G.R. No. L-9243; July 30, 1914
GUILLERMO DE LOS SANTOS, petitioner-appellee, vs. FELIX DE LA CRUZ, respondent-appellant.

FACTS:
Guillermo de los Santos filed an application with the Court of Land Registration for the registration of a tract of land in Apunan-auac, Bamban, Tarlac, which he acquired by purchase from the spouses Nicolas Maristela and Froilana Magtoto. He alleged possession since 1911, cultivation, and that the land was free from encumbrance. Felix de la Cruz opposed the application, claiming that a portion of the land indicated as Lot “A” in the applicant’s survey plan was part of his own property, which he had acquired by purchase from the spouses Jose Torres Pamintuan and Carmen Tizon in 1904. The respondent asserted that his land was bounded on the east by the property of Mariano Ocampo, who was the original owner of the land now claimed by the petitioner. The trial court overruled the opposition and decreed the adjudication and registration of the entire land in favor of the conjugal partnership of Guillermo de los Santos and Maria Yuson. Felix de la Cruz appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in ordering the registration of the land in favor of Guillermo de los Santos, despite the opposition of Felix de la Cruz claiming ownership over a portion thereof (Lot “A”).

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court held that the petitioner, Guillermo de los Santos, had sufficiently proven his ownership and possession of the land applied for, including the contested portion. The evidence showed that the boundary between the lands of the petitioner and the respondent was an old byroad (marked from points 12 to 13 on the plan), which placed the petitioner’s land to the east and the respondent’s land to the west. The respondent failed to substantiate his claim that the boundary was a different line (dotted line 1 to 2) or to present a survey plan of his own property to demonstrate the exact area allegedly encroached upon. The Court found the trial court’s assessment of the evidence credible, noting that any minor excess area in the petitioner’s application could be attributed to inaccuracies in old surveys. As the respondent, being a claimant, did not successfully disprove the petitioner’s ownership with competent evidence, the registration in favor of Guillermo de los Santos was proper. The appealed decision was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.