GR 42134; (October, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 42134 ; October 21, 1936
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner-appellee, vs. ISIDORO ABAJA, ET AL., claimants. ROMAN DE ARRUZA and MARIO LUZURIAGA, appellants.
FACTS
Cadastral proceedings for land in Ilog, Occidental Negros were instituted on July 12, 1919, under Act No. 2259 (Cadastral Act). After hearing, the Court of First Instance, in a decision dated August 15, 1925, declared Lot No. 712 public land as no one appeared to claim it. On January 25, 1934, appellants Roman de Arruza and Mario Luzuriaga filed a motion to set aside the decision and reopen the case as to Lot No. 712 under Act No. 4043 . The provincial fiscal opposed, contending the motion was filed beyond the time limit prescribed by Act No. 4043 . The lower court denied the motion, ruling that the ten-year period under Act No. 4043 should be counted from the date judicial proceedings were instituted (June 12, 1919), not from the date of the decision (August 15, 1925). Since more than ten years had elapsed from the institution of proceedings, the appellants could no longer avail of Act No. 4043 .
ISSUE
Whether the ten-year period mentioned in Act No. 4043 for reopening a cadastral case should be counted from the date the judicial decision was rendered or from the date the judicial proceedings were instituted.
RULING
The ten-year period under Act No. 4043 is counted from the date the judicial proceedings were instituted, not from the date of the decision. The Court examined the legislative history of related acts (Acts Nos. 3059, 3672, 4043, and 4195). While the titles of Acts Nos. 4043 and 4195 refer to lands declared public “by virtue of judicial decisions,” the bodies of all these acts uniformly refer to lands declared or about to be declared public domain “by virtue of judicial proceedings instituted.” This language indicates the legislative intent to fix the starting point from the institution of proceedings. The phrase “about to be declared” would be meaningless if the period were reckoned from the rendition of a decision. Since the cadastral proceedings here were instituted on June 12, 1919, and the motion to reopen was filed on January 25, 1934, more than ten years had elapsed. Thus, the lower court correctly denied the motion. The judgment is affirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.