CELSO AMARANTE HEIRS, NAMELY:  FELOMINA, FERNANDA, GENARO, CARMELITA, CRISPIN, CORAZON, ISIDRA, LYDIA, ANTONIO, BIENVENIDO, NATHALIA, DEGUILO, DOMINADOR, ZOSIMA, HUGO AND LORNA,…

The background facts of this Petition for Review are set forth in
our Decision in this same case, promulgated on 26 October 1987, in the following manner:

“On 20 August 1954, petitioners filed a complaint (docketed as
Civil Case No. 2967) against respondents for the recovery of a twenty hectare
parcel of unregistered agricultural land (Lot 1236, Pls-667) situated in Sitio Campulay, Barrio Atotes, Bindoy, a remote
mountainous region of Negros Oriental.  The complaint was dismissed by the trial
court on 31 January 1962
due to the failure of counsel for petitioners to appear at the scheduled
hearing of the case:  the dismissal,
however, was ordered without prejudice to the refiling
of the same complaint.

On 20 December 1962,
petitioners refiled their complaint (docketed this
time as Civil Case No. 4100) with the then Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental (12th Judicial District).

The evidence for the petitioners (plaintiffs below) indicates that
Lot 1236 was one of two pieces of real property originally owned and cultivated
by the late Malonis Infiel,
a native negrito or Aeta (Ate
in the Ilongo dialect) (Brief for Appellants, p. 2;
and Memorandum, p. 1).  Upon his death
(the date is not specified), Lot 1236 was inherited by:  (1) Silverio Amarante, Bohemia Infiel, Belta Infiel, Apolonia
Infiel, and Inojaria Infiel, the children of Malonis Infiel with Elena Infiel; and (2)
Felix Malonis, the son of Malonis
Infiel with Lucia Infiel.  The other five-hectare property situated in Sitio Awang, Barrio Atotes, Bindoy, Negros Oriental (Lot 1237, Pls-667), on the other hand, was
inherited solely by Felix Malonis.

Petitioners, the grandchildren and descendants of Malonis Infiel out of his union
with Elena Infiel, contended that Malonis
Infiel began occupying Lot 1236 long before the
advent of World War II and had cultivated the land by planting no less than 300
coconut trees, 19 mango trees, and 33 bamboo groves thereon.  The occupation and possession by Malonis Infiel, his children, and
petitioners of Lot 1236 remained undisturbed until sometime in 1953 when
respondent Gregorio Bolo, a common law husband of one of the granddaughters of
Felix Malonis, caused the survey of Lots 1236 and
1237 in June 1948, and proceeded to occupy Lot 1236 claiming to have purchased
the same on 11 April 1948 from respondent heirs of Felix Malonis.  Petitioners contested the claim of respondent
Bole and asserted that what had been sold to him was only Lot
1237 (area:  5 hectares) and that Lot
1236 (area:  20 hectares) was
surreptitiously declared by respondent Bolo in the aforementioned survey as property
owned exclusively by Felix Malonis.  Petitioners also contended that respondent
Bolo, in his desire to consolidate possession and ownership of Lot
1236 in his name harassed petitioners by instituting a criminal case for
qualified theft on 7 October 1953
against Eleuterio Amarante
and petitioner Celso Amarante
([T]his criminal case was dismissed by the trial court on 21 February 1956. 
Petitioner Celso Amarante
died on 2 September 1984 and
was substituted in this petition by his wife, fourteen children, and two
grandchildren) and by threatening to liquidate the other petitioners if they
persisted in their refusal to abandon the disputed property.

For their part, respondents (defendants below), the grandchildren
and surviving heirs of Felix Malonis, contended that
it was not improper for them to sell Lot 1236 to respondent Bolo on the ground
that said property had always been owned exclusively by Felix Malonis, contrary to the claim by petitioners that Lot 1236
was owned in common by the six children of Malonis Infiel by his two wives. 
Respondents presented Tax Declaration No. 123 issued on 7 August 1948 in the name ‘Herederos de Felix Malonis‘ in
support of their claim of ownership over Lot 1236, and
in rebuttal of Tax Declaration No. 6051 issued in 1953 in the name of Malonis Infiel which was
presented in evidence by petitioners.

On 17 September 1984,
Branch 42 of the Regional Trial
Court of Dumaguete City
(Seventh Judicial District) rendered a Decision (RTC Records, pp. 241-245.  The decision was penned by Judge Daniel B. Bernaldez) the dispositive
portion of which reads:

‘WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiffs’ complaint is hereby
dismissed and declaring the sale between the heirs of Felix Malonis
and Gregorio Bolo over the property in question valid, and finally declaring
Gregorio Bolo owner of the parcel of land declared under Tax Declaration No.
123 in the name of the Heirs of Felix Malonis and now
declared in his name under Tax Declaration No. 4393.

The Court refrains from granting defendants’ counterclaim for
damages, the same not being proved by convincing evidence.

SO ORDERED.’

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, this case was docketed as
CA-G.R. CV NO. 05697.  In a Decision
dated 3 April 1986, the
decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto
by the Court of Appeals.  (First Civil
Cases Division) (The decision was penned by Quetulio-Losa,
J., and concurred in by Gaviola, Jr. and Ines-Luciano, JJ.).

The Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) (The Sixth Division was then
composed of Griño-Aquino.  Ines-Luciano and
Cui, JJ.), in a Resolution dated 17 September 1986, denied petitioners’
Motion for Reconsideration not on its merits but rather for having been filed
late, and ordered that entry of judgment of the decision dated 3 April 1986 of
the First Civil Cases Division be made.

In a resolution dated 14
January 1987 (Rollo, p. 42), this Court
set aside the resolution dated 17
September 1986 of the Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), as well as
the entry of judgment ordered by the Sixth Division in said resolution of the
decision dated 3 April 1986
of the First Civil Cases Division. 
Respondents have since then filed their Comment to the petition while
petitioners, in response, have filed their Reply to respondents’ comment.

The present Petition for Review was filed with the Court on 11 November 1986.”^[1]

After careful examination of the record of the case and full
deliberation on the issues raised in the Petition for Review, we rendered a
Decision dated 26 October 1987
remanding the case back to the trial court for reception of additional
evidence.  The final portion of the
decision states:

“All the above factors lead us to the conviction that the interests
of substantial justice will best be served by remanding this case to the trial
court.  Ordinarily, we would remand this
case for trial de novo. 
This controversy has, however, been in our courts since 1954; we
cannot allow this situation to persist a day longer than is absolutely
essential.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of Branch 42 of the Regional
Trial Court of
Dumaguete City
dated 17 September 1984 in
Civil Case No. 4100 is SET ASIDE.  This
case is REMANDED to that Regional Trial Court which is hereby DIRECTED to
proceed as follows:

1.    It shall consider
carefully all the evidence previously submitted to it by petitioners.

2.       It shall hold
hearings for the purpose of receiving such additional evidence as petitioners
may wish to submit in support of their principal allegations and arguments to
wit:

(a)     that
Lot No. 1236 was originally owned by Malonis Infiel who cultivated and lived and died on that property;

(b)     that Malonis Infiel, upon his death,
was succeeded, insofar as Lot No, 1236 was concerned, by his six (6) children
by his two (2)  wives;

(c)     that petitioner Celso Amarante, his aunts and their
children were in actual possession of Lot No. 1236 until 1954 when respondent Bolo
by fraud, breach of trust, threats, intimidation, harassment, misrepre­sentation
and other unlawful means divested them of their possession:

(d)     that what was sold by respondent heirs of
Felix Malonis to respondent Bolo was Lot No. 1237
and, if at all and at most, a 1/6 share in Lot No.  1236; and

(e)     that the Absolute Deed
of Sale covering Lot No. 1236 in favor of respondent Bolo is invalid or
unenforceable.

3.       If additional
evidence is submitted by petitioners, respondent’s
shall be entitled to cross examine, petitioners’ additional witnesses and to
submit rebuttal evidence.

4.       This Regional Trial
Court, Branch 42, Dumaguete City shall, with all
deliberate dispatch, and in any case within ninety (90) days from receipt
hereof, submit a report on the evidence of record and on its findings of fact
of this Court.  Such findings of fact
shall be fully documented by reference to the evidence of record:  the basis of each finding of fact shall be
clearly identified.  The Regional Trial
Court shall furnish petitioners and private respondents with a copy of its
report to this Court.  The entire record
of this case shall be elevated to this Court.

After receipt and consideration of the report of the Regional Trial
Court, this Court will resolve the Petition for Review and the underlying case
on the merits.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.”^[2]

Because this case which involves rights of illiterate Aetas, a vulnerable ethnic minority group, has dragged
on for a very long period of time, we have, in the interest of expediting final
disposition thereof, taken upon ourselves the task of resolving both the
Petition for Review and the underlying case upon the merits.

The case was set for hearing before the trial court in compliance
with the 26 October 1987
Decision of this Court.  In the
supplemental hearings, petitioners presented Florentina
Amarante who testified that Celso
Amarante, his aunts and their children had been in
actual possession of Lot 1236 and that since her
marriage to Celso Amarante,
they had lived on this parcel of land situated in Sitio
Campulay.^[3] Fernanda Amarante, daughter of Celso and Florentina, testified
that she was born in 1936 in Sitio Campulay where her parents had built their house.^[4]
Her parents and her father’s aunts and their children were living peacefully in
Lot 1236 until private respondent Gregorio Bolo divested
them of their possession through threats, intimidation, harassment and other
unlawful means in 1953.  Her family,
therefore, left Campulay and did not attempt to go
back again.  Instead, on 20 August 1954, they instituted Civil
Case No. 2967 for recovery of Lot 1236.^[5]

For his part, respondent Bolo did not dispute the fact of prior
possession of Lot 1236 by petitioners and their
predecessors-in-interest.  To rebut the
additional evidence presented by petitioners, respondent Bolo took the witness
stand again and testified on practically the same facts he had testified to
during the main trial of this case and re-submitted his exhibits including new
exhibits (Exhibits 20, 21 and 21-A).^[6]

In the second and final Report dated 7 April 1989, rendered by
Judge Jesus L. Tabilon, Presiding Judge, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 42, Dumaguete City, pursuant the
Resolution of this Court dated 27 February 1989 which had reiterated its
requirement that the trial court “make findings of fact and x x x identify the evidence that it
considered in arriving at its finding of fact”, the trial judge set forth
the following findings of fact:

“In a case for recovery of real property filed by plaintiffs
against defendants, docketed as Civil Case No. 4100 with Branch XLII, Regional
Trial Court, Dumaguete City, plaintiffs seek to
recover from defendants five-six (5/6) portion of a parcel of land known as Lot
No. 1236, Pls 667, situated at Campulay,
Atotes, Bindoy, Negros Oriental.  In
support of their complaint, plaintiffs adduced both oral and documentary
evidence and proved the fallowing to wit:

That during the lifetime of Malonis Infiel, a native Negrito or Aeta, he had two (2) wives, namely:  Elena Infiel and
Lucia Infiel. 
That Malonis Infiel
and Elena Infiel had five 5) children, namely:  Silverio Infiel Amarante, Apolonia Infiel, Bohemia
Infiel, Belta Infiel and Inojaria Infiel (TSN, April 3, 1974, p. 19 and TSN, June 21, 1974,
p. 4) while Malonis Infiel
and Lucia Infiel had only one (1) son, Felix Malonis (TSN, June 21, 1974, p. 2).  Malonis Infiel was in possession and cultivation of two (2) parcels
of land, one later known as Lot No. 1236, Pls 667,
situated at Sitio Campulay
and other later known as Lot No. 1237, Pls 667,
situated at Sitio Awang,
all at Barangay Atotes, Bindoy, Negros
Oriental.  That upon
the death of Malonis Infiel.  Lot No. 1236 at Campulay
was inherited by:  1) Silverio Amarante, Bohemia
Belta Infiel, Apolonia Infiel and Inojaria Infiel, the children of Malonis Infiel with Elena Infiel; and 2) Felix Malonis, the
son of Malonis Infiel with
Lucia infiel, inherited Lot No. 1237, Pls 667 at Awang (TSN., Oct. 9,
1974, p. 4).  That Malonis
Infiel had been in possession of Lot No. 1236 long
before the advent of the Second World war, this allega­tion is apparent from
the ages of the three hundred (300) coconut trees and the circumference of the
nineteen (19) mango trees planted inside said Lot No. 1236 (TSN, April 3,
1974).  That petitioner Celso Amarante, together with his
aunts and their children who are the heirs of Malonis
Infiel with Elena Infiel
were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of Lot No. 1236, declared the same
under Tax Dec. No. 6051, in the name of Hrs. of Malonis
Infiel, dated September
12, 1953 (Exh. ‘A’) and paid taxes
thereon (Exhibits ‘B’, ‘B-1’ to ‘B-5’). 
The contention of defendants that Tax Dec. No. 6051 was concocted to
facilitate the filing of Civil Case No. 2967 by plaintiffs against herein
defendants is untenable, consider­ing the fact that Tax Dec. No. 6051; Exh. ‘A’ was issued on September 12, 1953 while the filing
of the Civil Case No. 2967 took place one year thereafer,
on August 20, 1954.  That the possession
and occupation of Malonis Infiel,
his children and grandchildren, who are the plaintiffs in this case of Lot No.
1236 remained undisturbed until sometime in 1953 when defendant Gregorio Bolo,
a common-law husband of one of the granddaughters of Felix Malonis
had Lots Nos. 1236 and 1237 surveyed (Exh. ‘12′)
occupied said lots claiming to have purchased the same from the heirs of Felix Malonis by virtue of an Absolute Deed of Sale dated March 6, 1949 (Exh.
‘8’).  That in order to eject plaintiffs from
Lot No. 1236, defendant Gregorio Bolo threatened and harassed plaintiffs by
filing Criminal Case No. 257 before the Justice of the Peace Court of Bindoy, Negros Oriental for the
crime of “Qualified Theft” against Eleuterio
Amarante and Celso Amarante, who are among the plaintiffs in this case (Exh. ‘C’) which was dismissed on the ground that question
of ownership was involved (Exh. ‘C-1’)
and Criminal Case No. 336 before the Justice of the Peace Court of Payabon (now Bindoy), Negros Oriental for the crime of “Light Threats”
(Exh. ‘D’) which case was
likewise dismissed on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt
of accused beyond reasonable doubt (Exh. ‘D-1’).  That unable
to eject plaintiffs from the land in question with the filing of the
aforementioned cases, defendant­ Gregorio Bolo threatened to kill plaintiff Celso Amarante and by virtue of
said threat, Celso Amarante’s
aunts and cousins vacated and left the land in question with Celso Amarante the last to vacate
and went to reside at Pagsalayon upon advise of his
children and wife for he (Celso Amarante)
might be killed or be a killer (TSN, April 3, 1974, p. 13).

It having been established that the land in
question, Lot No. 1236 had been in possession and cultivation long before the
Second World War, first by late Malonis Infiel and after his death by his children and
grandchildren who are the plaintiffs in this case, the Absolute Deed of Sale (Exh. ‘H’-plaintiff and Exh. ‘8’-defendant) executed and signed by the heirs
of Felix Malonis which included the land in question
owned and cultivated by plaintiffs would be null and void in so far as the lot
in question is concerned.  Defendant
Gregorio Bolo, relied much on Tax Dec. No. 123 in the name of the Heirs of
Felix Malonis (Exh. 11’) which
was issued on August 7, 1948 much earlier than Tax Dec. No. 6051 in the name of
Heirs of Malonis lnfiel (Exh. ‘A’) which was issued on September 12, 1953, covering
the parcel of land in question, but tax declaration and tax receipts are not
evidence of ownership (Municipality of Santiago Isabela
vs. Court of Appeals, 120 SCRA 734) Tax Dec. No. 123 in the name of Heirs of
Felix Malones issued on August 7, 1948 cannot surpass
and overcome the evidence of prior possession and cultivation of plaintiffs and
their predecessors in interest of the land in question.

That the Absolute Deed of Sale (Exh. ‘8’) which is the basis of defendant Gregorio
Bolo’s claim of ownership over the land in question, appears to be executed by
illiterate non-Christian vendors being Negritos or Aetas and said sale is in the language not understood by
the vendors and the same was not approved by the Presidential Assistant for
Cultural Minorities (formerly Commission on National Integration) and
therefore, pursuant to Section 120 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, the Absolute
Deed of Sale, Exhibit ‘8’ is null and void. 
The evidence on record having established that Lot No. 1236 was
originally possessed and owned by Malonis Infiel, the Absolute Deed of Sale, Exhibit ‘8’ executed by
the Heirs of Felix Malonis, if the same is at all
valid, would only convey end transter one-sixth (1/6)
of Lot No. 1236, Felix Malonis, being one of the six
(6) children of Malonis Infiel.”^[7]

1.  The first issue we need
to consider is a preliminary one, relating to the nature of the underlying
action in the Petition at bar.  The
complaint refiled by the petitioners with the then
Court of First instance of Negros Oriental, was
captioned “Civil Case No. 4100:  For
Recovery of Real Property”.  This
designation given by petitioners to their own pleadings does not, however,
obligate us to treat it as no more than an action for recovery of possession of
real property.  It is a principle
consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction that is not the caption but the
facts alleged in the complaint or other pleading which give meaning to the
pleading and on the basis of which such pleading may be legally characterized.^[8]
In the law on pleadings, courts are frequently called upon to pierce veiling
forms and to go direct to the substance of things.  Courts are not, therefore to be bound by falsa descriptio or
defective caption given to a pleading for such is not controlling.  Courts are rather to be guided by the
substantive averments of the pleadings. 
On this basis, we believe and so hold that the action filed by the
petitioners was one not merely for recovery of possession of real property but
rather one also for quieting of title.8 It will be seen that Article 476 of
the Civil Code which provides as follows:

“Art. 476.  Whenever
there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein,
by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid,
ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be
prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or
to quiet the title.

An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast
upon title to real property or any interest therein.” (Underscoring
supplied)

is precisely applicable
to the case at bar.

2.  We should consider next
the character or the rights held by petitioners in respect of Lot
1236.  The testimony of Celso Amarante showed that in
1974, the coconut trees planted by petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest
were already approximately seventy (70) years of age.  The mango trees had trunks with
circumferences of about three (3) arm lengths; indicating once more that those
trees were very old.9 Thus, it was clearly shown that Malonis Infiel had begun occupying
Lot No. 1236 a very long time ago.  When the possession of Malonis Infiel of the land is tacked on to that of petitioners,
there is no question that possession exceeded thirty (30) years which is the
period for extraordinary prescription provided for in Article 1137 of the Civil
Code.

More importantly, there is Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No.
141, as amended by Republic Act No. 1942, otherwise known as the Public Land
Act, which provides as follows:

“Section 48.  The following described citizens of the
Philippines occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such
land or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or
completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the
land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a
certificate of title therefor, under the Land
Registration Act, to wit:

x x
x              x
x x                 x x x

(b)  Those who by themselves
or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the
public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at
least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for
confirmation of the title except when prevented by war or force majeure.  These shall
be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a
Government grant, and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the
provisions of this chapter.” (Underscoring supplied)

There is no question that petitioners, at
the time they had been forcibly driven off the Sitio Campulay parcel of land, had through their possession and that of their predecessors?in-interest
complied with the requirements of long continued (at least 30 years), bonafide, open, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of Lot 1236 which was, of course,
originally agricultural land of the public domain.  As such, they had become owners of Lot
1236 even before formal confirmation of their title under Section 48 (b) of the
Public Land Act.  In Director of Lands
v. Intermediate Appellate Court et al.,10 the Supreme Court, in overruling
the earlier case of Manila Electric Company v. Castro Bartolome,
et al.,11
said:

“Nothing can more clearly demonstrate the logical
inevitability of considering possession of public land which is of the
character and duration prescribed by statute as the equivalent of an express
grant from the State than the dictum of the statute itself that the
possessor(s) ‘x x x shall be conclusively presumed to
have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be
entitled to a certificate of title x x x.’ No
proof being admissible to overcome a conclusive presumption, confirmation
proceedings would, in truth be little more than a formality, at the most
limited to ascertaining whether the possession claimed is of the required
character and length of time; and registration thereunder
would not confer title, but simply recognize a title already vested.  The proceedings would not originally
convert the land from public to private land, but only confirm such a
conversion already effected by operation of law from the moment the required
period of possession became complete. 
As was so well put in Cariño, ‘x x x (T)here are indications that registration was expected
from all, but none sufficient to show that, for want of it, ownership actually
gained would be lost.  The effect of the
proof, wherever made, was not to confer title, but simply to establish it, as
already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law.

x x
x              x
x x                 x x x

The Court, in the light of the foregoing, is of the view, and so
holds, that the majority ruling in Meralco
must be reconsidered and no longer deemed to be binding precedent.  The correct rule, as enunciated in the
line of cases already referred to, is that alienable public land held
by a possessor, personally or through his predecessors-in-interest, openly,
continuously and exclusively for the prescribed statutory period (30 years
under The Public Land Act, as amended) is converted to private property by the
mere lapse or completion of said period, ipso jure.”12

3.  We turn to the Absolute
Deed of Sale dated 6 April 1949
under which the respondent heirs of Felix Malonis
purported to sell to Gregorio Bolo a total of 53.19 hectares for a stated
consideration of P1,148.00.  The subject matter of the Absolute Deed of
Sale was described in the following terms:

“x x
x             x x x                 x x x

That one Felix Malonis, during his
lifetime was in open, continuous, public possession in the concept of an owner
for more than sixty years, of a parcel of land situated in Sitios
Awang and Campolay, Manjuyod, Neg. Or., which parcel of land is particularly
bounded and described as follows:

containing an area
of fifty-three hectares and nineteen ares (53:19.00),
under Tax Declaration No. 123 and assessed for P2,540.00; with improvements
consisting of 200 ponos de cocos
de 2-a; 50  ponos
de cocos para 1954; 4 ponos de mangas; and 6 grupos canas espinas.  This parcel of land has visible monuments
consisting of marked stones in every corner, and presently in the possession of
the Vendee.

x x x                      x x x                 x x x”13

We note that the Absolute Deed of Sale referred to Tax
Declaration No. 123.  In this connection,
we need to refer to the Survey Plan that respondent Gregorio Bolo had caused to
be prepared.  This Survey Plan14
shows:  Lot 1236
— with an area of 314,161 square meters: 
and Lot 1237 — with an area of 211,206 square
meters (total:  525,367 square meters or
52.5367 hectares).  It is worth noting
that the total area of Lots 1236 and 1237, as set out in Gregorio Bolo’s Survey
Plan, varies from the area of land stated to be sold under the Absolute Deed of
Sale.

More importantly, however, the Court must clarify that what we
have heretofore referred to as Lot 1236 must not be taken to refer to Lot
1236 set out in Gregorio Bolo’s Survey Plan.  What we have referred to in this decision as Lot
1236 is really the tract of land located in Sitio Campulay which had been occupied and cultivated by Malonis Infiel and his
successors-in-interest, petitioners in the instant case.  This tract of land in Campulay,
approximately twenty (20) hectares in area, is covered by Tax Declaration No.
6051 standing in the name of petitioners, heirs of Malonis
Infiel, and obtained by them on 12 September 1953.  In this and in our earlier Decision dated 26 October 1987, we have used the
term “Lot No. 1236” as simply a shorthand way
of referring to the parcel of land in Sitio Campulay, Barrio Atotes, Bindoy, Negros
Oriental.

In the same way, what we have in this decision and earlier
referred to as Lot No. 1237 is really the parcel of land located in Sitio Awang, Barrio Atotes, Bindoy, Negros Oriental, which had also
been occupied and cultivated by Malonis Infiel.

We must then note that Lot No. 1236 in Gregorio Bolo’s Survey
Plan purports to be much larger than the 20-hectare Campulay
parcel of land occupied and cultivated by Malonis Infiel.  In other
words, the Campulay tract of land
of Malonis Infiel
had been overlain and absorbed by Lot No. 1236 of Gregorio Bolo’s Survey
Plan.  Similarly, the tract of land in Sitio Awang occupied and
cultivated by Malonis Infiel
was overlain and absorbed by Lot No. 1237 of Gregorio Bolo’s Survey Plan, which
Lot 1237 was much larger than the 5-hectare tract of
land Malonis Infiel had
occupied and cultivated in Sitio Awang.  Thus, the land covered by Gregorio Bolo’s
Survey Plan presumably resting upon the Absolute Deed of Sale of 6 April 1949
purported to be more than twice the combined area of the original Campulay and Awang tracts of land
occupied and cultivated by Malonis Infiel and his successors-in-interest.

As discussed earlier, the heirs of Felix Malonis
had no rights at all in respect of the Campulay
parcel of land of Malonis Infiel.  No credible explanation was offered as to why
they had declared under their own name in Tax Declaration No. 123 not only the
original Sitio Awang tract
of land of Malonis Infiel
(concededly inherited by Felix Malonis from Malonis Infiel) but also the Sitio Campulay parcel of land of Malonis lnfiel, as well as the
surrounding lands obviously owned or claimed by other persons.  In other words, Tax Declaration No. 123 and
Gregorio Bolo’s Survey Plan showed that in some unknown and unexplained way,
Gregorio Bolo’s claims had expanded more than ten-fold from the original
5-hectare Sitio Awang
parcel of land allocated to Felix Malonis to a grand
total of 53.19 hectares (under the Absolute Deed of Sale) or 52.5367 hectares
(under Gregorio Bolo’s Survey Plan).

It must be stressed that because, as already pointed out
petitioners had become owners of the Campulay tract
of land originally occupied and cultivated by Malonis
Infiel, through long continued, exclusive, open and
notorious possession of said tract of land, the supposed vendors under the
Absolute Deed of Sale, the respondent heirs of Felix Malonis,
had no rights at all in respect of the Sitio Campulay tract of land which they could have conveyed to
respondent Gregorio Bolo.  The respondent
heirs of Felix Malonis have pretended that their
predecessor-in-interest Felix Malonis, was also owner of the Sitio Campulay tract of land. 
This pretense is bereft of support in the evidence of record.

We must then go back to the basic point made in our earlier
Decision in this case on 26 October
1987.  There we pointed to
the provisions of Section 120 of the Public Land Act, Commonwealth Act. No. 141
as amended by Republic Act No. 3872:

“Section 120.  Conveyance and encumbrance made by persons
belonging to the so-called “non-christian
Filipinos” or national cultural minorities, when proper, shall be valid if
the person making the conveyance or encumbrance is able to read and can
understand the language in which the instrument or conveyance or encumbrances
is written.  Conveyances or
encumbrances made by illiterate non-Christians or literate
non-Christians where the instrument of conveyance of encumbrance is in a
language not understood by the said literate non-Christians shall not be
valid unless duly approved by the Chairman of the Commission on National
Integration [now, the Presidential Assistant for Cultural
Minorities).”15 (Underscoring supplied.)

There is nothing in the record to show that respondent heirs of Felix Malonis
who are, like Felix himself and his father Malonis Infiel, native “non-Christian” Aetas and who appear to have executed the Deed of Sale were
literate or schooled individuals able to read and understand the English
language in which the Absolute Deed of Sale was written.  Indeed, the Absolute Deed of Sale itself
stated that the respondent heirs of Felix Malonis did
not know how to read and write:

“IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto caused to affix our
right thumb-marks for not knowing how to read and write, after the (sic)
this instrument was read and translated to us in the Visayan
dialect known to us this 6th day of April 1949 in the Municipality of Manjuyod, Neg. Or., Philippines.” (Underscoring
supplied.)

Accordingly, the respondent heirs,
instead of signing the Absolute Deed of Sale to show their confirmity
thereto, had merely affixed their thumbmarks:  the Deed is in fact note­worthy in that not a
single signature by any of the sixteen (16) supposed vendors appeared.  It is not pretended that Deed was approved by
competent authority under Section 120 of the Public Land Act.

What is the legal consequence of failure to obtain the approval
of the then Commissioner of Mindanao and Sulu for the
Absolute Deed of Sale here involved?  We
believe and so hold that the failure to obtain that approval had the effect of
rendering the Absolute Deed of Sale here involved as null and void ab initio.16 We believe that this conclusion is
compelled not only by the express words of Section 120 of the Public Land Act
as amended but also by a consideration of the fundamental public policy which
Section 120 seeks to realize:  and that
is, the protection of members of the “non-Christian” cultural
minorities in our country such as the respondent heirs of Felix Malonis and the petitioners, heirs of Malonis
Infiel, themselves from their own illiteracy or lack
of schooling and from those who would manipulate and exploit them.  Thus, the Absolute Deed of Sale under cover
of which respondent Gregorio Bolo wound up in possession of all the land
originally occupied and cultivated by Malonis Infiel in Sitios Campulay and Awang, as well as a
great deal of other land in the vicinity thereof, was not merely a voidable contract; it was, rather, an absolutely void or
legally inexistent instrument.  It
conferred no rights whatsoever upon respondent’ Gregorio Bolo who, it might be
noted, was careful not to sign that Deed. 
It certainly was ineffective to affect in anyway or transmit the rights
of petitioners to the Campulay tract of land
originally possessed and occupied by Malonis Infiel.

4.  Turning to the
conflicting tax declarations of petitioners and private respondent heirs of
Felix Malonis, it was earlier noted that both the
court of origin and the respondent appellate court concluded that the
petitioners’ tax declaration was a mere “concoction” devised only
“to offset the effects of respondents’ tax declaration”.  Tax Declaration No. 123 in
the name of “Herederos de Felix Malonis”
was obtained by private respondents on 7 August 1948.  Upon the other hand, Tax Declaration No. 6051
in the name of the heirs of Malonis Infiel,
was obtained by petitioners on 12
September 1953.  While Tax
Declaration No. 6051 was obviously later in point of time than Tax Declaration
No. 123, this circumstance alone does not support the conclusion reached by the
two (2) courts below.  Civil Case No.
2967 was commenced on 20 August 1954
almost a year after issuance of Tax Declaration No. 6051.  Thus, we cannot simply assume, as apparently
the two (2) courts below did, that Tax Declaration No. 6051 was secured solely
for the purpose of filing Civil Case No. 2967. 
We agree with the conclusion of Judge Tabilon
on this point.

It seems useful to stress that being in actual and long continued
possession of the parcel of land in Sitio Campulay,
petitioners were fully entitled to declare such parcel of land in their own
name.  This right was not any way
restricted, and much less was it foreclosed, by the earlier tax declaration
obtained by private respondent heirs of Felix Malonis,
doubtless with the assistance and probably the urging of Gregorio Bolo.  At most, Tax Declaration No. 123 indicated
that the respondent heirs of Felix Malonis were
claiming title to or rights in the Sitio Campulay tract of land originally possessed and cultivated
by Malonis Infiel.17 Such a claim, however, was not
supported nor accompanied by possession of the Sitio Campulay parcel of land. 
As is well-known, it is only where payment of taxes is accompanied by
actual possession of the land covered by the tax declaration, that such
circumstance may be material in supporting a claim of ownership.18
In the case at bar, as more than once pointed out, private respondents were
never in possession of the Sitio Campulay
parcel until private respondent Gregorio Bolo, acting pursuant to a void and
legally inexistent Absolute Deed of Sale and by threats and intimidation, drove
petitioners out of the Sitio Campulay
tract of land and took physical possession thereof.

5.  We turn to the question
of whether or not the respondent heirs of Felix Malonis
are entitled to a one-sixth (1/6) portion of the Sitio
Campulay tract of land.  We earlier noted that petitioners did not
question the right of the respondent heirs of Felix Malonis
to the 5-hectare piece of property situated in Sitio Awang which had been inherited solely by Felix Malonis from the parties common
ancestor — Malonis Infiel.  The respondent heirs of Felix Malonis, upon the other hand, did not claim one-sixth (1/6)
portion of the Campulay tract of land.  What they claimed was the whole of the Campulay tract of land and a great deal of surrounding
land as well.  It was thus incumbent upon
the respondent heirs of Felix Malonis to show a
lawful basis for Felix Malonis or his heirs to
participate in the ownership of the Sitio Campulay tract of land. 
It will be recalled that the Sitio Campulay parcel of land had a area
of 20 hectares such that the five (5) children of Malonis
Infiel with Elena Infiel
were entitled to a pro indiviso share
of four (4) hectares each.  Felix Malonis, upon the other hand, was assigned a 5-hectare
piece of land in Sitio Awang.  There is no showing whether prima facie
or otherwise why Felix Malonis or his heirs should
have any claim to participate as well in the ownership of the Sitio Campulay parcel of
land.  Thus, the trial court in its
findings of fact transmitted to this Court in the Report dated 7 April 1989 of Judge Tabilon, found that petitioners alone were entitled to the Sitio Campulay parcel of land
while Felix Malonis and his heirs were exclusively
entitled to the Sitio Awang
tract of land.  We see no reason for
overturning such conclusion.

6.  We consider finally the
petitioners’ claim for damages.  In their
amended complaint refiled on 10 December 1962 before
the then Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental,
petitioners alleged, among other things, that the Sitio
Campulay parcel of land yielded a total annual income
stream of P2,800.00:

“10.   The 300
fruit-bearing coconut trees yield 16,000 nuts a year valued at P800.00; the 19
fruit-bearing mango trees yield 9,500 fruits a year valued at P950.00; the 15
hectare corn land produce 150 cavans of grains a year
valued at P1,050.00 for a total annual income of
P2,800.00 which respondent Bolo appropriated to himself to the prejudice of
petitioners.”

Petitioner Filomena
Amarante, daughter of Celso
Amarante, testified that when they were still
occupying the Sitio Campulay
tract of land, they used to harvest 16,000 coconuts a year which, computed on
the basis of P0.10 per nut, possibly the value thereof when she testified in
1975, would come up to P1,600.00.  The 19
mango trees were, according to Filomena, yielding
annually 3,800 fruits with a total value of P380.00.  Clearly, the evidence relating to the damages
actually suffered by petitioners consisting of income from the Sitio Campulay land which
starting from 1954 had been appropriated by respondent Gregorio Bolo to his own
uses, is less than satisfactory.  We
note, firstly, that the reference is to annual income from the land but
no clarification was made as to whether such figure referred to gross
income or whether it referred to income already net of expenses.  We note, secondly, that the record is bare of
testimony relating to the change in value of the produce on the Campulay parcel of land from the time the amended complaint
was filed in 1962 and onwards.  The Court
must, however, take judicial notice of the fact that nominal peso value of such
commodities as coconuts, mangoes and cereal grains (rice or corn) have
substantially increased over the last thirty-five (35) years.  Notwithstanding the less than satisfactory
condition of the record insofar as the amount of actual or compensatory damages
is concerned, in order that the Court may write finis to this case which
began thirty-five (35) years ago, the Court in the exercise of its discretion
believes that it would be reasonable to balance out the two (2) above factors
and accordingly to award the amount of damages claimed (P2,800.00 per year)
multiplied by thirty-five (35) years or a total of P98,000.00.  The Court also believes that because private
respondent Gregorio Bolo drove the petitioners by threats and intimidation and
the use of void and inexistent documents from the possession which they and
their forbears had previously enjoyed of the Sitio Campulay tract of land, attorney’s fees are properly
assessed from private respondent Gregorio Bolo in the amount of P20,000.00.19

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED due
course and

1.     The Decision dated 17 September 1984 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Dumaguete City in
Civil Case No. 4100 and the Decision dated 3 April 1986 in C.A. – G.R. CV No.
05697 and its Resolution dated 17 September 1986, are hereby SET ASIDE and
NULLIFIED.

2.     The Absolute Deed of Sale
dated 6 April 1949
purportedly executed by the heirs of Felix Malonis in
favor of respondent Gregorio Bolo, is hereby DECLARED null and void ab initio.

3.     Petitioners are hereby DECLARED entitled to
the ownership of the Sitio Campulay
parcel of land originally possessed and cultivated by Malonis
Infiel, having an area of approximately twenty (20)
hectares end covered by Tax Declaration No. 6051.  Private respondents and all persons claiming
under either Gregorio Bolo or any one or more of the heirs of Felix Malonis, are hereby ORDERED to vacate this tract of land
immediately and to turnover the possession of such land together with all
improvements thereon to petitioners.

4.     Private respondent Gregorio Bolo shall pay
to petitioners the amount of P98,000.00 by way of
actual or compensatory damages, plus attorney’s fees in the amount of
P20,000.00, both with legal interest thereon from the date of finality of this
decision until actual payment thereof.

5.     Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to
the Director of Lands and to the Presidential Assistant for Cultural
Minorities, Office of the President of the Philippines, for their information
and such action as may be appropriate in the premises including, among other
things, the survey of the Sitio Campulay
tract of land here involved by a duly licensed Geodetic Engineer or Land
Surveyor to the end that such tract of land may be identified by metes and
bounds.

This Decision is immediately executory.  Triple
costs against private respondent Gregorio Bolo.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

^[1] Celso Amarante, et al. v.
Court of Appeals, 155 SCRA at 47-50 (1987); Rollo,
pp. 60-64.

^[2] 155
SCRA at 58-60; Rollo, pp. 75-77.

^[3] TSN,
2 December 1988, pp. 5-9.

^[4] Id.,
pp. 24-25.

^[5] Id.,
pp. 38-39.

^[6] See
Report by Judge Jesus L. Tabilon, dated 18 January 1989; Rollo,
pp. 107-108.

^[7] Rollo, pp. 109-112.

^[8] E.g., Ras v. Sua,
134 Phil. 131 (1968); Cajefe v. Fernandez, 109
Phil. 743 (1960).

8
See, in this connection.  Sapto, et al. v.
Fabiana. 
103 Phil. 683 (1958).

9 TSN, 3 April
1974, pp. 13-15.

10 146 SCRA 509 (1986).

11 114 SCRA 799 (1982).

12 146 SCRA at 520, 522; underscoring supplied.

13 Records, p. 317.

14 Records, p. 323.

15 The statute had originally specified the
Commissioner of Mindanao and Sulu
as the official authorized to approve such instruments.  On 18
June 1964, Republic Act No. 3872 changed the authorized officer to
the Chairman of the Commission on National Integration.

16 Mangayao, et al. v. Lasud, et al. 120
Phil. 154 (1964), per Reyes, J.B.L.

17 Director of Lands v.
Reyes, 68 SCRA 177 (1975).

18 Viernes v. Agapaoa, 41 Phil. 286 (1920).

19 Article 2208, paragraphs (2), (5)
and (11), Civil Code.