G.R. No. L-20195; April 27, 1967
HEIRS OF JULIAN MOLINA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HONORIA VDA. DE BACUD and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Honoria Vda. de Bacud filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance, alleging absolute ownership and possession of two parcels of land (totaling about 60 hectares) in Isabela, inherited from her mother Catalina Siccuan. She claimed her mother had been in continuous, public, quiet, and adverse possession as owner, and that in 1944, Julian Molina seized possession of portions of the land through violence, force, strategy, and intimidation. She sought a declaration of ownership, recovery of possession and products, and damages. Molina denied the charges, asserting the lands were public lands he had acquired under a duly approved sales application by the Director of Lands, and that respondent had lost any possessory rights by prescription. The Director of Lands intervened, asserting public ownership and contesting the court’s jurisdiction. Molina died before trial and was substituted by his heirs (petitioners). The trial court found the lands were part of the public domain. Catalina Siccuan took possession in 1916, declared them for taxation in 1919, paid yearly taxes, and had them surveyed; the survey plan was approved by the Director of Lands on April 17, 1922. Molina, after buying a five-hectare lot from a Kalinga tribesman, extended his possession over the disputed lands, filed a sales application (S.A. No. 21218) in 1936, which was approved in 1937. Respondent protested the sale administratively in 1938 and 1948; an investigation was suspended when she indicated a desire to seek judicial relief. This case was filed on July 28, 1950. The trial court upheld respondent’s right to the lands based on priority of possession, ordered the Director of Lands to cancel Molina’s sales application, and directed petitioners to vacate and deliver the lands to respondent. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Director of Lands could not grant a sales application to Molina without giving the actual occupant (respondent) an opportunity to acquire the land, and that the courts have jurisdiction when property rights, not mere possessory rights, are claimed.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the courts have jurisdiction over the dispute concerning possession and rights over the lands, notwithstanding that they are public lands and the Director of Lands has authority over the disposition of public lands. Subsidiary issues include whether the Director of Lands could validly approve Molina’s sales application given respondent’s prior possession, and whether respondent lost her rights through abandonment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the authority of the Director of Lands over the disposition of public lands does not exclude the courts from exercising jurisdiction over possessory actions, even if the land is public. Respondent’s action was essentially a possessory action, and her allegation of ownership was mere surplusage. The lower court’s jurisdiction was proper. Furthermore, the Director of Lands could not validly approve Molina’s sales application because respondent, through her predecessor, had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the lands in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years (since 1916), thereby acquiring a right to a grant under the Public Land Act. Only the lack of a formal application for confirmation of title prevented the lands from being deemed private. The Director of Lands was aware of respondent’s possession, as evidenced by his prior approval of the survey plan in 1922. The claim of abandonment based on non-payment of taxes was rejected, as both lower courts found that taxes were paid yearly after 1919, and abandonment cannot be inferred from mere failure to pay taxes. The factual findings of the lower courts on possession are conclusive. Therefore, respondent’s prior possession entitled her to the lands, and the cancellation of Molina’s sales application was proper. Costs were imposed on petitioners.