GUTIERREZ HERMANOS, SUBSTITUTED BY THE BURIAS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, AND BUREAU OF FORESTRY, JAIME M. FRANCISCO…

The Court dismisses this case, pending decision for almost a
decade.

The question herein — whether the petitioner may register
certain parcels of land, seven in number, or whether it consists of inalienable
timberlands and consequently, non-registerable — is
a question, so it has been held, that is factual in nature.^[1]

Furthermore, there has been no showing that in so disposing, the
Appellate court “has decided a question of substance, not theretofore
determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in
accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court;”^[2]
or that “the Court of Appeals has so far departed from the accepted and
usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a
lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.”^[3]

The facts that gave rise to the controversy are stated in the
opinion of the respondent Court of Appeals:

On June 7, 1955, the applicant-appellant Gutierrez Hermanos, S. en C., filed seven (7) applications with the
Court of First Instance of Masbate for the
registration under the Land Registration Act, Act No. 496, of its alleged
titles over seven (7) parcels of land with an area of around 9,480 hectares in
the island of Burias, Masbate.

The applicant also prayed that if Act No. 496 was not applicable in
full to each of the seven petitions for land registration, the benefits of
Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, known as the Public Land Law, be
extended to the applicant.

After the notices of the initial hearings were posted and published
as required by law, the Director of Lands, Director of Forestry, and hundreds
of private oppositors filed their respective oppositions to the seven (7) petitions for
registration.

By agreement of the parties, the hearings of the seven (7) cases
were conducted jointly.  The seven (7)
cases were:

Case No. N-46, covers Lot No. 3, of Plan Psu-44554, which is
situated at Sitio Buche,
San Pascual, Masbate,
containing an area of 658.7697
hectares, more or less, bounded on the North, East and South, by public land
and West, by public land (manglare) and Port Busuanga.

Case No. N-47, covers Lot No. 5, of Plan Psu-44554 which is located
at Sitio Lara, San Pascual,
Masbate, having an area of 2,642.7385 hectares, more
or less, bounded on the North, by public land and Dampalit
Bay; East, by Burias Pass; South, by public land; and
West, by public land and property of Gutierrez Hermanos,
the applicant herein.

Case No. N-48, covers Lot No. 4, Psu-44554, which is located at Sitio Palanas, San Pascual, Masbate, having an area of 1,769.5143 hectares, more or
less, bounded on the North and East, by public
land; South by Sibuyan Sea; and West, by public land
and the properties of the Heirs of Juana Mendiola.

Case No. N-49, covers Lot No. 2 of Psu-44554, located at Sitio Castillo, San Pascual, Masbate, having an area of 675.3686 hectares, more or less, bounded on the North by Burias Pass; South, by Castillo Bay, public land and
properties of Ignacio Lazaro, Marcias
Roas, Regino Dongan, public land and Cenano Pelegrin; and West, by public land and Manga
de los Rageles.

Case No. N-50, covers Parcel 5, of Psu-75334, located at Sitio Bancay, Claveria,
Masbate, having an area of 442.4408 hectares, more or
less, bounded on the North, by public land:  East by land claimed by Liberato
Arce and public land; South, by Sibuyan
Sea:  and West, by Sibuyan
Sea.

Case No. N-51, covers Lot No. 6, of plan Psu-44554, located at Sitio Mapanique, San Pascual, Masbate, having an area of 1,615.7896 hectares, more or less, bounded on the Northeast,
Southwest and Northwest, by public land:  and Southwest and Northwest, by property of
Gutierrez Hermanos.

Case No. N-52, covers Lot No. 1 of Plan Psu-44554 which is located
at Sitio Cuadra, San Pascual, Masbate having an area
of 1,681.4758 hectares, more or less, bounded on the North, by Boca Chica and Bahia de Busin:  East, by land
claimed by Pedro Sta. Ana Rogel and public land;
South, by public land and properties of Heirs of Juana Mendiola
and Arcadio Cortes; and West, by Sibuyan
Sea and public land.

Lot 1-A of said Psu-44554 is bounded on the Northeast, by Boca Chica; Southeast, and Northwest, by Gutierrez Hermanos, having an area of 1.2510 hectares.

Lot 1-B of said Psu-44554 is bounded on
the North by Boca Chica; East and South, by property
of Gutierrez Hermanos; and West, by public land,
containing an area of 2.4375 hectares.

The background facts of the consolidated cases are summarized in
the decision of the lower court as follows:

From the evidence presented, it is shown that the applicants have purchased from the Hongkong
Shanghai Bank of Manila, eleven (11) parcels of land on October 1, 1920
(Exhibit “J”).  These lands
were formerly owned by the spouses Ceferino Aramburu y Lambarri and Josefa Garcia Pascual.  Upon their death, their properties were
subject of the Testate and Intestate proceedings in Spec. Proc. No. 180 and 343
of the Court of First Instance of Albay, entitled, “Testamentaria
del Finado D. Ceferino Aramburu y Lambarri”
and “Abintestado de la finada
Doña Josefa Garcia Pascual“, respectively, which the administrator Jose A.
de Aramburu y Garcia ceded and transferred said
eleven (11) parcels of land to the Hongkong Shanghai
Banking Corporation, pursuant to the
document executed on April 26, 1920, Exhibit J-2″.

The eleven (11) parcels of land purchased by the applicants from
the Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation, pursuant
to the document (Exhibit “J”) are as follows:

1.   Terreno cogonal radicada en el sitio
de Buche del Municipio de
San Pascual, isla de Burias, que mide
112 hectareas, linda al
Norte con bosque del Estado,
al sur cogonal del Estado, al Este bosque del
Estado y al
Oeste con el mangle. 
Tax No. 317.

2.   Un terreno cogonal radicada en el sitio de Cawayan del Municipio de San Pascual, isla de Burias, que mide una
specifie de 160 hectareas, lindante al Norte con la playa, Sur
con la playa, el Este con salinar del difunto
Pedro Lazaro y al Oeste
con cogonales de
municipio, Tax No. 318.

3.   Un terreno cogonal radicada en el sitio de Lara, del Municipio de San Pascual, isla de Burias, que mide
240 hectareas, lindante al
Norte con el mar, al Sur bosque
y cogonal del Estado, al Este con el mar y al Oeste cogonal de Estado, Tax 319.

4.   Terreno cogonal radicada en el sitio de Cuadra, del municipio de San Pascual, isla de Burias, que mide
de 240 hectareas, linda al
Norte con mangle, al Sur cocal
de Juana Mendiola, al Este terreno de Julian Miranda y al Oeste
bosque del Estado,
Tax No. 320.

5.  Terreno cogonal radicada en el sitio de Palanas Grande, del municipio de
San Pascual, isla de Burias, que mide
112 hectareas, linda al Norte
con cogonal del Estado al Sur con el mangle; al Este cogonal del Estado y al Oeste con Juliano Santa Ana y bosque del Estado, Tax No. 321.

6.   Un solar radicada
en el sitio de
Calle Acuestas, del municipio de San Pascual, isla
de Burias, que mide cinco areas, linda al Norte con Isabelo Barredo, al Sur con Mariano Godoy, al Oeste con calle acuesta y al Este con el bosque con muros de mamposteria, Tax No.
322.

7.   Un terreno cogonal en el sitio de Paniqui del municipio de San Pascual, isla de Burias, que mide
240 hectareas, linda al
Norte, Sur, Este y Oeste con cogonales del Estado, Tax No. 323.

8.   Terreno cogonal radicada en el sitio de Boca-Engaño del municipio de San Pascual, isla de Burias, mide 192 hectareas, linda al Norte con el mar, al Sur
bosque del Estado, al Este con el mar y al Oeste con el
mar y bosque del Estado,
Tax No. 324.

9.   Terreno cogonal radicada en el sitio de Cawayan, del municipio de San Pascual, isla de Burias, mide 160 hectareas, linda al Norte con el mangle, al Sur
cogonal del Estado, al Este con el mar y al Oeste cogonal del Estado, Tax No. 325.

10. Terreno cogonal en el sitio de Bancay, del municipio de San Pascual, isla de Burias, mide 112 hectareas, linda al Norte con el rio de Calpe, al Sur con el mar, al-Este cogonal de Estado y al Oeste con el mar, Tax
No. 326.

11. Terreno cogonal radicada en el barrio de Claveria
del municipio de San Pascual,
isla de Burias, que mide una
superficie de 250 hectareas,
landando al Norte con el barrio de Claveria, al Sur cogonal del Estado, al Este mangle y al Oeste rio de Claveria, Tax No. 327.

Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10, are the subject of the present
seven land registration cases.

Upon acquisition by the applicants of these eleven (11) parcels,
said applicants entered into a contract with Zoilo
Garcia on June 27, 1921,
Exhibit “N” contracting the services of the latter being a private
land surveyor to survey all these lands for the sum of P4,000.00, and the
additional sum of ONE PESO (P1.00) per hectare in excess thereof.

Having delimited the boundaries of the lands as surveyed by Zoilo Garcia on August, 1921 to August 1923, the applicants
Gutierrez Hermanos placed cattles
therein to graze, first placing the cattles in Cuadra.  When the cattles in Cuadra grew in large
number, they were dispersed to the different ranches, and the cattles numbered 15,260 heads as of 1941 as shown by the
inventory of the properties of the applicants for said year, Exhibit
“S-1”.  During the war all the cattles of the applicants appeared to have been taken by
the Japanese, and after the war only six (6) heads of cattles
were turned over to Fortunato Gonzales, the encargado general of the applicants, by the previous encargado, Pedro Nazareno.  All these six (6) heads of cattles were placed in the Buche ranch
of the applicants.

After the war, people entered and occupied portions of the lands
claimed by the applicants, subject of these land registration cases,
cultivating the same for productive purposes and paying taxes therein.  On the other hand, the applicants have
abandoned possession to most of the lands being claimed by them, except Lot No.
3 which is situated in Buche and subject of Land Reg.
Case No. N-46.  The applicants appeared
not only to have abandoned their possession to these lands, except, Buche, but they also appeared to have abandoned the payment
of realty taxes for the same, as shown by the certification of the Assistant
Municipal Treasurer of San Pascual, Masbate, marked Exhibit “9”-gov’t.  As shown by said Exhibit
“9”-gov’t., the applicants are indebted to the government in the form
of realty taxes for their lands at Cuadra, Mapanique, Lara, Palanas Grande,
Castillo and Buche in the amount of P31,865.22 for
the years 1958-63, inclusive.

Likewise, it is shown that upon receipt of the plans Psu-44554
(Exhibit “G”) by the Director of Forestry, the said officer
challenged the applicants to show to the former copies of muniments
of title in support of their
claims to these lands, and at the same time instructed the forester in Naga, Camarines Sur, to conduct an investigation of the same.  Pursuant to the said instruction, Rangers Arsenio B. Aller and Federico F. Baranaban made an investigation on the parcels of land
claimed by the applicants, submitting their reports accordingly to the said Director
of Forestry in a letter dated July 12, 1939 (Exhibits MM, MM-1 to MM-8 and
Exhibits 11, 11-A to 11-E; 12, 12-A to 12-D2; 13, 13-A to 13-D; 14, 14-A to 14-D; 15, 15-A to 15-E; and 16, 16-E, inclusive).

In his report, (Exhibits ‘MM’ to ‘MM-1’ to ‘MM-8’, forest ranger Arsenio B. Aller made a
tabulations of the land, lot by lot, to wit:

The above tabulations were based on the land classification map of
March 11, 1930 for the island of Burias marked,
Exhibits ‘P’, ‘RR’-applicants and ’17’-gov’t.

In his said reports Forest Ranger Arsenio
B. Aller said:

In connection with the recommendation for each parcel claimed
information is hereby given that the land tax declaration Nos. 317, 318, 319,
320, 321, 323, 324, 325 & 327 presented by the claimant superseded land tax
declarations Nos. 956, 945, 953, 974, 973, 952, 967, 954 and 1161,
respectively, under which payment of taxes commence during the year 1906
according to the records of the Municipal Treasurer of San Pascual,
Masbate. 
However, it was not determined therefrom
whether those assessments are the first as they only appeared on the back page
of each corresponding superseding declarations. 
In this case therefore the claimant is not entitled to have the lands in
question registered with the Court as their private land in accordance with
Commonwealth Act No. 141, subsection (b) of Section 48, chapter VIII, which
took effect on November 7, 1936, unless the claimant can present title to the
land recognized by the existing land laws, other than those already presented
or submitted to that office a true copy of which was furnished this Office.

Acting on the said reports of Forestry Ranger Arsenio
B. Aller and failure of the applicants to present
documents and other muniments of title to support
their claim of ownership over said lands, the Director of Forestry on January
27, 1940 issued an order (Exhibits ’18’ to ’18-C’), placing all the lands of
the applicants to be under the administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Forestry.

During the war, the records of the Bureau of Forestry were lost
and/or destroyed together with the records of the applicants on their claims
over these lands.  Because of which, the
Director of Forestry on January 26, 1952, wrote a letter (Exhibit “19”-Gov’t.)
requesting the applicants to furnish the office of the Director of Forestry copies of their title or documents
evidencing ownership of the lands subject of these cases.  A series of correspondence (Exhibits
“20” to “24”-gov’t.) culminating in the issuance of an
order dated October 23, 1953 (Exhibits “25” &
“25-B”-gov’t.) placing portions of the lands claimed, containing an
aggregate area of 8,479.2106 hectares, under the administrative jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Forestry, the same being part of the public forest subject to the
forest laws and regulations.

In reply to this order, (Exhibit “25-B”-gov’t.), the
counsels for the applicants wrote the Director of Forestry on May 7, 1954
(Exhibits “OO”-applicant & “28”-gov’t.), reiterating
their claim of ownership to these lands, and at the same time requesting the
Director of Forestry to deny all petitions of third-parties to occupy portions
of the lands for grazing purposes and prohibiting them from entering or
occupying the same.

Acting on this letter (Exhibit “OO”-applicants &
“28”-gov’t.), the Director of Forestry sent Juan Ravelo
to Burias Island directing the latter to make further
investigation of the claims of the applicants. 
Pursuant to this directive (Exhibits “29” &
“30”-gov’t.), Juan Ravelo made an
investigation of the lands being
claimed as well of the portions being applied for by oppositors
Jaime Francisco and Lorenza Vda. de Francisco, after
which submitted his report of his findings to the Director of Forestry in a
letter dated July 15, 1954
(Exhibit “31”-gov’t.), recommending to give extensions to the pasture
permits of oppositors Jaime Francisco and Lorenza Vda. de Francisco, but
said permittees be warned not to introduce additional
improvements on the land.

Despite these adverse reports made by Forest Ranger Arsenio B. Aller before the war, and that of Juan Ravelo
in 1954, the applicants on June 7, 1955,
filed the present seven (7) land registration cases asking for the confirmation
of their titles thereto.

After the war, people from different places came to San Pascual and they entered
and occupied portions of the lands being claimed by the applicants and are
subject of the present land registration cases. 
Except for the parcel of land situated at Buche
(Lot 3, Psu-44554) which is the subject of LRC Case No.
N-46, all the lands being claimed by the herein applicants were occupied by the
people from different places, claiming that these lands are public lands.  These people cultivated the same for
production purposes and paying taxes therein. 
However, their oppositions being subrogated to the oppositions of the
Director of Lands and Director of Forestry, the same must be considered in line
with oppositions of these government officers.

On May 31, 1965,
the lower Court rendered a decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATION, the Court finds and so
holds, that the applicants are entitled to the registration of their titles to
the following parcels, to wit:

Case N-46, Lot 3 Buche,
658.9697 hectares;

Case N-47, Lot 5 Lara, 240 hectares;

Case N-48, Palanas,
Lot 4,110 hectares;

Case N-49, Castillo, Lot
2, 160 hectares;

Case N-50, Bancay,
Lot 10, 112 hectares;

Case N-51, Mapanique,
Lot 6, 240 hectares; and

Case N-52, Cuadra,
Lot 1,240 hectares.

The applicants are hereby ordered to submit amended plans on Lots
5, 4, 2, 10, 6 and 1, which are the subject of Cases N-47 to N-52,
respectively, duly approved by the Director of Lands.

Once the amended plans have been submitted and approved and this
decision becomes final and executory, let a decree be
issued in favor of the applicants Burias Island
Development Corporation, with principal office at Manila,
Philippines.

After a motion for reconsideration, motion for a new trial and
various other incidents subsequent to the rendition of the decision dated May 31, 1965, the lower Court on February 14,
1967, reiterated the dispositive
portion of the decision as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds
and so holds and reiterates, that the applicants are entitled to the
registration of their titles, to the following parcels, to wit:

Case No. N-46, Lot
3, Buche 658.9697 hectares;

Case No. N-47, Lara, 240 hectares, Lot
5;

Case No. N-48, Palanas,
Lot 4, 110 hectares;

Case No. N-49, Castillo, Lot
2, 160 hectares;

Case No. N-50, Bancay,
Lot 10,112 hectares;

Case No. N-51, Mapanique,
Lot 6, 240 hectares; and

Case No. N-52, Cuadra,
Lot 1, 240 hectares.

The applicants are hereby ordered to submit amended plans on Lots
5, 4, 2, 10, 6 and 1, which are the subject of Case No. N-47 to Cases Nos.
N-52, respectively, duly approved by the Director of Lands.

Once amended plans have been submitted and approved, and this
decision becomes final and executory, let a decree be
issued in favor of the applicants. 
BURIAS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, with principal office at Manila,
Philippines.

The decision of this Court dated May 31, 1965, is hereby marked as Annex
“A”, appearing on the record and the same is made an integral part of
this present decision in these cases.^[4]

Amid these findings, the Appellate Court held:

In resolving the issues raised in the respective assignments of
errors of the parties in these appeals, we start with the settled rule that the burden of proof in land
registration cases is upon the applicant.

As early as 1913, the Supreme Court stated in Malolos
v. Director of Lands (25 Phil. 548):

One of the primary and fundamental purposes of the registration of
land under the Torrens system is to secure to the owner an absolute, indefeasible title, free from all
encumbrances and claims whatsoever, except those mentioned in the certificate
of title, and, so far as it is
possible, to make the certificate issued to the owner by the court, absolute
proof of such title.  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
the 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.  x x x

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

The denial of a petition for registration
simply indicates that he has not furnished that kind of proof showing an absolute title in fee simple which is
required under the Torrens system.  It is
the duty of the courts, even in
the absence of any opposition, to require the petitioner to show, by a
preponderance of the evidence and by positive and absolute proof, so far as it
is possible, that he is the owner in fee simple of the lands which he is
attempting to have registered.

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

This rule enunciated in the early years of the American occupation
when there was still public land aplenty and pressures of an exploding
population and a social justice oriented Constitution had not yet drastically
revised concepts of property ownership is especially relevant today.

The Supreme Court, through then Justice, now Chief Justice Enrique
M. Fernando, stated in Santiago v.
Delos Santos (61 SCRA, 151-152):

The appealed order of dismissal is thus impressed with merit.  It has likewise in its favor the soundest
policy considerations, based no less on one of the prime objectives of the
fundamental law.  Both under the 1935 and
the present Constitutions, the conservation no less than the utilization of the
natural resources is ordained.  There
would be failure to abide by its command if the judiciary does not scrutinize with care applications to private
ownership of real estate.  To be granted, they must be grounded in
well-high incontrovertible evidence. 
Where, as in this case, no such proof would be forthcoming, there is no
justification for viewing such claim with favor.  It is a basic assumption of our polity that
lands of whatever classification belong to the state.  Unless alienated in accordance with law, it
retains its rights over the same as dominus.  Its disposition is justified only when shown
that its utilization promotes the public welfare.  Especially so in case of doubt, considering
that our forest resources have been unduly depleted, courts should not lightly
accept claims that a parcel of land no longer can be classified as forestal.  That is certainly one mode of assuring the
realization of the national patrimony being held in trust for future generations.  There is thus fealty to the ideal of
conservation.

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

The social justice provision, Section 6, Article Two of the Constitution, provides that the State shall
regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment, and disposition of private
property.  When the claims to private
property collide with a strong showing that the land sought to be titled may be
part of the patrimony of the
nation, such claims require the closest examination and scrutiny.  The properties sought to be titled are almost
10,000 hectares in area and would create a landed estate.  In the words of the Supreme Court, the registrable rights must be grounded in well-high
incontrovertible evidence and based on positive and absolute proof.

Not only is there a vigorous assertion that the lands sought to be registered belong to the public
domain and that the claims of
title are insufficient and nugatory, but the lands subject of these appeals
have been taken over by other
private individuals – hundreds of oppositors
according to the lower Court – who have lived on extensive portions of the
disputed lots since the Japanese occupation.

What proofs are required by the law?

The Land Registration Act, Act 496 requires the presentation of muniments of title for registration under the regular
provisions of said law.  The applicant, which alleged ownership in
fee simple since Spanish times, could have presented old Spanish grants such as
a titulo real or royal grant, a concession especial or special grant,
a composicion con el estado or adjustment
title, or a titulo de compra or
title through purchase.  The applicant could have presented a titulo posesorio or
possessory information title, which is not a title in
fee simple but is nonetheless prima facie evidence of possession under concept
of ownership from the date of the title and for the required period under the
law.

We note from the records that the applicant also applied for the
benefits of the Public Land Act, Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, on
judicial confirmation of imperfect titles. 
Section 48 of the Public Land Act provides:

The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying
lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands 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:

(a) Those who prior to the
transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States have applied for the
purchase, composition or other form of grant of lands of the public domain under the laws and royal
decrees then in force and have instituted and prosecuted the proceeding in
connection therewith, but have with or without default upon their part, or for
any other cause, not received title therefor, if such
applicants or grantees and their heirs have
occupied and cultivated said lands continuously since the filing of their
applications.

(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 or
ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the
application for confirmation of 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.

Under the two above methods for registration of title, there must
be proof of, either (1) a title which already exists and only has to be
confirmed by the Court and ordered registered or (2) an imperfect title under
Section 48, or open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim
of ownership for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the
application.

A careful review of the voluminous records of these cases indicates
that the applicant-appellant has failed to meet the burden of proof needed to
secure titles over the lots involved in its applications.^[5]

The Court finds the appealed decision to be in consonance with
the law and pertinent jurisprudence.  We
find no need in disturbing the ponencia of then Court
of Appeals Justice Hugo Gutierrez, Jr., now a distinguished member of this
Court.

The facts, indeed, betray efforts of the petitioner to register
the properties by some sleight of hand, rather than via legal avenues.  As the respondent Court of Appeals found, we
quote:

The applicant-appellant bases its applica­tions on a deed of sale
executed by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation on October 1, 1920.  The bank acquired the properties from Angel Ortiz who in turn acquired the same
from a certain Ceferino Aramburu
y Lambarri. 
The background history ends there. 
There is no showing how and when Mr. Aramburu
acquired such a vast tract of land nor of any title, perfect or imperfect,
granted by the State to him or his predecessors.

No title or document of ownership was presented by the
applicant.  The applicant-appellant
admits in its brief that it has no titles except what it calls “native” titles consisting
of tax declarations and tax receipts”. 
Gutierrez Hermanos comes up with the rather
ingenious claim that there was no necessity
for the applicant to submit any muniments of
title because even before the Spaniards arrived, the said lands were possessed,
owned, and used by the applicant and its predecessors-in-interest as
“natives”.  The applicant
traces its rights to predecessors of the same category as the Igorots of the Kankanney tribe in
Benguet.^[6]

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

The applicant must
show a muniment of title specifically bestowed by the
Spanish crown if its theory of the case is to succeed.  Tax declara­tions and tax receipts are not muniments of title. 
The rule enunciated in 1907 in Evangelista v. Tabayuyong
(7 Phil. 607) that tax receipts are not evidence of title to land, unsupported
by other proper proof, is as true today as it was true then.^[7]

and finally, that:

There is another factor which negates every effort of the
applicant-appellant to trace its rights through an alleged title of Ceferino Aramburu y Lambarri.

The deed, Exhibit J, executed on October
1, 1920, whereby the Hongkong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation sold, ceded, and transferred the disputied
properties to Gutierrez Hermanos and its successors
in interest is limited in its coverage to the following properties:

1.  –Terreno
cogonal radicado en el sitio de Buche del municipio de San Pascual, Isla de Burias, que mide 112 hectareas,
linda al Norte con bosque
del Estado, al Sur cogonal del Estado, al Este bosque del
Estado y al Oeste con el
mangle, Tax No. 317.

2.  -Un Terreno
cogonal radicado en el sitio de Cauayan, del municipio de San Pascual, Isla de Burias, que mide una
superficie de 160 hectareas,
lindante a Norte con la playa, al Sur
con la playa, al Este con salinar
del difunto Pedro Lazaro y
al Oeste con cogonales del municipio, Tax No. 318.

3.  -Un terreno
cogonal radicado en el sitio de Lara, del municipio de Sn Pascual, Isla
de Burias, que mide 240 hectareas, lindante al Norte con el mar, al Sur
bosque y cogonal del Estado, al Este con el mar y al Oeste cogonal del Estado, Tax No. 319.

4.  –Terreno
cogonal radicado en el sitio de Cuadra, del municipio de San Pascual, Isla de Burias, que mide 240 hectareas,
linda al Norte con mangle, al Sur
cocal de Juana Mendiola, al
Este terreno de Julian
Miranda y al Oeste bosque
del Estado, Tax No. 320.

5.  –Terreno
cogonal radicado en el sitio de Palanas Grande, del municipio de San Pascual, Isla de Burias, quemide 112 hectareas, linda al Norte con cogonal del Estado, al Sur con el mangle, al Este cogona del Estado y al Oeste con Juliano Santa Ana y bosque del Estado, Tax No. 321.

6.   -Un sular
radicado en el sitio de Calle Acuestas, del municipio de San Pascual, Isla de Burias, que mide cinco
areas, linda al Norte con Isabelo
Barredo, al Sur con Mariano
Godoy, al Oeste con cale Cuesta y al Este con el bosque con muros de mamposteria.  Tax No. 322.

7.   -Un terreno
en el sitio de Paniqui, del
municipio de San Pascual, Isla de burias, que mide 240 hectareas
linda al Norte, Sur, Este y Oeste con
cogonales del Estado.  Tax No. 323.

8.   –Terreno
cogonal radicado en el sitio de Boca Engaño, del municipio de San Pascual, Isla de Burias, mide 192 hectareas, linda al Norte con el mar, al Sur
bosque del Estado, al Este con el mar y al Oeste con el
mar y bosque del Estado,
Tax No. 324.

9.   –Terreno
cogonal radicado en el sitio de Cauayan, del municipio de San Pascual, Isla de Burias, mide 170 hectareas, linda al Norte con el
mengale, al Sur cogonal del Estado, al Este con el mar
y al Oeste cogonal del Estado.  Tax No. 325.

10.  –Terreno
cogonal en el sitio de Bancay, del municipio de San Pascual, Isla de Burias, mide 112 hectareas, linda al Norte con el rio de Calpi, al Sur con el mar, al Este cogonal del Estado y al Oeste con el mar. 
Tax No. 326.

11.  –Terreno
cogonal radicado en el barrio de Claveria,
del municipio de San Pascual,
Isla de Burias, que mide una
superficie de 250 hectareas,
Iindante al Norte con el barrio de Claveria, al Sur cogonal del Estado, al Este mangle y al Oeste rio de Claveria.  Tax No. 327.

In these applications for registration, the small lot in Calle Acuestas and the lands in sitios Boca Engaño, Cauayan, and Claveria are not
involved.  The other seven (7) lots,
however, have expanded as follows:

-1. 
Sitio Buche – From
112 hectares to 658.7697
hectares.

-2. 
Sitio Lara – From 240 hectares to
2,642.7385 hectares.

-3. 
Sitio Palanas – From
112 hectares 1,769.5143 hectares.

–4.  Sitio
Castillo – From 160 hectares to 675.3686 hectares.

-5. 
Sitio Bancay – From
112 hectares to 442.4408 hectares.

-6. 
Sitio Mapanique –
From 240 hectares to 1,615.7896
hectares.

–7.  Sitio Cuadra – From 240 hectares to 1,681.4758 hectares.

Assuming for purposes of argumentation, that Hongkong
and Shanghai Banking Corporation transmitted registrable
rights to the applicant, such rights cannot
extend beyond the ambits of the 1,216 hectares,
of the above seven lots as described in the document, Exhibit J.  The applicant-appellant cannot ask for the
registration of title to 9,480
hectares of land on the basis of
a deed of sale showing it purchased only 1,216 hectares of those 9,480 hectares.

Apart from this striking disparity in area of the land acquired and the land sought to be registered, there is no showing of the registrable nature of the “right” conveyed by Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation to the applicant.

Worse, the records show that Hongkong and
Shanghai Banking Corporation had no more lands nor even rights to convey because a year before the execution of the deed
of sale, the parcels of land covered in the deed had already been forfeited in
favor of the Government.

Exhibits 1 to 7 of
the Government, the declarations of real property filed by Gabriel de Vela as
administrator of the estate of Ceferino Aramburu, show that these lots were forfeited.  Galicano Montenegro,
the municipal treasurer of San Pascual from 1914 to
1926 stated that he stamped the word
Forfeited on these tax declarations himself. 
These are the same tax declarations referred to in the deed of sale executed by Hongkong
and Shanghai Banking Corporation.

The applicant-appellant argues that the forfeited lands were actually redeemed.  There is no positive evidences of the “redemption” but the
applicant-appellant would have the courts order the registration of titles to
forfeited lands on the basis of inferences or indirect presumptions that the
lands were redeemed.

According to the applicant-appellant, the deed of sale Exhibit J had to be approved by the Court of First Instance of Albay before whom the settlement of the estate of Aramburu
and his wife was then pending.  The
appellant also states that the fact of redemption may be implied from the
handwritten notations that the tax declarations had been cancelled by
differently numbered tax declarations. 
Redemption of lands forfeited to the Government cannot be proved from
indirect inferences drawn from vague or inconclusive grounds.  There is no showing that the court which
settled the intestate estate of Mr. Aramburu looked
into or ruled upon the redemption of the forfeited properties.  The alleged “cancellations” are of even
less probative value.  There is no showing as to whom made the inked
notations and when they were
made.  The tax declarations are dated
1906.  The municipal treasurer who acted
on the forfeitures should have known if the lands were later redeemed.  The tax numbers listed on the 1906
declarations could conceivably bear the same mark of forfeiture.  The municipal treasurer, Mr. Montenegro
served until 1926.  Any redemption of
lands forfeited in 1919 should have been made during his tenure.  At any rate, the claim of the appellant that
the lands had been redeemed is based on supposition, not direct evidence.  Hence, it possesses no merit.

Insofar as the registration of a Spanish or American title is
concerned, we rule that the evidence is completely lacking to sustain it.  The same finding is made on any claim that an
“imperfect title” should be registered.  There is no proof to sustain an imperfect title.^[8]

Having failed in these, the petitioner turns to a fresh
tack:  notorious possession.  The Court of Appeals rejected this, and so
also do we, thus:

The only other ground to support the applicant’s assignments of
errors is open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation
of agricultural lands of the
public domain under a bona fide
claim of ownership for at least thirty years preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of
title.

A careful scrutiny of the records indicates that the applicant has
no such right to be confirmed under Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended.

The above provision applies only to agricultural lands of the
public domain.  Said agricultural lands
must have been declared by competent public authority to be alienable and
disposable.

Where there is a showing
that lots sought to be registered
are part of the public domain, the applicant for land registration under
Section 48 must himself secure a certification from the Government that the
lands he claims to have possessed
as owner for more than 30 years are alienable and disposable.  It is the burden of the applicant to prove
its positive averments, not for the Government or the private oppositors to establish a negative proposition insofar as
the applicant’s specific lots are concerned.

The evidence
submitted by the appellant in this regard
is muddled.^[9]

In fine, and overall, the petitioner can not successfully
attribute any legal mistake or reversible error committed by the Court of
Appeals.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.  The decision
appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto.

Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 2, par.
2; see Republic of the Philippines
v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 46048, November 29, 1988,
per Regalado, J.

^[2]
RULES OF COURT, supra,
Rule 45, sec. 4; par. (a).

^[3]
Supra, par. (b).

^[4]
Rollo, 94-106.

^[5]
Id., 109-113.

^[6]
Id., 113.

^[7]
ld., 114.

^[8]
Id., 114-118.

^[9]
Id, 119.