[ G.R. No. 39765. October 24, 1935 ] 62 Phil. 362
[ G.R. No. 39765. October 24, 1935 ]
BENITO VALDEZ ET AL., APPLICANTS AND APPELLEES, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, THE DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY AND PRIMITIVO ANTONIO ET AL., OPPOSITORS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
BUTTE, J.:
This is a land registration case which involves the title to a vast tract of unenclosed agricultural land, some twenty kilometers long by twelve and one-half kilometers wide, located at the southern tip of the island of Masbate. In their original application for registration of this, land, filed on May 19, 1931, the applicants, Benito Valdez et al., claimed 28,006.5959 hectares. On the day of the hearing, they moved that lot No. 5, covered by patent (Spanish titulo) No. 12, be eliminated from their application, leaving 26,227.1941 hectares claimed. We shall refer to this elimination of lot No. 5 later in this decision. An association known as Muñoz y Cia. in the early eighties operated a cattle ranch (ganaderia) near Cataiñgan in the municipality of Palanas on the island of Masbate: They grazed several thousand head of cattle on the public domain which was covered with cogon grass and forests. After the enactment of the Royal Decrees (Decretos Reales) of June 25, 1880, and January 19, 1883, which made possible the purchase of public lands, the company undertook to acquire title to the public lands which constituted their hacienda. Between the years 1883 and 1886 (see Table A, post) twenty-two individuals applied for the purchase of twenty-two tracts of said public lands. After the sales were consummated the land patents (Spanish titulos) were transferred by the purchasers to Munoz and Company. Three of these titulos were registered in the name of Mauro Prieto in 1926 and are not involved here. It is from the remaining nineteen titulos that the present applicants for registration deraign their title. The total area sold by the Spanish government and purchased by the grantees in these nineteen titulos is 2,225.9194 hectares. The applicants assert that these patents contain errors in the description of the land and that all of them are grossly wrong as to the area. They assert that the correct area should be 28,006.5959 hectares, an error of 25,780.6765 hectares. The basic question of this case, therefore, is whether or not by the said nineteen titulos the Spanish government sold to the several grantees named therein an aggregate of 28,006.5959 hectares which the applicants, as their successors in title, now claim. The petition for registration alleges, first, absolute ownership by title from the Spanish government and, in the alternative, continuous and exclusive possession and occupation since July 26, 1894, from which a grant is presumed under section 45 (b) of the Public Land Law (Act No. 2874). The petition was opposed by the Director of Lands who claims that all of said lands are public lands and by the Director of Forestry who claims that a large portion thereof is public forest lauds and by nine hundred ninetythree private oppositors, settlers and homestead applicants, who deny the alleged title and possession of the applicants. To establish their claim of title, the applicants introduced in evidence the original nineteen titulos above referred to (Exhibits D-l to D-19) with the subsequent transfers thereof by the grantees to Munoz and Company endorsed on the back. Further to substantiate their claims and more particularly to prove the alleged errors .in all of the nineteen titulos, the applicants have put in evidence a topographical map made in 1885 by surveyor Felipe Diaz (Exhibit C) and a sketch prepared in 1932 by surveyor C. N. Francisco (Exhibit K). As these two exhibits constitute the very foundation of the applicants’ case, it is proper to consider them carefully. Exhibit C.—This exhibit, presented by the applicants, is a topographical map of the cattle ranch of Muñoz y Cia., prepared by a qualified Spanish surveyor, Felipe Diaz, and dated “Salamanca, November 24, 1885.” It is an unofficial map because it was not made or approved by any authority of the Spanish government. It was made for Jose Mufioz who kept it in his house in a frame. It was always in the possession of Mufioz and Company until this concern went into receivership when it was delivered to the receiver. From him it passed to the hands of Prieto & Co. of which the applicants are the principal owners. Exhibit C bears on its face the following certificate:
“Limites: N. Montes de Uson y Palanas, Tetas de Cataingan, Camino de Palanas a Cataingan, Rio Labangui y Divisoria de aguas entre la Ensenada de Cataingan y Mar del Estrecho. “E. Bosque de Punta Matayon, Puerto de Cataingan, y Bosques de Mentac, Limbujan y Alegria. “S. Manglares del Mar de la Contracosta y terreno solicitado al Estado por D. Juan Acuesta. “O. Rio Nainday. “Estension: Determinada por los anteriores linderos: 2,090 hectareas.”
The map is drawn on the lineal scale of 1:50,000. The map shows no fences, enclosures or other improvements except one casa del encargado de la ganaderia near the poblacidn of Cataingan and one toril in the sitio of Bairan. The precise location and extent of the toril is not shown. The map shows no bearings true or declinations, no points, angles or monuments and is not accompanied by any surveyor’s notes. That Munoz and Company allowed their cattle to roam and graze over the wide expanse of unenclosed land shown on Exhibit C when it was made, is a reasonable inference from the testimony of witnesses presented by the applicants. But that Exhibit C is a document proving title and binding on the Government is a wholly different matter. It is not based on the nineteen patents (titulos) which Munoz y Cia, acquired, for they are neither shown nor mentioned. Indeed, at least eight of these titulos were not in existence when Exhibit C was made.It is at most a pictorial representation of Munoz y Ciasclaim of ownership. It is not the land shown on Exhibit C which is the subject matter of this registration proceeding. The applicants have no one single land patent (titulo) from the Spanish government coinciding with Exhibit C. They offer instead nineteen individual titulos. They claim that these titulos which embrace a total area of 2,225 hectares, are each and every one of them wrong; that they should show a total area of 32,113 hectares (see Exhibit K). With this inflated area, the nineteen titulos, it is alleged, would cover the area of Exhibit C, as corrected by surveyor Francisco. But, in order that the nineteen titulos should coincide with Exhibit C, the applicants have undertaken to prove that not only are all the titulos wrong but that surveyor Diaz’s certificate as to the area of Exhibit C is also wrong. Diaz certifies that area to be 2,090 hectares, which approximates the total area shown on the face of the nineteen titulos. Surveyor Francisco testified in substance that the Spanish surveyors were guilty of many inaccuracies in their work, and that the certificate on Exhibit C should state the area to be not 2,090 hectares but 20,900 hectares. He explains this as follows:
“En la mayor parte de las veces, por la derivation de la escala, el agrimensor confunde el numero de metros que debe apreciarse en la escala y de ahi resulta la diferencia en la extensi6n. A lo mejor, el agrimensor levanta el piano al 1 por 50,000 para luego apreciar la superficie del piano bajo la escala de 1 por 5,000 * * * pero la superficie (consignada en la reseiia del mismo) se computo bajo la escala de 1 por 5,000. Si se computara la superficie del terreno a la escala de 1 por 50,000, la extension no seria 2,090 hectareas como consta en el piano Exhibit C, sino 20,900 hectareas.” (Pdg. 112, deposition, Exhibit JJ.)
Francisco’s hypothesis will not bear analysis and does great injustice to surveyor Diaz. The fallacy of his deduction is plain even to a layman. Two times two equals four but twenty times twenty is not equal to forty but to 400. So, in this instance, if, on the scale of 1:5,000, the area, which is the product of the length multiplied by the width, is 2,090 hectares, the area on the scale of 1: 50,000 L e. ten times the length and ten times the width, would not be 20,900 but 209,000 hectares. It is incredible that the Spanish surveyors en la mayor parte de las veces would commit such an egregious blunder of simple arithmetic.[1] In his deposition, page 106, Francisco testified as follows:
“P. iSegun entiendo de usted, corrigiendo los errores de computaci6n del terreno objeto del piano Exhibit C, arrojaria una extension de unos 40,000 hectareas?—R. Sf, serior.” and on page 112 of the same deposition, Francisco testified as follows: “P. Teniendo usted la verdadera extensi6n de esos lados, puede usted darnos la verdadera extension que puede arrojar el piano del Sr. Diaz ?—R. Mas de 52,000 hectareas. °P. Ahora los solicitantes pretenden el registro de un terreno de 24,000 hectareas menos de la verdadera extensi6n de ese terreno, segun el piano del Sr. Diaz, computado correctamente * * *—iR. Si, senor.”
From the foregoing, it will be noted that Francisco gives to Exhibit C three irreconcilable areas: 20,900 hectares, 40,000 hectares, and 52,000 hectares. The first is 7,106 hectares less, the second is 11,994 hectares more and the third is 23,994 hectares more than the area the applicants swore they own (28,006 hectares). It is by such loose and inexpert testimony of surveyor Francisco that the applicants attempt to impeach their own Exhibit C. The trial court accepted Francisco’s sketch, Exhibit K, without question or reserve and held that the nineteen titulos issued by the Spanish government are all wrong. Indeed, the applicants’ claim of title to this vast tract of the public lands rests upon a foundation of errors—i. e. upon proof of a series of errors in the very titles upon which their claim rests. The area of Exhibit C is inflated ten times and then each of the nineteen titulos must be inflated to correspond. How Francisco accomplishes this inflation will appear from an examination of his sketch, Exhibit K. Exhibit K.—This exhibit is not a technical survey or plan in any sense. The certificate on Exhibit K speaks for itself. It is as follows:
“Plano de los terrenos situados en Cataingan, Masbate, propiedad de los Sres. Don Benito Valdez, Don Benito Legarda y de la Paz y btros, levantado por Ceferino Cacnio, agrimensor, y anotado por C. N. Francisco, agrimensor. Manila, abril 5, 1932.”
Under the guise of “annotations”, Francisco has produced a sketch that makes irreconcilable changes in Cacnio’s map, Exhibit I of the applicants, as may be seen at a glance by comparing the two. Exhibit K was prepared long after this suit was filed and it appears that it was made to elucidate the applicants’ theory that all of the nineteen Spanish titulos, which are the origin of their title, are wrong in that, instead of showing a total area of 2,226 hectares, they should show the total area which Francisco gives to them on Exhibit K, namely, 32,113 hectares. Exhibit K is in itself no evidence of title. It varies materially from the sketches of the equally qualified surveyors Cacnio (Exhibit I), Almonte (Exhibit 46) and Aguinaldo (Exhibits 1, 3 and 4). But it does serve as a graphic presentation of the applicants’ theory and as such, it merits careful examination.
I
There is no sufficient warrant for the many alterations which surveyor Francisco made of the boundaries in the nineteen titulos, with the double object of making them fit together into one block (after the manner of a jig-saw puzzle) and of inflating their area so as to coincide with Francisco’s corrected area of Exhibit C. It is significant that the supposed errors which he discovers in the titulos always result in an enormous increase in the area. To illustrate Francisco’s methods, we will examine a few instances. By Titulo No. 9 the Spanish government, on May 31,1833, sold to Honorio Maria Ysidro 168 hectares, 11 ares and 20 centiares. The description in the titulo recites: un terreno baldio realengo, enclavado en el Sitio Nadauisan * * * siendo sus Kmites, al norte, terrenos medidos a D. Manuel Gonejero; al este, sur y oeste, cogonales del Estado. Francisco places the land conveyed in Titulo No. 9 adjacent to Titulo No. 5 in a different sitio, some ten kilometers distant from Nadauisan. He changes the east and south boundaries of Titulo No. 9 to read as follows: Al este, terrenos medidos a Anacleto Solano; al sur, terrenos medidos a Nicolas Aceneta; al oeste, cogonales del Estado. As to the eastern boundary, the Spanish surveyors were clearly right and Francisco is clearly wrong because, so far as this record shows, Anacleto Solano acquired no land until three years after Titulo No. 9 was prepared and issued. For the western boundary of Titulo No. 9, cogonales del Estado, Francisco draws an arbitrary straight line, without the slightest evidence to support it, which enables him to make an incursion upon the public domain for any inflation desired. But these alleged errors which Francisco finds in Titulo No. 9 compel him to find an error in the description given in Titulo No. 5 which recites: al este, terrenos medidos a Don Juan Alvarez. Francisco says this is wrong, that Titulo No. 5 should read: al este, terrenos medidos a Anacleto Solano. Solano did not acquire any land till three years after Titulo No. 5 was prepared and issued. These alleged errors in Titulo No. 5 compel Francisdo to alter the description given in Titulo No. 15 which recites: Al oeste, cogonales del Estado so as to read: al oeste, terrenos medidos a Honorio Maria Ysidro y Nicolas Aceneta and to alter the south and east boundaries given in Titulo No. 15 which recites: al sur y este, Rio Nauco so as to read: al sur y este, Rio Dwnagas. The Rio Danagas is six kilometers from Rio Nauco. With these alterations, Francisco locates Titulo No. 15 in the sitio of Alegria. But that makes it impossible for Titulo No. 15 to have Titulos Nos. 5 and 9 as a western boundary because Titulos Nos. 5 and 9 recite that the lands therein sold by the Spanish government are in the sitios cf Bacacay and Nadauisan respectively which are more than ten kilometers from the sitio of Alegria. To take another example, Titulo No. 12. In their original petition for registration, the applicants swore that they had title to lot No. 5 shown on plan G-4 attached to their petition. This plan was prepared by surveyor Cacnio, on May 17, 1919, and approved by the Director of Lands on March 25,1920. Cacnio testified on behalf of the applicants that when he surveyed lot No. 5 he carried with him Exhibit C. He testified that he knew all of the lands of the applicants and the locations of all the nineteen titulos; that lot No. 5 (plan G-4) is covered by Titulo No. 12, as shown on his plan, applicants’ Exhibit I. Plan G-4 and Exhibit I both show that lot No. 5 lies in the sitio Guion (as is recited in the titulo) which is several kilometers outside the area shown on Exhibit K. Francisco ignores this evidence and locates Titulo No. 12 inside the area shown on Exhibit K. Nor can we reconcile the placing of Titulo No. 12 within Exhibit K with the fact that the applicants themselves, on the opening of the trial below, moved in open court that lot No. 5 (plan G-4) be eliminated from their petition for registration, stating that they had already sold said land and would leave the vendees to obtain registration of the title (t. s. n. Nava, page 4). But that is not all. To suit his purposes, Francisco had to alter radically the description of the land as given in Titulo No. 12. The titulo recites that the land is located in sitio Guion. Francisco puts it in an entirely different sitio. The titulo conveys 73 hectares, 50 ares siendo sus limites al norte, bosque del Estado; al sur, manglar Guidn; al oeste, Rio Manajao y al este, Rio Matubinao. Francisco says that all these boundaries are wrong except the northern. He says that the western boundary could not be the River Manajao because this river lies east of the River Matubinao; and that from this error it results that the eastern boundary which is recited in the titulo to be River Matubinao, is likewise wrong and said river, he assumes, must be the western boundary of Titulo No. 12. But he assumes some river must be the eastern boundary, and finding no other river east of the Matubinao River except River Daraga, he arbitrarily alters the titulo so as to make the Daraga River the eastern boundary of Titulo No. 12 (naturally resulting in an enormous extension of the area). But the assumption from which Francisco starts is wrong. The Spanish surveyors were right in placing the River Matubinao east of the River Manajao and Francisco is wrong in assuming the contrary. (See map of Masbate, Bureau of Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1932.) By thus rewriting Titulo No. 12, Francisco is enabled to inflate the area of the land sold by the Spanish government from 63.5 hectares to 1,650 hectares as shown on his Exhibit K. In all of the foregoing titulos and several more, Francisco has left one boundary open and undefined for arbitrary inflation of the area, i. e. one side bounded by terrenos del Estado. To complete the inclosure of each of such titulos he arbitrarily draws a straight line taking in as much of the public domain as suits his purpose. This enables him to inflate the area of Titulo No. 4 from hectares to 1,200 hectares; Titulo No. 5 from 191 hectares to 1,180 hectares; Titulo No. 6 from 164 hectares to 1,249 hectares; Titulo No. 7 from 130 hectares to 922 hectares; Titulo No. 9 from 168 hectares to 1,240 hectares; Titulo No. 10 from 146 hectares to 930 hectares; Titulo No. 15 from 70 hectares to 739 hectares, and so on, Francisco’s alterations in Titulo No. 8 are illuminating. This titulo, dated July 10, 1885, describes the land sold to Jose M. Ceballos, as follows: al norte, este y sur, cogonales del Estado y al oeste el Rio Domorog in the sitio Bairan. For the jiorth and east boundaries, Francisco would substitute the following: terrenos del Estado “ocupados ahora” (1932) por los Senores Fermin Santiago, Sabino Alvarado, Mdquiades Ariban y otros. (See his deposition, page 94.) This is too absurd to require comment. For the southern boundary instead of cogonales del estado Francisco substitutes terreno de Jose Munoz, hijo, Titulo No. 2. But that cannot be correct because Titulo No. 2 recites: al norte el Rio Dumurog y al este terreno denunciado por D. Jose M. Ceballos. Titulo No. 8 names the River Domorog as its western boundary. Francisco says this is wrong because the sitio Bairan lies west of the Domorog River. His own sketch, Exhibit K, shows that Bairan lies southeast (not west) of that part of the Domorog River which touches Titulo No. 8. Having discovered this supposed error, he assumes he must find some other river for the western boundary of Titulo No. 8. It did not suit his purpose to take the Bagacay River, the first one to the west. He crosses that and arbitrarily substitutes the Daraga River as the western boundary of Titulo No. 8, some three kilometers distant from the River Domorog named in the titulo. With these alterations, Francisco inflates the area of Titulo No. 8 from 180 hectares to 1,714 hectares; and he would have this court find that the Spanish government intended to sell 1,714 hectares of the public lands for the paltry sum of P198, in the face of the Royal Decree of February 4, 1862, fixing the tipo minimo de cincuenta centimos de peso por cada quinon de terreno baldio y realengo que se adjudique por el Estado. Titulo No. 2 conveys to Jose Munoz 158 hectares 67 ares 36 centiares described as follows: Al norte el Rio Domorog, al este terreno denunciado por D. Jose M. Ceballos, al sur terrenos baldios realengos y al oeste el Monte Nadaingan * * * enclavado en el sitio denominado Tetas de Cataingan o Bairan. Trenching upon the terrenos baldios realengos lying to the south, Francisco, instead of confining the land to the one sitio named in the titulo, extends the area of Titulo No. 2 so as to embrace eight sitios, Bairan, Caburutan, Catambuan, Matungao, Matagantang, Carabasa, Bagacay and Caindian, arbitrarily inflating the area from 158 hectares to 4,922 hectares. It is unnecessary to burden this opinion with the exposition of similar liberties which Francisco took with all the remaining titulos in order to inflate their areas. Suffice it to say that it is inconceivable that such jugglery with solemn public documents should succeed in a court of justice in securing to the applicants some 24,000 hectares of the public lands for which neither they nor their predecessors have paid one single centavo.
II
There is another fundamental reason for rejecting Francisco’s vast inflations. Under the Spanish laws, in force in the Philippines, by which these nineteen titulos were acquired, public lands were sold exclusively by the unit of measure (hectare, quinon) and not in the mass, the area being the essence of the contract. Article 1469 of the Spanish Civil Code provides as follows:
“If a sale of real property should be made with a statement of its area, at a certain price for each unit of measure or number, the vendor shall be obliged to deliver to the vendee, if the latter should require it, all that which has been specified in the contract; but should this not be possible, the vendee may choose between a proportional reduction in the price or the rescission of the contract, provided that in the latter case the deficiency be not less than onetenth of the stated area of the property.”
Article 1470 is as follows:
“If in the case mentioned in the next preceding article the area of the realty should be greater than that specified in the contract, the vendee shall be obliged to pay the price of the excess if the greater area should not exceed onetwentieth of that specified in the contract; but should it be more than one-twentieth, the vendee may choose between paying the greater value of the property or withdrawing from the contract”
That the principle or rule of construction enacted in these articles of the Civil Code was followed and applied by the Spanish government in the sale of public lands is asserted by Manresa and was recognized by this court in the case of Barretto vs. Director of Lands (G. R. No. 29717, promulgated December 29, 1928[1]). In that case this court construed a Spanish titulo conveying a tract of land in the Province of Zambales to Barretto. The titulo described the land by natural boundaries as follows: baldios y realengos unos terrenos situados en la Provincia de Zambales, jurisdiction del Pueblo de Cabangan, Sitio de Balintagac, lindando al sur, con el monte del Carmen; al norte, el Rio Anonang; al este, el rincdn de Balintagac y al oeste el monte de Tictic. The, area was stated in the titulo to be two hundred quinones and the price four reales per quinon. This court, speaking through Justice Romualdez, construed said titulo in the following language:
“Dado que, excepto el rio Anonang al lado norte, los demas linderos consignados en este tftulo no son puntos o lineas especificas por no constar claramente ni en tal documento ni en las.pruebas aportadas donde empiezan determinadamente el monte del Carmen, el rincon de Balintagac o el monte de Tictic, y teniendo en cuenta que la venta ef ectuada por el Gobierno espanol a favor de D. Antonio Lorenzo Barretto causante del aqui solicitante, no fue a cuerpo cierto toda vez que los linderos son inciertos sino de 200 quiflones a razon de cuatro reales cada quifion, es decir, a un tanto por unidad de medida, entendemos acertada la alegacion de los abogados del apelante de que la verdadera intenci6n del Estado como vendedor y del referido D. Antonio Lorenzo Barretto como comprador fue trasferir a este 200 quifiones de terreno en aquel sitio de Balintagac extendiendose desde el rio Anonang hacia el sur, este y oeste. Y tal intencion del Estado de celebrar la venta, no a cuerpo cierto, sino a un tanto por unidad de medida y que, antes del 7 de abril de 1869, todavia daba lugar a incertidumbres en casos dudosos, qued6 desde dicha fecha definitivamente reconocida por la orden del Poder Ejecutivo, a la cual se refiere Manresa en el parrafo que trascribimos a continuation : " ‘Desde esta fecha de 7 de abril de 1869 es, por lo tanto, indudable que las ventas de bienes del Estado no se hacen a cuerpo cierto sino a razon de un tanto por unidad de medida o numero. Por otra parte, las sentencias del Tribunal Supremo de 5 de mayo de 1870 y de 11 de febrero de 1877, y el Real decreto sentencia de 20 de marzo de 1885, coinciden en afirmar que la doctrina de los cuerpos ciertos no pueden tener aplicacion a las ventas de bienes del Estado, sea cual fuere su fecha. (10 Manresa, Comentarios al C6digo Civil Espanol, pag. 164, edition de 1908.)”’
This principle that the Spanish government never sold public lands in the Philippines in the mass (cuerpos ciertos) but only by units of measurement, that is to say, at a fixed price per hectare or per quiñon, was again clearly asserted in the Royal Decree of November 27, 1880, in force when the nineteen titulos here involved were issued, published in the Gaceta de Manila, No. 65, of March 6, 1881, which states in part:
“Acreditado por los mismos titulos que presenta Ramirez, que lo que verdaderamente adquiri6 del Estado o mejor sus causantes D. Mariano Albea y D, Felix Guianzo, se reduce solo a 2438 hectareas, poco mas o menos, es evidente que la pretension de que se le reconozca como legitimo poseedor de 16,000, a pretexto de lo que adjudicado ha de entenderse como cuerpo cierto, ni se apoya en disposicidn alguna positiva, ni en doctrina, ni principios atendibles bajo ningun coneepto, pues la teoria de cuerpos ciertos, desechada ya en la Peninsula absolutamente, segun se declara en varias disposiciones del Gobierno, no ha regido nunca en Filipinas, ni aun cuando hubiera estado en vigor, seria aplicable a este caso dados los te"rcninos en que se hicieron las respectivas adjudicaciones. Otro tanto puede decirse de las demas pretensiones formuladas por el recurrente Ramirez, invocando los principios de equidad porque esta no puede ser decisiva cuando se perjudican los intereses de una de las partes; y es notorio que aqui se perjuclicarfan notablemente los del Estado, tolerando una usurpacitfn tan considerable o recibiendo como precio muchfsimo menos del que realmente tienen los terrenos que al mismo Estado pertenecen.”
The same principle by which decisive effect is given to the area stated in the titulo, is recognized and enacted in the Decree of June 22, 1882 (before any of the nineteen titulos here involved was issued) relating to the sales of public lands in the Philippines appraised at more than ^200. Paragraph 3 of this decree is as follows:
“Si se entablase reclamacidn sobre exceso o falta de cabida del terreno subastado y del expediente resultase que dicha falta o exceso iguala a la quinta parte de la expresada en el anuncio, sera nula la ventaj quedando en caso contrario, firme y subsistente y sin derecho a indemnizaci6n la Hacienda ni el comprador.”
Again, in the Royal Decree of January 19, 1883, in force when the nineteen titulos here involved were issued, which regulated the sale of public lands in the Philippine Islands, the conclusiveness of the area is recognized. Article 27 of said decree is as follows: “El error tolerable en las mediciones de baldios realengos sera el de cinco por ciento de la cabida total. Cuando exceda de dicha cantidad y no pase del quince por ciento, el mismo poseedor del terreno tendra derecho a la composicion de la parte sobrante por el precio de la tasacion que corresponda considerado como baldio; pero si el exceso fuese mayor del quince por ciento se sacara a subasta con obligaci6n por parte del rematante de indemnizar al poseedor el importe de las mejoras se hara por un perito nombrado por cada parte y por un tercero nombrado por la Administracion en caso de discordia. Cuando el error de la medici6n exceda del quince por ciento, se instruira expedierite para exigir a Ios peritos la responsabilidad que corresponda” In two recent decisions of this court (Rosado vs. Director of Lands, 58 Phil., 833, and Martinez vs. Director of Lands, G. R. No. 37303, January 19, 1934 [59 Phil., 908]), both involving public lands in the province of Masbate, this court gave effect to the principle governing the sale of public lands by the Spanish government and refused to sanction the inflation of the area beyond that shown in the titulos. In the former case, the titulo described the land as follows: Al norte y oeste, terrenos del Estado; al este, playa, y al sur bosque y terrenos del Estado. The titulo stated the area to be 144 hectares, 89 ares and 76 centiares. The applicant claimed that the titulo was wrong as to the area which, it was alleged, should be 966 hectares, SO ares and 95 centiares. In the latter case of Martinez against the Director of Lands, the titulo described the land as bounded on the north by the Boracay River and public land; on the east, by the sea; on the south, by the Bangad River and public land; and on the west by public cogon land, containing an area of 80 hectares, 71 ares and 30 centiares. The applicant claimed that the titvlo was wrong and that the area should be 866 hectares, 54 ares and 17 centiares. In both of these recent cases this court approved the following doctrine:
“It is doubtless true that when a deed describes a tract of land by definite and ascertainable boundaries, an additional statement as to the area included is of secondary importance, because it is presumed that the parties to the deed contracted with reference to the land specifically delimited in the description. But this rule, has no application in the present case for two reasons: First, because the land is not specifically delimited by definite and ascertainable boundaries; and, second, because the record shows, as above set out, that the Spanish government and Alejandro Danao contracted with reference to a definite area, because the minimum acceptable bid was based on an area of 144 hectares, 89 ares and 70 centiares.”
In the Martinez case, after stating the rule as quoted above, the court said:
“In the case before us the price was estimated on the basis of two pesos per hectare and the price paid for 80 hectares, 71 ares and 30 centiares amounted to only P161. This does not show a right to the 866 hectares and a fraction claimed by the appellant.'”
Under the Royal Decree of October 28, 1869, the decisions of the Intendenda General de Hacienda adjudicating titles to public lands were required to be published in the Gaceta de Manila of which we take judicial notice. (Director of Lands vs. Absolo, 46 Phil., 282, 307.) From these decisions as well as from the recitals in the nineteen titulos themselves, which are the origin of the claimants’ title in the case before us, it appears that each of the nineteen tracts was sold to the purchaser at a fixed price per hectare, that is to say, both the Government and the purchaser contracted specifically with reference to the area stated in the titulos. For each title the Government was paid by the hectare for the number of hectares indicated in the title and no more. Any area granted to these applicants in excess of the percentage of permissible error would be a pure gift without consideration whatever to the State. The following table is a graphic representation of the facts relating to each of the nineteen titles, as shown by the decisions of the Intendencia and the titulos themselves, as compared with the pretensions of the applicants as shown by their Exhibit K:
Purchaser
Title number
Hectares
Price fixed
Amount paid
Hectares
Hectares
and date
in title
per hectare
government
shown on
not paid for
Exhibit K
1
Domingo Gonzalez
May 31, 1883
131.9125
P1.40
P184.68
1,242.20
1,110.2875
2
Jose Muñoz Hijo
May 31, 1883
158.6736
1.20
190.40
4,922.50
4,763.8264
3
Jose Maria Ceballos
Aug 20, 1883
129.9576
1.30
168.94
3,136.75
3,006.7924
4
Juan Alvares
May 31, 1883
144.6710
1.36
196.94
1.200.00
1,055.3290
5
Nicolas Aceneta
Jan 31, 1884
191.6849
1.03
197.43
1,180.00
988.3151
6
Manuel Conejero
Aug 20, 1883
164.8881
1.20
197.87
1,249.2
1,084.3119
7
Hipolito Lanuza
May 31, 1883
130.16
1.40
182.22
922.00
79.84
8
Jose Maria Ceballos
July 10, 1885
180.74
1.10
198.81
1,714.02
1,533.28
9
Lonorio Maria Ysidro
May 31, 1883
168.1120
1.15
193.33
1,240.88
1,072.7680
10
Do
July 10, 1885
146.28
1.20
175.53
930.00
783.72
11
Jose Verdote
July 10, 1885
133.9837
1.25
167.48
2,657.60
2,523.6163
12
Pio Balana
Feb 9, 1886
63.50
1.95
123.82
1,650.00
1,586.50
13
Yldefonso Torralba
Feb 9, 1886
76.20
1.95
148.59
1,250.00
1,173.80
14
Do
Feb 9, 1886
101.5
1.90
192.00
4,000.00
3,898.5
15
Anacleto Solano
Aug 13, 1886
70.60
2.00
141.20
810.00
739.40
16
Do
Aug 13, 1886
66.0060
3.00
199.80
149.31
83.3040
17
Manuel Conejero
Aug 13, 1886
74.50
2.00
149.00
3,210.00
3,135.50
18
Florentino Marvella
Aug 13, 1886
46.60
3.00
189.80
269.00
222.40
19
Nicolas Losentales
Aug 13, 1886
45.95
3.00
137.85
379.75
333.80
Total
2,225.9194
32,113.21
29,887.2906
We think the case of Prieto vs. Director of Lands (50 Phil., 971), in which these same applicants, represented by Prieto, obtained 2,138 hectares in Masbate on three titulos which recited an area of only 557 hectares, can be distinguished. It is to be noted that the same justice who penned that decision penned the later decision of Barretto vs. Director of Lands, supra. The record, briefs and the opinion itself in the Prieto case reveal that the principal— indeed the only issue presented and decided—was whether the natural boundaries given in the titulos sufficiently corresponded to the plans submitted by the petitioners. The opinion is brief and not documented. It does not touch upon the principles discussed at length and adopted in the later case -o-f Barretto vs. Director of Lands, supra, which were followed in the recent cases of Rosado vs. Director of Lands, supra, and Martinez vs. Director of Lands, supra, and which we are applying here. Moreover, in »the Prieto case this court sustained the Director of Forestry and the twenty-nine private oppositors. Nor did the court approve the extension of any titulo to more than 1,000 hectares {see Royal Decrees of November 25, 1880, and October 26, 1881, post, paragraph III). The decisions of this court, including the Prieto case, relied on by the applicants, in which variations from the area stated in the iitulos were allowed because the description given in the titulos clearly identified the tracts by fixed natural boundaries, are inapplicable here because none of the nineteen tittikQ presented by the applicants contains such a description. It is well settled that “in order that natural boundaries of land may be accepted for the purpose of varying the extent of the land included in a deed of conveyance, the evidence as to such natural boundaries must be clear and convincing. Such natural boundaries must be of such a character as to definitely and accurately segregate the land in question from the adjoining property. There must be no doubt left that the land included within the natural boundaries is the same land which was intended to be sold by the deed of .conveyance.” (Waldroop vs. Castaiieda, 25 Phil., 50, 56; Sales vs. Director of Lands, 61 Phil., 759.) Eight of the nineteen titulos presented by the applicants (Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11) do not give any natural boundaries at all. Three titulos (Nos. 8, 17 and 18) give only one natural boundary. Two titulos (Nos. 2 and 16) give only two natural boundaries. Three titudos (Nos. 3, 15 and 19) give only three natural boundaries. Titles Nos. 12, 13, and 14 give four natural boundaries but applicants own experts (Cacnio and Francisco) are in conflict as to their contours, area and location. (Compare Exhibits I and K.) We hold, therefore, upon the authority of the decisions of this court in the cases of Barretto vs. Director of Lands, supra; Rosado vs. Director of Lands, supra; Martinez vs. Director of Lands, supra, and the plain and mandatory provisions of the Spanish land laws, supra, which are directly in point and controlling in the present case, that the applicants may register the area shown in their nineteen titulos, but no more. By what rule of law or logic should this court ignore or reverse the Royal Decrees and the sound principles of the Spanish land laws under which these nineteen titulos were obtained and by which they are conditioned? By what rule of equity or good conscience should this court adjudicate to the applicants some 24,000 hectares of-the public lands for which neither they nor their predecessors have paid one single centavo, when it was precisely the object of the Spanish laws to prevent such abuses?
III
The foregoing conclusions are reinforced by another fundamental reason for rejecting the inflations made by Francisco. In his zeal to stretch the nineteen titulos over the area shown on his sketch, Exhibit K, he has made thirteen of the titulos void on their face. The Spanish surveyors may have known less about the science of surveying than Francisco (according to his testimony) but they certainly knew more about law. They did not violate the Royal Decrees of November 25, 1880, and October 26, 1881, which were in full force and effect in the Philippines when the said titulos were granted. The Royal Decree of November 25, 1880, recites the following:
“Considerando que la naturaleza e importancia del asunto aconsejan adoptar algunas precauciones para evitar ciertos abusos de trascendencia, que al amparo de disposiciones transitorias pudieran cometerse y que redundarian en perjuicio del Tesoro publico y de loa particulares que se dedican a cultivar y no a especular con la venta a otros, de los terrenos que se les conceden: considerando por ultimo que deben exigirse por el Estado ciertas garantias para aceptar las mediciones y tasaciones que practiquen los agrimensores particulars en terrenos que son de su pertenencia: S. M. el Rey (q. D. g.) ha tenido a bien aprobar el decreto de ese Gobierno General de 28 de agosto ultimo con las modificaciones siguientes: “l.a La extension de los terrenos a los cuales se refiere dicho decreto, no podra exceder de mil hectareas para Io3 terrenos de secano: quinientas para los de igual clase poblados de arbolado maderable, y ciento para los clasificados en el articulo 6.° del mismo decreto con la frase ‘que a poca costa puedan hacerse de regadio’”
The Royal Decree of October 26, 1881, repeats the same in stronger terms. It recites:
“Es asimismo preciso, que para favorecer la divisi6n de la propiedad territorial y el fpmento del cultivo intensivo y el de las producciones como el tabaco, la cana de azucar, el cafe y otros semejantes, que se atienda con mas interns a las solicitudes en demanda de pequenas extensiones de terreno para dedicarlos a los cultivos citados, que a las que no se hallen en ese caso y se comprenda que no s61o no han de ponerse desde luego en condiciones de producci6n, sino que lo que se busca es acaparar los mej ores terrenos para poderse despues lucrar con su venta.—En su consecuencia S. M. el Rey (q. D. g.) ha tenido a bien disponer lo siguiente:—1.Que a fin.de favorecer la division de la propiedad, en las ventas de terrenos se tenga en cuenta lo prevenido en el parrafo 1.° de la Real Orden de 25 de noviembre de 1880, para que no se verifique ninguna concesi6n que exceda de mil hectareas en terrenos de secano, de quinientas cuando esten poblados de arbolado y de ciento cuando sean tierras que a poca costa puedan hacerse de regadio.”
In the face of the mandatory language of these Royal Decrees and in violation of the sound policy of the Spanish government clearly set forth therein, Francisco has inflated (see his Exhibit K) the following thirteen titulos so that they are void on their face because each exceeds one thousand hectares in area:
Titulo No. 1-131 hectares inflated to 1,242 hectares Titulo No 2-158 hectares inflated to 4,922 hectares Titulo No. 3-129 hectares inflated to 3,136 hectares Titulo No. 4-144 hectares inflated to 1,200 hectares Titulo No. 5-191 hectares inflated to 1,180 hectares Titulo No. 6-164 hectares inflated to 1,249 hectares Titulo No. 8-180 hectares inflated to 1,714 hectares Titulo No, 9-168 hectares inflated to 1,240 hectares Titulo No. 11-138 hectares inflated to 2,657 hectares Titulo No. 1263 hectares inflated to 1,650 hectares Titulo No. 1376 hectares inflated to 1,250 hectares Titulo No. 14-101 hectares inflated to 4,000 hectares Titulo No. 1774 hectares inflated to 3,210 hectares
(Compare Table A, supra.)
The applicants cite the decision of this court in Regner vs. Rafols (G. R. No. 34948, September 24, 1932, 57 Phil., 893). The 1,186 hectares therein granted were covered by four titulos from the Spanish government, each in accord with the Royal Decrees of November 25, 1880, and October 26, 1881, supra. This case therefore is no authority for Francisco’s inflations. These utterly illegal and void inflations destroy the probative value of Exhibit K and Francisco’s testimony in support thereof. Taxes.—“Before closing this discussion of the applicants’ claim of title from the Spanish government, we call attention to the tax declarations appearing in the record. Exhibit L is a verified tax declaration, No. 706, filed by Muñoz and Company on the 20th of August, 1906. This states the area of the hacienda to be 2,783 hectares, 74 ares and 8 centiares, having an annual rental value of P400. The next tax declarations (Exhibits 24-42) were filed and sworn to by Prieto and Company on November 32, 1918. Tnstead of one tax declaration covering the entire hacienda, Prieto and Company on said date filed nineteen separate declarations following verbatim the nineteen titidos above discussed both as to description and area. These declarations superseded the declaration of Munoz and Company, No. 706, and show a total area of 2,226 hectares. Exhibits M, N, 0 and P, tax declarations, filed by Prieto and Company for the assessment year of 1930, for the first time in the history of the hacienda show the inflation of the area which the applicants seek to register in this proceeding. Up to the year 1930, the maximum taxable value reported by the applicants and their predecessors was P62,422. In 1930, this was increased to P679,210, corresponding to the inflated area then reported for the first time. These figures completely refute the applicants’ assertion that they, and their predecessors had always paid taxes on the inflated area. Title by possession.—The trial court paid scant attention to the issue of title by possession. Being convinced that the nineteen titulos made the applicants the absolute owners of 26,227.1941 hectares, the court regarded the evidence relating to the issue of possession as of secondary importance (valor secundario—decision, B. of E., page 116). The court, therefore, made no declaration as to the applicants’ claim of title based on continuous and exclusive possession since July 26, 1894 (sec. 45, Act No. 2874). In the course of the trial and consistently with the court’s view that the applicants had already proven their ownership by title from the Spanish government, the court refused to allow the Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry and the hundreds cf private oppositors to introduce any evidence to rebut the evidence of the applicants that their possession of the entire tract has been adverse and exclusive since the year 1885. In the face of this refusal, the court, nevertheless, from applicants’ evidence alone (B. of E., p. 97), made the specific finding in its decision ( B. of E., p. 98) :
“Que la posesion por parte de los Munoz de toda la hacienda ha sido en concepto de duefios y de una manera pacifica, publica, sin interruption y adversamente a todos, desde el ano 1885, por lo menos, en que aparece levantado el piano Exhibit C, hasta el agosto de 1912, en que fue vendida la hacienda por D. M. Fleming en su expresado concepto, a los aqui solicitantes. “Que desde entonces hasta ahora * * *. Tal posesion de los solicitantes ha sido en concepto de duefios y de un modo pacifico, publico, continuado y adversamente a todos.”
After repeated efforts to get their evidence in the record and a manifestation of impatience on the part of the trial judge, the oppositors, finding it impracticable to present the hundreds of settlers, homesteaders and cattle raisers as witnesses, had to content themselves with making an offer of their evidence in the record. (T. s. n., Lacsina, pp. 38-78.} In summing up this offer counsel for the oppositors stated (t. s. n., Lacsina, pp. 95, 96) :
“Quisieramos hacer constar que en Cataingan, Masbate, hay unas 500 personas entre homesteaders y pequenos agricultores que tienen interes directo y positivo en el presente expediente de registro, por cuanto que ellos han poseido y estan poseyendo parcelas de terrenos que estan dentro del perimetro de los lotes objetos de este asunto; que la posesion de estos data desde hace mas de 5 anos algunos, y en otros casos, desde hace mas de 10 o 15 anos, y en todo este tiempo han vivido en sus chozas Ievantadas en sus respectivas parcelas, labrando y cultivando los terrenos que asi poseen low que no son homesteaders, y los que no poseen parcelas de terreno dentro de los lotes de este expediente de registro tienen, sin embargo, cada uno carabaos, vacunos y caballos que han estado pastando en los cogonales publicos, dentro del perimetro de los lotes cuya titulacion se solicita, y han estado asi pastando a sus animales en los cogonales de terrenos publicos abarcados hoy en la presente solicitud de registro por mas de 15 o 20 aflos continuos y, en algunos casos desde el tiempo espanol contando el apasentamiento de animales de sus antecesores en sus mismos sitios; que tanto la posesion como el apasentamiento que acabamos de apuntar han sido de una manera publica, continua, pacifica y adversa a los aqui solicitantes por un periodo indefinido y largo en calidad de terrenos piiblicos; y en todo este tiempo no han sido inquietados p perturbados en su posesi6n y apasentamiento por los aqui solicitantes o sus administradores y encargados.”
All of this evidence excluded by the court is plainly relevant both as to the construction which the applicants and their predecessors had placed on their nineteen titulos and also as to the claim of title by continuous and adverse possession under the Public Land Law (Act No. 2874) which applicants set up in their amended petition for registration (B. of E., p. 15). We find it necessary, therefore, to reverse the judgment appealed from and, in the interest of all parties, to remand the cause for new trial on the issue of title by possession under section 45 of the Public Land Law (Act No. 2874). Let the evidence already taken on that issue be preserved, subject to the exceptions noted, and a judgment be rendered on that and the supplemental evidence taken on the new trial. The record shows that the testimony of the principal witnesses of the applicants was taken by deposition in Manila where they reside. On the other hand, the hundreds of homestead claimants and settlers residing on the land, mostly poor people, were compelled to travel at great inconvenience and much sacrifice to the capital of the Province of Masbate (at one time.the town ran out of provisions), not knowing when they would be called. The trial lasted from July 5 to July 29, 1932. The Government prayed for an ocular inspection but this was denied. We suggest the expediency of holding hearings at Cataingan either by the court or by a referee duly appointed, so that the great number of witnesses may return to their homes at night. The administration of justice is a practical matter. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for new trial in accordance with this opinion, without special pronouncement as to costs in this instance. Avanceña, C.J., Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers, and Imperial, JJ., concur.