and rubric which such titles should bear and the
statements or certificates which they should contain relative to the
full name and surname together with the maiden name of the mother of
the person or persons in whose favor they were issued, but also proves
that Exhibit D-2 in question is fictitious and not genuine. Said
Exhibit 4 was issued by the chief of the Province of Laguna because the
land covered thereby had an area of less than thirty hectares. It bears
the dry seal and rubric of the Inspector General of Forests as
prescribed in the aforecited circular of the General Directorate of
Civil Administration on February 14, 1894; indicates the maiden name,
of the mother of the grantee Pablo Acero y Alcantara, and has the
serial number relative to the issuance thereof printed at the top of
the left margin.

Comparing the statements and certificates contained in the two
documents above-mentioned, Exhibit D-2 and Exhibit 4, in connection
with the cedula certificates of their respective grantees, it is
inconceivable how it was possible to issue Tomas Ilao a cedula
certificate dated January 23, 1896, with a number (No. 1,940,344 10th
class) which is very much higher than that of the one issued to Pablo
Acero y Alcantara (No. 43,723 10th class) on a much later date, that
is, on February 28, 1896. It should further be noted that the two
cedula certificates in question had been issued in the same
municipality of Siniloan, Laguna. Furthermore, the very contents of
Exhibit D-2 indicate that it is fraudulent. The certificate referred to
in its first paragraph states that the cedula eertificate of Tomas Ilao
was issued on the “23d instant”, that is, on January 23, 1896, while
said exhibit was issued on, the 2d of the same month and year,
according to the date appearing therein.

In case the foregoing are deemed insufficient, it should be added
that the evidence of the oppositors shows that no trace of the issuance
of the so-called title Exhibit D-2 of Tomas Ilao, or of the proceeding
thereof, could be found in the National Library or Division of Archives
where the records of all titles to property issued during the Spanish
regime, are. kept.

It is therefore evident that the trial court committed the first
error alleged in the appellant’s brief. Exhibit D-2 should have been
rejected not only because it is null and void but also because it is
fictitious or forged and therefore not genuine.

Inasmuch as this court is convinced that Exhibit D-2 did not vest
Tomas Ilao with any right, he could not therefore validly sell the land
which he allegedly sold to Pablo Villegas on October 15, 1897,
according to Exhibit D-l. With much less reason could the latter sell
it to Teodoro Kalambakal on the ground that he did not even take
possession nor claim ownership thereof in spite of the alleged
execution of the aforesaid document in his favor. Exhibit 48, which is
the record of the proceeding in the-homestead application of said Pablo
Villegas, and particularly his application therein, prove that in 1918,
long before he sold the land of which the parcel in question was a
portion, as claimed by the herein appellees, and long after he
purchased it from Tomas Ilao, as also claimed, said Pablo Villegas did
not have any land, having so declared under oath in his application
above-mentioned. Furthermore, he never declared it as his property for
taxation purposes1 at any place, much less in the municipalities of
Siniloan and Famy where said land is situated. All these circumstances
show beyond doubt that he not only did not possess or occupy the land
in question but was not even aware of the existence of the deed of sale
Exhibit D-l which was allegedly executed by Tomas Ilao in his favor.

The foregoing likewise shows that Teodoro Kalambakal’s alleged
purchase of the land from Pablo Villegas is fictitious on the ground
that, if the latter had no land of his own he could not have sold what
is now claimed to have been bought by the former. The preponderance of
evidence, more than anything else, leads us to the conviction that
Teodoro Kalambakal was aware of the manner in which the so-called title
Exhibit D-2 was fabricated. Of this there is no doubt because when he
went to the land in question on or about the month of July, 1929, for
the purpose of indicating the boundaries thereof to Forester Valentin
Sajor, who was sent by the Bureau of Forestry to inspect it in
connection with the former’s application to the said bureau for the
registration thereof, he made the mistake of narrating how he became
the owner of the land by means of some old documents scattered in the
house of a friend in Siniloan, who told him that he could have them
because they might be of some use to him.

If Teodoro Kalambakal neither acquired anything from Pablo Villegas
nor actually possessed the land which he claimed to have bought from
the latter, the transfer thereof which he made in favor of the
appellees-spouses would serve them nothing on the ground that it did
not vest them with any right whatsoever. Said spouses, no doubt, were
led to believe that Exhibit D-2 was valid. It should be borne in mind
that, as before stated, the only acts of Teodoro Kalambakal which may
in some way serve as evidence of his claims of ownership of the land in
question were his having declared it as his property for taxation
purposes in Laguna on November 8, 1928, and his occasional visits to
the land about the same year. It cannot even be said that the clearings
(cainyin), of which there were some traces thereon and which might have
been made about five years prior to September 28, 1931, according to
the evidence, had been made by Kalambakal’s order, because there is
nothing of record to justify such conclusion. Neither is it necessary
to dwell upon the young coffee trees on the ground that their age (two
years) clearly proves that they had been planted during the time
applicants-appellees were in possession thereof.

Granting that the applicants-appellees have been in possession of
the land in question from the date on which they purchased it in 1929
and had planted it with young coffee trees, it may be inferred from the
foregoing that their possession only commenced from that year in view
of the fact that Teodoro Kalambakal from whom they bought it did not
possess it in the legal sense. The mere fact of declaring uncultivated
land for taxation purposes and visiting it every once in a while, as
was done by him, does not constitute acts of possession. (Evangelista vs. Tabayuyong, 7 Phil., 607; Casimiro vs. Fernandez, 9 Phil., 562.)

Therefore, there can be no doubt but that the trial court committed the second error as alleged in the appellant’s brief.

With respect to the fourth alleged error which the appellants
contend was committed by the trial court, this court, after examining
and studying the provisions of section 45, paragraph (b) of
Act No. 2874 which amended section 54, paragraph 6 of Act No. 926, is
compelled to bold that the contention of said appellants is likewise
correct.

The judgment of the trial court adjudicating the land in question
to the appellees under the aforecited legal provisions, is based on a
false premise, to wit: that the land in question is agricultural in
nature. The evidence presented as well as that heretofore stated shows
that it is forestry land. This kind of land is not subject to
registration on the ground that it has been occupied for the period of
time therein prescribed (Ankron vs. Government of the
Philippine Islands, 40’Phil., 10), particularly when, as already
stated, neither the applicants-appellees nor Teodoro Kalambakal nor
Pablo Villegas nor Tomas Ilao, in this case, possessed the land in
question jointly or separately, in succession, under the conditions
prescribed by the law, that is, openly, continuously, exclusively and
under a bona fide claim of ownership, from the year 1888,
notwithstanding the attempt of the applicants-appellees to prove the
contrary. The only thing that, in a way, seems certain is that the
applicants-appellees cultivated the land in question for the first time
in 1929 or 1930, by means of laborers who planted young coffee trees
thereon. However, that took place after the deed of sale Exhibit B had
been executed by Teodoro Kalambakal in their favor and this fact does
not entitle them to register it in their name, either under Act No. 496
or under Act No. 926.

Having arrived at this conclusion, the court deems it unnecessary
to pass upon the third, fifth and sixth alleged errors relied upon in
the appellants’ brief.

Wherefore, finding that the judgment appealed from is not in
accordance with the law nor supported by the evidence presented during
the trial, it is hereby reversed. The petition of the
applicants-appellees is hereby denied and the land in question is
declared forestry land, without special pronouncement, however, as to
costs. So ordered.

Abad Santos, Hull, Imperial, and Butte, JJ., concur.