NUMERIANO PADILLA, APPLICANT AND APPELLEE, VS. PABLO REYES AND THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, OPPOSITORS AND APPELLANTS.

Appellee applied for the registration in
his name of a parcel of land containing a little over 161 hectares
located in Bongabong, Nueva Ecija. The application was opposed by the
Director of Lands and by nine homesteaders, on the ground that the
property sought to be registered was public land. One Pablo Reyes, who
claimed to be the exclusive owner of the land, also filed an
opposition. After due hearing, the court below dismissed all the
oppositions and decreed the registration of the land in the name of the
appellee. From this judgment all the parties who opposed the
application appealed, although Pablo Reyes’ appeal was dismissed for
failure to file his brief on time.

In support of this appeal the following errors have been assigned:
(1) That the lower court erred in holding that the appellee has
established his title to the property sought to be registered, and (2)
that the lower court erred in decreeing the registration of the
property in the name of the appellee.

Appellee presented no valid and sufficient title deed showing his
ownership of the land in question. He, however, tried to prove that he
inherited the same from his ancestors, who had been in possession of
the land for many years dating back to the Spanish regime; that he as
well as his predecessors in interest had partly cultivated the land and
partly used it as a pasture; that various improvements had been made on
the land ever since the Spanish regime; and that upon the death of
their father, Pablo Padilla, he and his sister Alejandra took
possession of the land. On the other hand, the appellants introduced
evidence tending to show that the land in question was never occupied
by Pablo Padilla during the Spanish regime; that when the several
homesteaders settled upon the land during 1912 to 1918, the same was
unoccupied, unclaimed, and without any sign of previous cultivation or
occupation; that the homesteaders were not molested in their possession
of portions of the land in question until 1927, after they had cleared
their holdings and put the same in cultivation.

In Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa vs. Municipality of Taal
(38 Phil., 367, 375, 376), this court said: “* * * In order, however,
that the petitioner for registration of his land under the Torrens
system shall be permitted to have the same registered and to have the
benefit resulting from tfct 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 lands which he is attempting to have registered. The petitioner is
not entitled to have his lands registered under the Torrens system
simply because no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the
registration of his lands. In order that land may be registered under
the Torrens system, the petitioner must show, even though tljere is no
opposition, that he is the absolute owner, in fee simple, of the same.
* * *’ “

On the other hand, it is well-settled that no public land can be
acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from
the government. A grant is conclusively presumed by law when the
claimant, by himself or through his predecessors in interest, has
occupied the land openly, continuously, exclusively, and under a claim
of title since July 26, 1894, or prior thereto. (Ongsiaco vs.
Magsilang, 50 Phil., 380.) In the case before us, appellee has failed
to prove any express grant from the government; neither has he
succeeded in proving possession from which a constructive grant can be
predicated.

It results that the judgment appealed from must be reversed, and it
is hereby decreed and adjudged that the property sought to be
registered in this case is public land. Without any special
pronouncement as to costs in this instance. So ordered.

Street, Butte, Goddard, and Diaz, JJ., concur.