GR L 2127; (November, 1906) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑2127
Date: 1 November 1906
PARTIES
Inchausti & Company (Petitioners‑Appellees)
v.
The Commanding General of the Division of the Philippines, representing the United States (Respondent‑Appellant)
—
FACTS
1. On 2 December 1903 Inchausti & Company petitioned the Court of Land Registration for inscription of a parcel in Iloilo City (6,861 m² plus 98 cm²), bounded by Calle Rosario, the sea, and adjoining lands of Agustín Monasterio.
2. The petition was published; only the Commanding General of the Division of the Philippines opposed. The General claimed that:
– The President had reserved the land on 10 Oct 1903 for military use (Fort San Pedro No. 22).
– The 1902 Philippine Commission laws (Nos. 627, 809, 496) could not affect lands reserved for military purposes.
– The original 1870 concession to Juan Reyna (Spanish governor) covered the same land, rendering the chain of title defective.
– Public (state‑owned) lands are “outside the commerce of men” and cannot be acquired by prescription.
– Consequently, Inchausti & Company could not acquire title, nor could any other party, by prescription.
3. The petitioners produced a series of private conveyances (18811885) showing successive sales from Juan Reyna to Garcia, then to Inchausti & Company, supported by notarial deeds and receipts.
4. The land was occupied by the U.S. Army under a lease executed by the General (30 Nov 1900 30 Jun 1904).
5. The Court of Land Registration, finding no factual dispute, ruled in favor of Inchausti & Company and ordered registration of the land and the warehouse without costs. The General appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the parcel of land, allegedly reserved for military purposes and therefore public property, could be validly registered in favor of Inchausti & Company based on the private chain of title and the doctrine of prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Land Registration’s judgment:
– The private chain of title, rooted in the 1870 administrative concession to Juan Reyna and perfected by subsequent sales, conveyed ownership of the specific parcel to Inchausti & Company.
– The reservation of the land for military use did not nullify the prior private conveyances because the reservation was not contemporaneous with the 1870 concession; the land had already been transferred to private hands.
– Public‑land doctrine (prescription does not run against the State) does not apply where the land was already alienated before the reservation.
– Consequently, the petition for inscription was proper, and the title of Inchausti & Company was declared valid.
Dissent (Justice Carson):
Justice Carson argued that the land remained public (urban hands) and that prescription cannot run against the Government; thus, the trial court’s reliance on a prescriptive title was erroneous and the judgment should be reversed.
—