REPUBLIC CEMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, MOISES CORREA AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BULACAN, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision of respondent court, promulgated on September 20, 1988 in CA-G.R. CV
Nos. 07824-88, ordering the registration of Lot No. 2880 of the Cadastral Survey of Norzagaray, Bulacan in the name
of petitioner Republic Cement Corporation but excluding the portions thereof
described in Plans PSU 229592, 227659 and 225872 of the Norzagaray
Cadastre which were ordered registered in the name of private respondent Moises Correa.^[1]

As found by respondent court, petitioner Republic Cement
Corporation filed a petition in the then Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch V at Sta. Maria, docketed therein as Land
Registration Case No. (SM) N-093, for the registration in its name of a parcel
of land identified as Lot No. 2880 of the Cadastral Survey of Norzagaray, Bulacan, Plan
Ap-16404, located in barrio Minuyan, Norzagaray, Bulacan, with an area
of 207,996 square meters, more or less. 
It is alleged that said applicant purchased the parcel of land from
persons who, by themselves or through their predecessors in interest, had
occupied and cultivated it continuously since the Spanish regime to the present
and had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of said parcel of land under a bona
fide claim of ownership, except against the
Government, since July 26, 1894.

The application was opposed by spouses Jose Rayo
and Susana Mangahas and one Pedro Legaspi.  According to the oppositor
spouses, they are the owners of the east central portion of the parcel of land,
title to which is sought to be registered by petitioner, covered by Plans PSU
229592 and 227659, with a total area of 68,389 square meters, having been in
actual, open, public, adverse, peaceful and uninterrupted possession and
occupation thereof in the concept of owner for a period of over sixty (60)
years and having acquired ownership thereof by donation on the occasion of
their marriage from the parents of Jose Rayo.  Oppositor Pedro Legaspi claims that he is the owner of the eastern portion
of the same parcel of land covered by Plan PSU?225872, with a total area
of 31,887 square meters, having been in actual, open, public, adverse, peaceful
and uninterrupted possession and occupation thereof in the concept of owner for
a period of over sixty (60) years and having acquired ownership thereof by
purchase from its original owner.

Accordingly, the spouses Jose
Rayo and Susana Mangahas
and Pedro Legaspi sought to register title to the
respective portions of the
parcel of land in question subject of and based on the allegations in their respective
oppositions to the application of petitioner, which counter-applications were
docketed therein as Land Registration Cases Nos. (SM) N-146
and (SM) N-147.  Petitioner duly
filed an opposition to said applications on the grounds alleged in its application
and the Solicitor General likewise opposed said applications.

Applicants/oppositors Pedro Legaspi and the spouses Jose Rayo
and Susana Mangahas were later substituted by private
respondent Moises Correa as subsequent purchaser of
the aforesaid portions of said parcel of land.

By agreement of the parties the three cases were jointly
tried.  On August 25, 1982, the lower court, acting on eleven (11)
land registration cases the applicants wherein were corporations and one of which was the application of petitioner in
Land Registration Case No. (SM) N-093, issued an order the pertinent part of
which reads:

“In view of the recent ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court
in G.R. No. L-49623 (Manila Electric Company,
Petitioner-Appellant vs. Judge Floreliana Castro-Bartolome of
the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Makati, Br. XV, & Republic of the Philippines,
Respondents-Appellees) promulgated on June 29, 1982
affecting applications for land registration by juridical entities and it
appearing that in the above-cited cases juridical parties are involved and
therefore falling under the same category, said cases are hereby dismissed.^[2]

On August 29, 1983,
judgment was rendered in Land Registration Cases Nos. (SM) N-146 and (SM)
N-147, the dispositive portion of which provides:

“WHEREFORE, confirming the Order of Special default entered on
September 16, 1971 for these two registration cases, the Court hereby orders
the registration of Psu-225872, Norzagaray Cadastre,
depicted in the plan which was surveyed for Pedro Legaspi
on March 13, 1977 and Psu-229592 and Psu-227659 as depicted in the plan which
was surveyed for spouses Jose Rayo and Susana Mangahas on March 12, 1966 and May 15, 1966, respectively,
together with its corresponding technical description and all improvements
existing thereon, in the name of substituted applicant Moises
Correa, of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to Rosario N. Correa, with
residence at Poblacion, Norzagaray,
Bulacan.

“After this decision shall have become final, the
corresponding decree shall issue.”^[3]

Herein petitioner appealed from the order of dismissal of its
application, the denial of its motion for the reconsideration thereof and the
judgment rendered by the trial court. 
The Solicitor General, in behalf of the Director of Lands, also appealed
from the aforesaid judgment.

On August 13, 1984, herein private respondent Correa filed an
action for recovery of possession and damages (accion
publiciana) against petitioner in the Regional
Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch XVII, involving the
same parcel of land subject of the aforesaid three cases for registration of
title, which action was docketed therein as Civil Case No. 7678-M.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint against it on the
ground that the order of dismissal of its application and the judgment rendered
in the land registration cases have not yet become final as they were the
subject of its appeal.

The court below granted petitioner’s motion and dismissed the
complaint on February 1, 1985.  The motion for reconsideration of the order
of dismissal having been denied, on July
1, 1985, herein respondent Correa took an appeal therefrom to respondent Court of Appeals where it was
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 07088.

In  its own appeal to
respondent court, herein petitioner charges that the trial court erred –

1)   in ordering the
registration of the three (3) parcels of land covered by PSU-225872, PSU­-229592
and PSU-227659 in the name of Correa;

2)   in not declaring
Jose Rayo, Susana Mangahas,
and Pedro Legaspi as usurpers of the lot applied for
by petitioner;

3)   in holding that
petitioner surveyed, encroached upon, and developed the disputed three (3)
parcels of land to the prejudice of Correa;

4)   in holding that
petitioner through its workers and employees, forcibly entered into the disputed
three (3) parcels of land in 1970;

5)   in not recognizing
petitioner’s vested rights to the land and dismissing motu
proprio LRC Case No. (SM) N-093; and

6)   in not allowing petitioner to submit an “amended
petition to conform to evidence” or to file the
proper motion for substitution by the qualified assignee of petitioner.^[4]

On his part, the Solicitor General faults the trial court with
error (in CA-G.R. CV No. 07825) for ?

1)   not denying the
application for registration for failure of the applicant to adduce clear and
convincing evidence of possession and occupation of the nature and for the
length of time required by law;

2)   granting the
application for registration despite the failure of the appellee
to submit in evidence the original tracing cloth plan; and

3)   finding that appellee has a registerable title over the subject property.

and (in CA-G.R.
No. 07826) for ?

1)   confirming applicant-appellee’s
alleged title over the two parcels of land shown in Plans PSU-229592 and
PSU-227659, consisting of 38,290 and 30,099 square meters, respectively,
despite absence of proof that said lands have been released as alienable and
disposable;

2)   confirming applicant-appellee’s
alleged title over the above two parcels of land despite absence of adequate
proof that applicant-appellee and his
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession thereof since June 12, 1945 or earlier;

3)   confirming
applicant-appellee’s alleged title over the subject parcels
of land despite absence of the requisite reports of the Commissioner of Land
Registration and the Director of Lands pursuant to Section 29 of PD 1529; and

4)   granting the
application despite the failure of applicant to submit the original tracing cloth
plan of the lands applied for, the submission of which is a statutory
requirement of mandatory character.^[5]

On September 20, 1988, respondent Court of Appeals rendered a
decision upholding the right of herein petitioner to file an application for
registration of the land in question pursuant to the doctrine in The
Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, et al.,^[6]
which overruled the holding in Manila
Electric Company vs. Castro­-Bartolome
relied upon and cited by the trial court,
supra; and ordering the registration of Lot No. 2880 in the
name of petitioner, but excluding portions thereof as described in Plans PSU-229592, 227659 and 225872 which were
ordered registered in the name of private respondent Correa, more particularly
as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the orders dated August 25, 1982 and February
8, 1984, appealed from by Republic Cement Corporation (Land
Registration Case No. SM­-093, now CA-G.R. CV No. 07824) are REVERSED; the
judgment rendered on August 29, 1983, appealed from by Republic Cement Corporation (Land Registration Cases Nos. SM-146 and
SM-147, now CA-G.R. CV Nos. 07825 and 07826) is MODIFIED in the manner as
hereafter provided; and the orders dated February 1, 1985 and July 1, 1985,
appealed from by Moises R. Correa (Civil Case No.
7678-M, now CA­-G.R. CV No. 07088), are AFFIRMED.

“Title to the parcels
of land covered by Plans PSU-229592 and PSU-227659 (Exhibits 1 and 1-A, Rayo-Mangahas, pp. 10-11, rec., Vol. IV), the technical
description of which are on pages 7 and 8, rec., supra, and the parcel
of land covered by Plan PSU-225872 (Exhibit 1-Legaspi, p. 9, rec., Vol. III),
the technical description of which are on pages 6 and 7, rec., supra, is
confirmed in the name of Moises R. Correa.  Said parcels of land excluded from Lot No. 2280,
Norzagaray Cadastre, Plan AP-16404 (Exhibit D, p. 10,
rec., Vol. I), the technical description of which are on pages 7 and 8, rec. supra,
title to the remaining portion thereof (Lot No. 2280) is confirmed in the name
of Republic Cement Corporation.  Accordingly,
upon finality of this judgment, the corresponding adjustment in the technical
description of Lot No. 2280 shall be made before issuance of the corresponding
decrees and certificates of title to and in the names of the proper parties.

“No pronouncement as
to costs in these instances.

SO
ORDERED.”^[7]

Herein petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, which
was denied by respondent Court of Appeals in its resolution dated November 22,
1988.  In its aforesaid resolution,
respondent court expressly noted therein that the Solicitor General did not
file a motion for reconsideration of its judgment nor
a petition for its review before this Court.^[8]
Hence, the present recourse is now of petitioner by itself.

Before us, petitioner contends that respondent Court of Appeals
erred in ordering the registration of the three parcels of land covered by
Plans PSU-225872, 229592 and 227659 in the name of private respondent Correa,
as purchaser of the properties from Jose Rayo, Susana
Mangahas and Pedro Legaspi,
allegedly because:

1.  Private respondent failed to prove the
genuineness of his title and the identity of the lands he claims for his own in
the manner and with the degree of evidence required by law;

2. Jose Rayo, Susana Mangahas and Pedro Legaspi have not proven exclusive, continuous, open and
adverse possession of 
these parcels of land to justify a finding of ownership;

3. The whole of Lot
No. 2280 is duly covered by deeds of sale in petitioner’s favor and amply supported by surveyor’s certificates, the
contents of which prevail over private respondent’s
doubtful allegations; and

4.  The disputed parcels of land are specifically
described by boundaries, putting their identity and extant beyond doubt.^[9]

We find the petition at bar to be without merit.

It may readily be seen that the issues raised
by herein petitioner are questions of fact which are not within the province of
the present recourse.  Settled is the
rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and binding upon
the Supreme Court if borne out by the evidence on record.^[10]
A review of the factual findings of the Court of Appeals is not a function
ordinarily undertaken by the Supreme Court, the rule admitting of only a few
exceptions recognized under decisional law, which exceptions are not obtaining
in the case at bar.^[11]

Contrary to the claim of petitioner, private respondent, through
his predecessors in interest,
was able to establish the identity of and title to the land sought to be
registered in his name.  The technical
description and the survey plan duly approved by the Director of Lands
submitted in evidence by private respondent fully describes the metes and bounds of the parcels of land
involved, thus:

“Psu-229592

(Jose Rayo)

A parcel of land as shown on plan Psu-229592,
L.R.C. Record No.          ), situated in
the Barrio of Minuyan, Municipality of Norzagaray, Province of Bulacan.  Bounded on the W., along line 1-2 by property
of the Heirs of Felix Mangahas (Lot 2880, Norzagaray Cadastre); on the N., along line 2-3 by property of Amado
Enriquez and Pedro Rayo (Lot 2881, Norzagaray Cadastre); on the NE., along line 3-4 by
property of Pedro Legaspi (Lot 8019, Norzagaray Cadastre); and on the SE., along line 4?1
by property of Susana Mangahas (Lot 7300, Norzagaray Cadastre). 
x x x; containing an
area of THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND
TWO HUNDRED NINETY (38,290) square meters. 
All points referred to are indicated on the plan and are marked on the
ground as follows:  Point 1 by cross marked on stone
boulder, point 2 by Old cross on Cupang tree, point 3
by Cross on natural stone, and point 4 by Old Cross on Balite
tree; Bearings true; date of survey, March 12, 1966 and that of the approval, February 6,
1967.”^[12]

“Psu-227659

(Susana Mangahas)

A Parcel
of land (as shown on plan
Psu-227659, L.R.C. Record No.         ,
situated in the Barrio of Minuyan, Municipality of
Norzagaray, Bulacan.  Bounded on the S., SW., and NW., along lines 1-2-3?4-5 by property of the Heirs of Felix Mangahas;
and on the NE., along line 5-1 by property of Pedro Legaspi (Psu-225872).  x x
x; containing an area of THIRTY THOUSAND NINETY NINE
(30,099) Square Meters.  All
points referred to are indicated on the plan and are marked on the ground as
follows:  Point 1 by Old cross on natural
stone, point 2 by Cross marked on boulder, point 3 by Cross marked on boulder
stone, point 4 by Cross marked on stone, and point 5 by Old cross with nail on Balite tree; Bearings true; date of survey, May 15, 1966
and that of the approval, December 5, 1966.”^[13]

“Psu-225872

(Pedro Legaspi)

A parcel of land (as shown on plan Psu-225872,
L.R.C. Record No.         ,
situated in the Barrio of Alagae, Municipality of Norzagaray,
Province of Bulacan. 
Bounded on the NE., along line 1-2 by property of Camilo
Legaspi (Lot 8016, Norzagaray
Cadastre); on the SE., along line 2-3 by property of Andres San Pedro (Lot
2877, Norzagaray Cadastre); on the SW., along lines
3-4-5 by property of the Heirs of Felix Mangahas
(Lot 2880, port. Norzagaray Cadastre); on the N.,
along line 5-6 by property of Pedro Rayo and Amado Enriquez (Lot 2881, Norzagaray
Cadastre); on the NE., along line 6-7 by property of Amado
Banez (Lot 2883, Norzagaray
Cadastre); and on the E., along lines 7­-8-1 by property of Camilo
Legaspi (Lot 8016, Norzagaray
Cadastre) x x x; containing
an area of THIRTY ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN (31,887) Square
Meters.  All points refered
to are indicated on the plan and are marked on the ground as follows:  Points 2 and 7 by Old nail on Alibangbang trees, point 1 by Old B.L. on Natural stone;
point 3 by cross on natural stone, point 4 by Cross on nail on Balite tree, point 5 by cross on Boulder stone, point 6 by
Old cross on Malacamias tree, and point 8 by Old nail
on Daling lalaki tree;
Bearings true; date of survey, March 13, 1966 and that of the approval, September 2, 1966.”^[14]

As we ruled in Director of Lands, et al. vs. Funtillar, et al.:^[15]

“x x x
Survey Plan Psu-215779 of the property, showing its boundaries and total area,
clearly identifies and delineates the extent of the land.  The petitioners overlook the fact that no
survey would at all be possible where the identity of the land is not first
properly established.  More importantly,
without such identification, no opposition, even its own, to the application
for registration could be interposed. 
Encroachment on or adverse possession of property could not be justly
claimed.”

Regarding petitioner’s title over the said parcels of land, the
trial court made the following factual findings, which are also the bases of
the decision of respondent Court of Appeals, to wit:

“It appears that parcel of land (Psu-225872) under LRC No. 146
consisting of 31,887 square meters was originally in open, peaceful, adverse,
exclusive and uninterrupted possession of Silverio Tolentino in the concept of owner since 1934 who cleared
the land, and planted thereon trees and upland rice.  That in October, 1943 he sold the same to his
nephew Pedro Legaspi (Exh. I) who took immediate possession thereof and introduced additional
improvements thereon by building his house and planting palay
and other fruit-bearing trees. 
That said Pedro Legaspi declared the land for
taxation purposes in 1967 and had paid the real estate taxes from 1962 to 1967
(Exhibit J-l); and caused the property to be surveyed preparatory to the filing
of an application for registration (Exhibit D). 
That from October 1943 to January 1970, said original applicant Pedro Legaspi continued with the same kind of possession as his
predecessor-in-interest until January 1970 when oppositor
Republic Cement Corporation through its workers and employees forcibly entered
his property and dispossessed him thereof; and the same later became the
subject of a forcible entry case before the Municipal Court of Norzagaray, but was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction
since the question of ownership was put in issue.  That on September 30, 1972 said Pedro Legaspi
sold his rights and interests over the parcel of land to and in favor of
substituted applicant Moises Correa (Exhibit L) who
concentrated his efforts to recover the land already the subject of a
registration case.  The oral testimony of
original applicant Pedro Legaspi, insofar as concerns location, character and continuity of possession, was
corroborated by the testimony of witnesses Silverio Tolentino and Amado Enriquez both
of them claiming to have known this parcel of land for more than 30 years, as
the former owner and the adjoining owner thereof, respectively.

“With respect to the parcels of land (Psu­-229592 and
Psu-227659) under LRC No. 147 consisting of 38,290 and 30,099 square meters,
respectively, it appears that the same were originally in open, peaceful,
adverse, exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted possession by Fidel Enriquez
in the concept of owner since 1932, who introduced improvements thereon by
planting fruit-bearing trees.  That in
1943 said Fidel Enriquez donated the two parcels of land to his grandson Jose Rayo and his spouse Susana Mangahas
on occasion of their marriage.  That the
document evidencing the transfer was burned during the second world war.  That applicant-donees took immediate possession of the donated property
and introduced additional improvements by building their house and planting palay and other fruit-bearing trees on the land.  That
said spouses declared the property for taxation purposes since 1962 and had
been paying the real estate taxes until 1974 (Exhibit 12), and caused
the parcels of land to be surveyed preparatory to the filing of an application
for registration (Exhibits 3 and 3-a). 
That from 1943 to January 1970, the original applicant-spouses continued
with the same kind of possession as their predecessor-in-interest until in
January 1970, when oppositor Republic Cement
Corporation, through its workers and employees forcibly entered their property
and dispossessed them of their land. 
That the same later became the subject of a forcible entry case, but was
dismissed since the question of ownership was put in issue before the Municipal
Court of Norzagaray. 
That on September 30, 1972
said spouses sold their rights and interests over said parcels of land to and
in favor of substituted applicant Moises Correa
(Exhibit LL) who sought to recover the property already the subject of a
registration case.  The oral testimony of
original applicant-spouses Jose Rayo and Susana Mangahas insofar as concerns the location, character and
continuity of possession, was corroborated by the testimony of witnesses Pedro Legaspi and Amado Enriquez, both claiming to have known these parcels
of land for more than 30 years as the adjoining owners thereof.”^[16]

We defer to the above factual findings, there being no showing
that it was arrived at with grave abuse of discretion or without sufficient
basis.  We have carefully scrutinized and
reviewed the records and we find ample evidentiary support for the above
findings.

The contention of petitioner that it has the right it claims over
Lot No. 2880 in its entirety, on the bases of the deeds of sale executed in its
favor and the surveyor’s certificate, is untenable and cannot be upheld.

As found by respondent Court of Appeals, the land under
consideration, now known as Lot No. 2880, was previously owned by spouses Felix
and Maria Mangahas. 
After the death of Felix Mangahas, one-half
(1/2) of said land was adjudicated and partitioned among his five (5)
daughters, namely, Francisca, Oliva, Susana, Agatona and Remedios, in a deed
of extrajudicial partition.  Later, the
shares of each of said heirs was transferred to herein petitioner by virtue of
deeds of absolute sale executed either by the heirs themselves or their
successors in interest.

Based on said transfers, petitioner is now seeking the
registration of the whole of Lot
No. 2880 in its name.  This we cannot
allow.  The deeds of sale relied upon by
petitioner do not constitute sufficient legal justification for petitioner’s
claim over all of Lot No. 2880.  Petitioner’s title over said lot, as the
successor in interest of said heirs, is limited only to whatever rights the
latter may have had therein.  It is
elementary that a grantor can convey no greater estate than what he has or in
which he has an alienable title or interest.

As aptly and correctly observed by respondent court:

“It might be that what Republic Cement had actually acquired
out of the one-half portion pertaining to Felix Mangahas
was more than 34,804 square meters (the totality of what had been adjudicated
to Francisca, Oliva, Susana, Agatona
and Remedios), because the said parcel of land was
still unregistered, their exact boundaries still undetermined.  But what it must have acquired out of Felix Mangahas’ one-half portion cannot be the whole of the
property that he owned in common with his wife Maria de la Cruz with a total
area of 207,996 square meters (20.7996 hectares), now known as Lot No. 2880,
Plan Ap-16404, title to which it seeks to register.  To uphold Republic Cement’s claim to the
entire portion of Lot No. 2880 would be to include the portions pertaining to
Felix ‘Mangahas‘ two sons Marcelo and Jose, as well
as the Portion pertaining to his wife Maria de la Cruz, which do not appear to
have been the subject of an extrajudicial settlement and/or sale.”^[17]

Petitioner’s claim over the excess area is premised on the survey allegedly made by
private surveyor Arsenio Villaruz,
but the resultant areas depicted in said survey do not tally with, but
supposedly consist of expanded areas very much larger than, those indicated for
the lots involved in their respective tax declarations, viz:  Tax Declaration No. 6831 of the spouses
Esmeraldo Reyes and Esperanza Balagtas, successors in
interest of Agatona Mangahas;
Tax Declaration No. 6829 of the spouses Francisco Reyes and Magdalena Joaquin,
successors in interest of Susana Mangahas; and Tax
Declaration No. 6830 of Oliva, Francisca and Remedios Mangahas.  These facts are expressly stated by the
foregoing parties in the deeds of sale they executed in favor of petitioner
over the lots covered by the aforestated tax
declarations.^[18]
We do not find satisfactory the stilted explanation advanced to justify the
glaringly excessive disparity of areas resulting after the supposed survey.

Moreover, it does not appear from our scrutiny of the records,
despite petitioner’s representations in its written offer of evidence filed in
the court a quo, that the purported survey plans of the lots
involved were actually submitted in evidence therein.  Neither was it alleged and proved that they
were approved by the Director of Lands. 
It has long been held that unless a survey plan is duly approved by the
Director of Lands, the same is of dubious value and is not acceptable as
evidence.^[19]
Indubitably, therefore, the reputed survey and its alleged results are not
entitled to credit and should be rejected.

An applicant for registration of land, if he relies on a document
evidencing his title thereto, must prove not only the genuineness of said title
but also the identity of the land therein referred to.  If he only claims a portion of what is
included in his title, he must clearly prove that the property sought to be
registered is included in that title.^[20]

With respect to the appeal of private respondent Correa in
CA-G.R. CV No. 07088, respondent Court affirmed the order of the lower court
dismissing said private respondent’s complaint for recovery of possession of
the parcels of land in question as being premature in view of the pendency before respondent court of the appeals subject of
CA-G.R. CV Nos. 07825 and 07826.  With
this decision in the latter two cases, there is no need for us to pass upon the
case first mentioned.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.  The challenged decision of respondent Court
of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Penned by Justice Pedro A. Ramirez, with Justices Serafin E. Camilon and Minerva P.
Gonzaga-Reyes concurring.

^[2]
Original Record, Vol. II, 664.

^[3]
Ibid., Vol. IV, 197-198.

^[4]
Rollo, 199.

^[5]
Ibid., 199-200.

^[6]
146 SCRA 509 (1986).

^[7]
Ibid., 209-210.

^[8]
Ibid., 212-214.

^[9]
Ibid., 33-34.

^[10]
Alsua-Betts,
et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 92 SCRA 332 (1979); Baliwag Transit, Inc.
vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 147 SCRA 82 (1987); Solis, et al. vs.
Court of Appeals, et al., 176 SCRA 678 (1989).

^[11]
Ramos, et al. vs. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the P.I., et al., 19
SCRA 289 (1967); Manlapaz vs. Court of
Appeals, et al., 177 SCRA 1 (1989).

^[12]
Original Record, Vol. IV, 7.

^[13]
Ibid., 8.

^[14]
Ibid., Vol. III, 6.

^[15]
142 SCRA 57 (1986).

^[16]
Ibid., Vol. II, 705-707.

^[17]
Rollo, 206.

^[18]
Original Record, Vol. II, 517-596.

^[19]
See Flores vs. Director of Lands, 17 Phil. 512
(1910).

^[20]
Lasam vs.
Director of Lands, et al., 65 Phil. 367 (1938).