[ G.R. No. 3894. March 12, 1909 ] 13 Phil. 159
[ G.R. No. 3894. March 12, 1909 ]
JUAN IBAÑEZ DE ALDECOA, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
TORRES, J.:
On the 8th of March, 1904, in accordance with the new Land Registration Act, Juan Ibañez de Aldecoa applied for the registration of his title to a parcel of land, 3,375 square meters in extent, situated in the town of Surigao; a plan and technical description of said parcel was attached to his application. After the formalities of the law were complied with, and an opinion of the examiner of titles opposing the request of the applicant, had been rendered, the Attorney-General by a writing dated March 21,1905, objected to the registration applied for, alleging that the land in question was the property of the Government of the United States, and as now under the control of the Insular Government; that the title of ownership issued by the politico-militar governor of Surigao, Mindanao, issued on the 19th of June, 1889, to Telesforo Ibañez de Aldecoa, antecessor of the petitioner with respect to the land in question, was entirely null and void, for the reason that said grant had not been made in accordance with the laws then in force on the subject, and because the said governor had no authority to make such a grant; he prayed the court below to dismiss the application with costs. As the case stood the applicant, Aldecoa, on the 8th of April, 1905, amended his former petition, and, relying upon the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 6 of section 54 of Act No. 926, alleged that at the time he requested the registration of the land in question, comprised in the plan then submitted the aforesaid Act No. 926 was not yet in force, and as the latter affords better facilities for securing titles to property unprovided with them, as in the case with the land in question, the applicant, availing himself of the benefits granted by the said Act, prayed that the same be applied to the inscription of his land, inasmuch as it was included within paragraphs 5 and 6 of section 64, Chapter VI, thereof, and prayed the court to take into consideration the amendment to his petition. Evidence was adduced by the petitioner at the trial of the case, and on February 2, 1907, the judge of the Court of Land Registration entered his decision in the matter and, in view of the opposition offered by the Insular Government denied the petition without costs, and ordered the cancellation of the entry made of the said property in the record under No. 408, folio 206 of volume 2 of the municipality of Surigao. The applicant excepted to this decision and moved for a new trial; his motion was overruled to which he also excepted and presented the corresponding bill of exceptions which was approved and submitted to this court. The question set up in these proceedings by virtue of the appeal interposed by counsel for Juan Ibañez de Aldecoa, is whether or not a parcel of land that is susceptible of being cultivated, and, ceasing to be agricultural land, was converted into a building lot, is subject to the legal provisions in force regarding Government public lands which may be alienated in favor of private individuals or corporations. While from the remote time of the conquest of this Archipelago the occupation or material possession together with the improvement and cultivation for a certain number of years, as fixed by the laws of the Indies, of given portions of vacant Government lands, was the method established by the Government to facilitate the acquisition thereof by private persons, later, by the royal decrees of June 25, l880, and December 26, 1884, the system of composition with the State and that of sales by public auction were instituted as the means for acquiring such lands. In view of the difficulties which prevented the rapid dispatch of the proceedings instituted for this purpose, the royal decree of February 13, 1894, was promulgated, establishing the possessory information as the method of legalizing possession of vacant Crown land, under certain conditions which were set out in said decree. After the change of sovereignty, the Commission enacted Act No. 926, relating to public lands, in accordance with the provisions of sections 13, 14, and 15 of the Act of the Congress of the United States of July 1, 1902, section 54, paragraph 6 of which (Act No. 926) is as follows:
“SEC. 54. The following-described persons or their legal successors in right, occupying public lands in the Philippine Islands, or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles to such lands have not been perfected, may apply to the Court of Land Registration of the Philippine Islands for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor to wit:
* * * * * *
“6. All persons who by themselves or their predecessors in interest have been in the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural public lands, as defined by said Act of Congress of July first, nineteen hundred and two, under a bona fide claim of ownership except as against the Government, for a period of ten years next preceding the taking effect of this Act, except when prevented by war or force majeure, shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a government grant and to have received the same, and shall be entitled to a certificate of title to such land under the provisions of this chapter. “All applicants for lands under paragraphs one, two, three, four, and five of this section must establish by proper official records or documents that such proceedings as are therein required were taken and the necessary conditions complied with: Provided, however, That such requirements shall not apply to the fact of adverse possession.”
Given the above legal provisions and the data contained in the record, it is seen that the land, the registration of which is claimed, was of the class of vacant crown or public land which the State could alienate to private persons, and being susceptible of cultivation, since at any time the person in possession desired to convert it into agricultural land he might do so in the same manner that he had made a building lot of it, it undoubtedly falls within the terms of the said Act of Congress, as well as the provisions of the above-cited section 54 and paragraph 6 thereof of Act No. 926, for the reason that the said land is neither mining nor timber land. We refrain from mentioning herein what originally was the nature of the land whereon was built the greatest cities of the world; and confining ourselves to that on which the cities and towns in these Islands were erected, it can not be denied that, at the commencement of the occupation of this Archipelago by the Spaniards, and at the time of the distribution of lands, the latter were rural and agricultural in their nature. Rural also were the old towns, the cradle and foundation of the present cities and large towns of the Philippines, and as the inhabitants increased, and added to the number of their dwellings, the farms gradually became converted into town lots. In provincial towns, and in the suburbs of Manila, many houses are to be seen that are erected on lots that form part of land used for agricultural purposes. If for the time being, and to the advantage of the possessors thereof, they have ceased to be such agricultural lands, they may later on again become transformed into farming land and, by the industry of the owner, again be made to yield fruit. Hence, any parcel of land or building lot is susceptible of cultivation, and may be converted into a field, and planted with all kinds of vegetation; for this reason, where land is not mining or forestal in its nature, it must necessarily be included within the classification of agricultural land, not because it is actually used for the purposes of agriculture, but because it was originally agricultural and may again become so under other circumstances; besides, the Act of Congress contains only three classifications, and makes no special provision with respect to building lots or urban lands that have ceased to be agricultural land. In the decision rendered by this court in the case of Mapa vs. The Insular Government, No. 3793 (10 Phil. Rep., 175), the legislation in force was interpreted in a similar sense. It is not to be believed that it was the sense of the two sovereign powers that have successively promulgated the said laws, to place those in possession of building lots under title of ownership” in an anomalous, uncertain and insecure position, rendering it impossible for them to obtain legal titles to the lands appropriated by them, and denying them the care and protection of the law to which they were certainly entitled on account of the efforts they have made, both in their own behalf, and for the benefit of the cities and towns in which they reside, contributing to the wealth and increase of the country. In the case at bar we have to deal with laws that were enacted after almost all the towns of this Archipelago were established, and it must be assumed that the lawmakers have started from the supposition that titles to the building lots within the confines of such towns had been duly acquired; therefore, in special cases like the present one, wherein is sought the registration of a lot situated within a town created and acknowledged administratively, it is proper to apply thereto the laws in force and classify it as agricultural land, inasmuch as it was agricultural prior to its conversion into a building lot, and is subject at any time to further rotation and cultivation; moreover, it does not appear that it was ever mining or forest land. It should be noted that article 1 of the royal decree and regulation of the 25th of June, 1880,-says: “In the Philippine Islands, all vacant lands, soils, and grounds without a lawful private owner, or, which have never been under private control, shall be deemed to be alienable crown lands for the effects of the regulation, and in accordance with law 14, title 12, book 4, of the Novisima Recopilacion;” that article 1 of the royal decree of the 14th of February, 1894, states: “Vacant lands, soils, grounds, and mountains in the Philippine Islands shall be deemed to be alienable Crown lands, provided they are not included within the following exceptions: (1) Those of private ownership; (2) those belonging to the forest zone; (3) those comprised in the communal laws, or within zones reserved for the use in common by residents of the community; and (4) those lands which are susceptible of private appropriation by means of composition or possessory information;” and that although section 13 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, directs the Government of the Philippine Islands to classify public lands that are neither forest nor mining lands according to their agricultural character and productiveness, section 14 authorizes and empowers the said Government “to enact rules and regulations and to prescribe terms and conditions to enable persons to perfect their title to public lands in said Islands, who, prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States, had fulfilled ll or some of the conditions required by the Spanish laws and royal decrees of the Kingdom of Spain for the acquisition of legal title thereto, yet failed to secure conveyance of title, etc.;” and section 15 authorizes and empowers the said Government of the Philippine Islands “on such terms as it may prescribe, by general legislation, to provide for the granting, or sale and conveyance to actual, occupants and settlers and other citizens of said Islands such parts and portions of the public domain, other than timber and mineral lands, of the United States in said Islands, as it may deem wise, etc.” From the language of the foregoing provisions of the law, it is deduced that, with the exception of those comprised within the mineral and timber zone, all lands owned by the State or by the sovereign nation are public in character, and per se alienable and, provided they are not destined to the use of the public in general or reserved by the Government in accordance with law, they may be acquired by any private or juridical person; and considering their origin and primitive state and the general uses to which they were accorded, they are called agricultural lands, urban lands or building lots being included in this classification for the purpose of distinguishing rural and urban estates from mineral and timber lands; the transformation they may have undergone is no obstacle to such classification as the possessors thereof may again convert them into rural estates. If the land sought to be registered is neither mineral nor timber land, and on the other hand is susceptible of cultivation the Act of Congress contains no provision whatever that would exclude it from being classified as agricultural land, and assuming that it falls within that classification, the benefits of paragraph 6, section 54, of Act No. 926, must forthwith be applied for the reason that it has been fully proven that the applicant was in possession thereof for more than 13 years prior to the 26th of July, 1904, when the said Act went into effect. Furthermore, there is no legal reason or cause to exclude urban lands from the benefits of the aforesaid Act; on the contrary, the interpretation that urban real estate, that is not mineral or forestal in character, be understood to fall within the classification of agricultural land, is deemed to be most rational and beneficial to public interests. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, it is our opinion that the judgment appealed from should be reversed, and that it should be, as it is, hereby ordered, that, after holding in general default all such persons as may have any interest in the said parcel of land, the registration of the same shall be granted in accordance with the Land Registration Act. No special ruling is made as to costs. So ordered. Willard, J., concurs. Carson, J., concurs in the result.