[ G. R. No. 34338. December 31, 1931 ] 56 Phil. 393
[ G. R. No. 34338. December 31, 1931 ]
THE GOVERNMENT OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, APPLICANT AND APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCA ABRAN ET AL., CLAIMANTS. THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYAMBANG AND AGUSTIN V. GOMEZ ET AL., APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
ROMUALDEZ, J.:
This case was presented to the court together with G. R. Nos. 34336 and 34337,[1] by the writer of this opinion, be- cause the three cases are closely related. The present case deals with the claim of Agustin V. Gomez to certain portions of lots 8-16, 41, 49, 60-69, 102-104, and to the whole of lots Nos. 42-48; the claim of Consolacion M. Gomez filed by her guardian ad litem, Teodoro Gomez, to certain portions of lots 15-25, 35, 41, 68, 69, 71-73, 76-79, 95, 94, 102, and the whole of lots Nos. 34, 36-40, 70, 74, and 75; and the claim of Julian Macaraeg to portions of lots 24-31, 33, 78, 79, 82-89, 91, 152, and to the whole of lots 32, 80, and 81. The Director of Lands and the Director of Forestry hold that the land referred to is public land. The municipality of Bayambang, in turn, claims the ownership of all the lots in the case from No. 1 to No. 182, inclusive, and prays to be declared the owner thereof. After due hearing, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan rejected the claims of Agustin V. Gomez, Consolacion M. Gomez, and Julian Macaraeg, as well as that of the municipality of Bayambang, declaring that lots Nos. 8-49, 60-89, 91, 94, 95, 102, 103, 104, and 152 belong to the Insular Government. From this judgment an appeal was taken by the municipality of Bayambang and by the private claimants, Agustin V. Gomez, Consolacion M. Gomez, and Julian Macaraeg, each insisting upon the original claims presented in this case, and assigning several errors as committed by the trial court. With reference to the claim of the municipality of Bayambang, we find the evidence insufficient. Its possession prior to the year 1928, or its acquisition of the lots claimed either from the Insular Government or from any other person or entity, has not been satisfactorily shown. And even assuming it to have been in possession of these lots prior to the year 1928, it has been held that our municipalities, as at present constituted, do not acquire public agricultural lands by mere possession or occupation. (Municipality of Tacloban vs. Director of Lands, 17 Phil., 426; 18 Phil., 201; Municipality of Hagonoy vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 29 Phil., 320.) The fact is, however, that the lands here litigated are not, so far as the record shows, public lands. There is a pre-ponderance of evidence to show that as far back as the Spanish regime, they were the subject of a possessory information obtained by Juan Fajardo. (Exhibit C—Gomez-Macaraeg.) The fact that this information was recorded in the registry only in 1920 does not affect its present probative value. That entry was made in accordance with the law, and the lack of it only prevented it from adversely affecting third persons; but once recorded, it carried full legal effect. The preponderance of the evidence shows, to our mind, that the lands here in question are portions of those described in the aforementioned possessory information. Marciano Fajardo’s testimony, corroborated by that of Primitivo Artacho and by the documentary evidence bears this out. According to Marciano Fajardo, his father made out a declaration of ownership of all these lands in the year 1902 (p. 34, t. s. n.), although it does not appear he paid the corresponding tax. In 1925, Agustin V. Gomez made out an assessment declaration of the lands here in question. (Exhibits J, K, L, pages 48-50, Bill of Exhibits.) Marciano Fajardo’s testimony loses none of its force from the fact that in 1911 he gave the surveyors the data they needed to survey the lands mentioned in the plan (Exhibit A—Gomez-Macaraeg), inasmuch as it appears that the survey was made, not because the land belonged to the municipality of Bayambang, but in order to determine the dividing line between that municipality and Moncada and Camiling. With reference to the document (Exhibit 30-Bayambang), we are satisfied that it does not refer to the lands here in question. As far as the possession is concerned, we find that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the individual appellants, Agustin V. Gomez, Consolacion M. Gomez, and Julian Macaraeg have been in possession of the lands in question (except for certain portions awarded to some homesteaders; but we shall speak of this later), and their predecessors before them, so that, all in all that possession may be traced back as far as 1882, when Juan Fajardo entered upon the possession of those lands. The record shows that that possession was held as owners, peacefully, publicly, continuously, and in fine, with all the elements required in paragraph (b), section. 45, Act No. 2874, for which reason said appellants are entitled to have their respective parcels registered in their names, except for the portions alluded to above, which were granted through homestead certificates of title Exhibits 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42, of the Insular Government. With respect to the portions of land covered by homestead certificates of title, we are of opinion that such certificates are sufficient to prevent the title to such portion from going to the appellants aforesaid, for they carry with them preponderating evidence that the respective homesteaders held adverse possession of such portions, dating back to 1919 or 1920, according to the evidence, and the said appellants failed to object to that possession in time. Under these circumstances, we believe that in this particular case, the doctrine laid down in Zarate vs. Director of Lands (34 Phil., 416) and reiterated in Aquino vs. Director of Lands (39 Phil., 850), is more applicable than that enunciated in De los Reyes vs. Razon (38 Phil., 480), in view of the fact that these appellants abandoned said portions, and the observations made in Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Federizo (G. R. No. 15946, January 14,1922)[1] Director of Lands vs. Peralta (G. R. Nos. 25733-35, December 24, 1926)2, and Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Abad (p. 75, ante) are applicable to them. Wherefore, modifying the judgment appealed from, it is hereby ordered that the lots respectively claimed by Agustin V. Gomez, Consolacion M. Gomez, and Julian Macaraeg, be registered in their name, with the exclusion of the portions covered by the homestead certificates Exhibits 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 of the Insular Government, affirming said judgment in all other respects compatible with this judgment, which is hereby rendered without express finding as to costs. So ordered. Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, and Villamor, JJ., concur.