JOSE P. HENSON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, CANDELARIA MERCADO, ADMINATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LORENZO MERCADO, AND EMIGDIO BANTIG, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

GODDARD, J.:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, the dispositive part of which reads:

“Se sobresee la demanda sin especial pronunciamiento en cuanto a las costas.”

The property in question in this case is now before
this court for the third time. The land claimed by the
plaintiff-appellant has an area of 32 hectares, 50 ares and 75
centiares and is made up of lots Nos. 528, 819, 820 and 822-A of case
No. 9, G. L. R. 0. Cadastral Record No. 187 of the Province of Tarlac.

On March 12, 1914, Jose P. Henson, the appellant
herein, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac
(Expediente No. 33, G. L. R. 0. No. 10010) for the registration under
Act No. 496 of two parcels of land having an area of 175 hectares, 37
ares and 63 centares and located in the barrio of Santa Monica,
municipality of Conception, Province of Tarlac. The Director of Lands
filed his opposition to the registration on the ground that said
parcels of land belonged to the public domain.

On September 13, 1915, Vicente Nepomuceno, judge,
rendered a decision adjudicating to Henson the parcel of land in
question in this case and declaring the rest of the lots, claimed by
him, public land. Said adjudication was, however, subject to the
condition that Henson should, within a period of 40 days, segregate the
land adjudicated to him and present a new plan and technical
description of the same duly approved by the Bureau of Lands and by the
chief surveyor of the General Land Registration Office. Instead of
complying with this order of the lower court Henson appealed to this
court from the part of that decision which declared the rest of the
land, applied for by him, as public land. While that appeal was pending
in this court (G. R. No. 11662), Henson filed a motion for a new trial
based on newly discovered evidence. On May 17,1918, the court granted
the motion and remanded the case to the lower court for a new trial.^[1]
Upon receipt of the record Judge Nepomuceno, on July 1, 1918, ordered
that the case be set for hearing at the next session of that court. So
far as the record shows Henson took no further steps in that case to
perfect his title to the land in question in this case, which had been
conditionally adjudicated to him by Judge Nepomuceno. This was a
mistake upon his part as the Director of Lands did not appeal from that
decision. If he had complied with the requirement of the lower court
and presented a new plan and technical description, a final decree of
confirmation and registration would probably have been issued in his
favor. Having failed to comply with that order it was absolutely
impossible to issue a decree of title in his favor. Such a decree must
contain a technical description so that a certificate of title may be
issued. All certificates of title must contain a technical description
of the land they cover. Therefore the contention of the appellant that
the decision of the trial court in registration case No. 33 is final
and that that decision in his favor is res adjudicata, is not
tenable. As a matter of fact that registration case No. 33 was finally
dismissed on April 30, 1924, over ten years after it was filed in the
Court of First Instance of Tarlac. So far as the record shows there
were no further proceedings therein with reference to the land in
question from September 13, 1915, to the date of its dismissal.

On January 10, 1920, nearly six years after Henson
filed registration case No. 33, the Director of Lands instituted two
cadastral cases in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac (cases Nos. 8
and 9, G. L. R. O. Cad. Rec. Nos. 186 and 187). In said proceedings
Henson claimed, among others, lots Nos. 528, 819, 820, 821 and 822-A,
the same land conditionally adjudicated to him in registration case No.
33. On June 29,1922, Judge Eduardo Gutierrez David rendered a decision
in cadastral cases Nos. 8 and 9 adjudicating to Henson, among others,
the above mentioned lots with a total area of 32 hectares, 68 ares and
1 centiare. The Director of Lands appealed from that decision. On
October 16,1923, this court revoked (G. R. Nos. 20462 and 20463)^[1] the decision rendered by Judge David. This court said:

“Considering the assignments of
error of the AttorneyGeneral with reference to the lots ordered to be
registered in the name of Jose P. Henson by the lower court, it may be
stated that the record is very incomplete in that the plans presented
by the appellee are very indefinite and uncertain, and that the
documents presented by him failed in many respects to show a complete
title of the parcels of land in question, nor specific identification
of the same. And, moreover, it may be added that during the trial of
the cause Jose P. Henson made no claim whatever as being the owner of
the following lots which were included in the decree of the lower
court: Nos. 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 734, 735, 851, 852, 853,
1420, 814, 820, 823, 826, and 833. It Is difficult therefore to
understand how these particular lots could have, under any theory, been
registered in his name.

“After a careful
consideration of the record and the evidence adduced during the trial
of the cause, and without further discussion of the facts, we are fully
convinced that the same fails to show that Jose P. Henson or his
predecessors in interest had title to any of said lots, or that he or
his predecessors in interest possessed or occupied these lots for the
period of time and under the conditions by which he might have acquired
title. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court decreeing to him the
lots mentioned in its decree is hereby revoked, and without any
pronouncement as to costs it is so ordered.”

If Henson had followed up the conditional decision
in case No. 33 and secured a certificate of title to the land in
question and presented that certificate in these cadastral cases as
proof of his ownership, the decision of Judge David would not have been
revoked by this court. A Torrens title issued for land, included later
in a cadastral proceeding, must be respected and protected by the
cadastral court.

The attorney, representing Henson before this
court, asserts, and he is correct, that this court did not specifically
declare the land in question as public land. In a cadastral proceeding
the Government of the Philippine Islands, represented by the Director
of Lands, is the applicant, the theory being that all the land included
in the cadastral survey is presumed to be public and that all persons
who may have any right to or interest in said land or any part thereof,
must file their “answers” with the clerk of court in order that they
may not lose their rights. It naturally follows that When a person
answers, alleging that he is the owner of a portion of the land
included in the cadastral survey, and prays that said portion be
adjudicated to him and, after hearing, his prayer is denied, that land
in so far as the defeated claimant is concerned, is deemed public land.
A final judgment against a claimant in a cadastral case is conclusive
as to his alleged rights’.

On January 23, 1924, after the decision of this
court became final and the record in cadastral cases Nos. 8 and 9 was
returned to the trial court, upon motion of the Director of Lands, that
court issued an order requiring the provincial sheriff to eject Henson
and his tenants from the land in question and to put the homesteaders
who had applied therefor in possession.

On November 25, 1927, more than three years after
the order of ejectment was issued, Henson filed civil case No. 2489, in
the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, against the Director of Lands,
alleging that the appeal in cadastral case No. 9 was filed after the
time for appeal had expired; that the decision of this court, upon said
appeal, was therefore null and void and prayed that the Director of
Lands be enjoined from disposing of the lots which had been adjudicated
to him in registration case No. 33. On October 3, 1928, the trial court
issued an order denying the petition of Henson and he again appealed to
this court (55 Phil., 586). In affirming that order this court said:

“In conformity with the ordinary
practice, the General Land Registration Office on January 10, 1923,
sent notices of the adjudications to the litigants in the two cases.
The provincial fiscal, on behalf of the Director of Lands, thereupon
appealed from the decisions in regard to Henson, and on February 6,
1923, he perfected the appeals by bills of exceptions, and in this
court the cases were given the numbers G. R. 20462 and 20463. No
objection to the appeals was presented by Henson, and briefs were filed
by both parties, and as a final result, this court on October 16, 1923,
reversed the decision of the lower court and declared all the lots in
question public lands. In 1924, the various lots were distributed among
the homesteaders who had occupied the land for some time.

* * * * * * *

“As stated by counsel for the
plaintiff, ‘this is a suit in equity whereby the plaintiff seeks
equitable relief against a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court.’ It
is a well known maxim that ‘equity aids the vigilant, not those who
slumber on their rights.’ In the cases in question, the herein
appellant let all objections pass for over four years. and in the
meantime, the title to the land involved had been granted other persons
in good faith. It is indeed too late to claim that the appeals referred
to were unauthorized by law and must be declared null and void.
(Glazier vs. Carpenter, 16 Gray [Mass.], 385; 3 C. J., 371.)”

In his complaint, in the case now under
consideration, the plaintiff alleges that he is the absolute owner of
the land in question; that he bought the land from Doroteo Narciso on
October 16, 1913, and from that date until January 15, 1924, he had
been in continuous, public and peaceful possession as owner of said
land; that on the date, mentioned above, the defendant Director of
Lands, “sabiendo muy bien dicha posesion del aqui demandante, de mala
fe e ilegalmente, y a espaldas del aqui demandante, presento a este
Juzgado una mocion para la expedicion a su favor de un mandamiento de
posesi6n sobre la mencionada parcela de terreno con lanzamiento del
aqui demandante”; that before he bought the land from Doroteo Narciso,
the latter had been in possession thereof for at least thirty years
having bought it from Julian Ramos and that Doroteo Narciso had
procured the registration of “una informacion posesoria” covering said
land. He prays that the possession of the land be restored to iu’m;
that the homestead claims of the defendants Candelaria Mercado as
administratrix of the estate of Lorenzo Mercado and Emigdio Bantig be
declared null and void and that the defendants be sentenced to pay him
damages.

In registration case No. 33 and in cadastral cases
Nos. 8 and 9 the herein plaintiff, Jose P. Henson, based his claim as
owner of the land in question upon the same facts alleged in his
complaint in this case.

It has been shown that he abandoned any advantage
he may have acquired in registration case No. 33 by not complying with
the order of the court discussed above and that in cadastral case No. 9
this court revoked the judgment of the trial court decreeing to him the
land now in question in this case.

In view of the foregoing, and after giving due
weight to all the arguments advanced in the excellent brief of the
attorney now representing the plaintiff, it is held that the decision
of this court in cases Nos. 8 and 9, G. L. R. O. Cadastral Record Nos.
186 and 187, is conclusive and final as to the alleged rights of Jose
P. Henson to the land in Question in this case.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed with costs in this instance against the plaintiff-appellant.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Hull, and Imperial, JJ, concur.

^[1] Director of Lands vs. Henson, not reported.