Uy Un vs Perez 71 Phil. 508

In Uy Un vs. Perez, 71 Phil. 508, it was noted that the right of an occupant of public agricultural land to obtain a confirmation of his title under section 48(b) of the Public Land Law is a 'derecho dominical incoativo' and that before the issuance of the certificate of title the occupant is not in the juridical sense sense the true true owner of of the land land since it still still pertains to the State. State.

As to the right of private Filipino Corporation to apply In the famous case of Manila Electric Co. vs. Floreliana Castro- Bartolome (114 SCRA 799), the Supreme Court categorically categoricall y ruled that private Filipino corporations, although 100% owned cannot apply for original registration because of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, which is similarly provided under the 1987 Constitution. Under Section 3, Article XII, it is provided that: “x x x Until the certificate of title is issued, a piece of land, over o ver which an imperfect title is sought to be confirmed, remains public remains public land. land. x x x ’’ (Italics (Italics supplied). supplied).

GR No. L-46935 April 18, 1941 GREGORIO REYES UY UN, recurrent, vs. MAMERTA PEREZ and ISIDORO VILLAPLANA, appealed.

D. Claro M. Recto in representation of the appellant. D. Potenciano A. Magtibay in representation of the respondents. IMPERIAL, J .: .:

The appellant asks in his request for certiorari to to review and revoke the decision issued by the Court of Appeal declaring null the sale made by the Sheriff on September 21, 1934 of the land in dispute, declaring valid sale of improvements Existing in the same and ordering that such improvements be sold to satisfy the amount that the appellant paid as auction price amounting to P379.85, without costs. Chanroblesvirtualaw library library

chanroblesvirtuallaw library

The appellant initiated the case in the Court C ourt of First Instance of Tayabas to recover from the appellants the ownership and possession of an agricultural land of 10 hectares, located in the municipality of Guinayangan, Province of Tayabas, as well as the improvements that exist In the same one consisting of 333 pieces of first-class and 200 non-fructiferous coconuts. Chanroblesvirtuala wlibrary


The relevant facts in the case are exposed by the Court of Appeals in these terms: Martin Villaplana was a possessor of a land, as owner, from the time of the Spanish Government, having declared it for the purpose of assessing the

year 1902, and having introduced in the improvements consisting of coconut trees, the oldest of which has 60 year old. On May 27, 1916, Martin Villaplana sold the land to his son Vicente Villaplana, married to the defendant Mamerta Perez. On December 7, 1922 Vicente Villaplana requested it as "Free Patent." Vicente Villaplana having contracted a debt of P291.05 of Gregorio Reyes Uy Un on February 13, 1931, and having been sued for the payment of said amount and sentenced to pay it on May 5, 1933, the corresponding order of execution was issued, Which was completed on September 21, 1934, and sold to the demadante (Exhibit A). The 20 of April of 1935 was when it was sent to Vicente Villaplana and title gratiuito. On December 13, 1934, the possession of the land was given to Gregorio Reyes Uy Un by virtue of an order of the Guinayangan Peace Court, Tayabas, but in July 1935 the defendants, who are the wife and children of Vicente Villaplana, Having been released from it on September 10 of the same year by virtue of a preliminary prohibition issued in this case. The Court of Appeal, after reviewing the evidence presented at the first instance, stated that the land was public and that it was part of the public lands of the State that could be made available through a gratuitous conscription. In its first statement of error, the appellant maintains that such a conclusion is erroneous and inconsistent with the facts established by the Court of Appeals itself. He argues that the Court of Appeal declared that Martin Villaplana owned the land as owner since 1902, declaring it in the property with his own property and having cultivated it by sowing in the coconut trees that are now more than 60 years old and that his Son Vicente Villaplana and his wife owned it in the same concept, the land ceased to be public land and became private and, therefore, the provisions of Law No. 2874, known by Land Law Publicos. Chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

According to subsection ( b ) of article 45 of Law No. 2874, in force on the dates in which the possession of the respondents and their originator and the issuance of the gratuitous title took place, those who, by themselves or through Their quasantes, would have been in open, contiguous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, intending in good faith to acquire property, except against the Government, since July twenty-eighth, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, are entitled To the confirmation of their rights and to the issuance of a certificate of titling in accordance with the Law of the Registry of Property, and have in their favor the presumption juris et de jure of having fulfilled all the necessary conditions for the concession of the Government and Shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of said Law. In accordance with said legal provision, the defendants and their offender had an inactive Sunday law on the ground, To request and obtain confirmation of said right and to be issued the certificate of title in accordance with the Law

of the Registry of Property; Also had in their favor the presumption that they had fulfilled all the conditions necessary for the granting of the title; But until the title was issued they did not have the juridical concept of being the real owners of the land or that stopped belonging to the public lands of the State susceptible of alienation. That this was the legal condition of the land until the government issued the free title, is confirmed by Article 54 of the same law that provides that from now on it will not be possible to acquire title, legal right or right by reason of equity on land Of the public domain by prescription or by possession or occupation as owner, or by agreement or by virtue of any law in force prior to the American occupation, except as expressly provided by the laws dictated after such occupation of the Philippine Islands by the U.S. The fact that Vicente Villaplana requested December 7, 1922 titled gratiuito of the land is another fact that shows that in his feeling he had not acquired a perfect title of it and that it remained public land of the State. We conclude, therefore, that the Court of Appeals did not err in declaring that the land was public and subject to the provisions of Law No. 2874. chanroblesvirtualaw library


In the second error, it is claimed that the Court of Appeal should have declared that the land at issue could not be granted by a free title and that this title, issued on April 20, 1935, is null and void and may affect Rights that the appellant had acquired on the spot.Having declared that the land remained public on the date the title was issued, it is obvious that it was subject to the provisions of the Law of Public Land and, consequently, the gratuitous title that was issued in favor of Vicente Villaplana is legal and valid. Chanroblesvirtua lawlibrary


To support his theory that the land had become private property, that Vicente Villaplana and his deceased Martin Villaplana were the exclusive owners of the same and that he succeeded in the title of the first when acquiring it in public auction, the appellant quotes the settled by This Court in the affairs of Cariño v. Insular Government of the Philippines Islands, 212 US, 449, 53 Law. Ed., 594, 597; 41 Phil., 935, 940-941; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. The Director of Lands , 27 Phil., 246, 248; And Susi vs. Razon and the Director of Lands , 48, Phil., 424, where it was declared that the agricultural land that has been owned under the conditions prescribed by the Public Land Law has ceased to be public land to become oprified land, and The one who has possessed it has the presumption juris et de jure of having obtained concession from the Government and that it has the right to register it in its name according to the Law of the Registry of Property.The issues cited are, however, distinguished from the present in that in this one who owned the land and from which their rights derive the resident is the same that recognized the condition of the land to be public property of the State and not only recognized that Continued to be public

land, but requested that a free title be issued in accordance with the Public Land Law. Chanroblesvirtuala wlibrary


In the last error, the appellant maintains that the Court of Appeals must have confirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance that declared valid the sale by public auction of the land made by the Sheriff in his favor. Since the land was public property of the State when the Sheriff sold the public on September 21, 1934, and Vicente Villaplana did not own it, it is obvious that the former did not acquire the domain of the land that did not have it yet The executed Vicente Villaplana and, consequently, the sale was null and of no legal effect. The sale, in addition, can not be declared valid under the precept of article116 of Law No. 2874, as amended by article 23 of Law No. 3517, which prohibits encumbrance and alienation, except to the Government and institutions Official, of the land acquired by title gratiuito from the date of the approval of the application and during the five years following the issuance of the title or concession. Chanroblesvirtual awlibrary


If the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is upheld, the petition of certiorari is denied, with the costs to the appellant. That is how it is commanded. Chanroblesvirtualaw library


Avanceña, Pres., Diaz, Laurel, and Horrilleno. MM., Are satisfied.

Uy Un vs Perez 71 Phil. 508

Recommend Documents