G.R. No. C.A. No. 8688 ; June 4, 1946
HERMENEGILDO LA O y CARMEN EDANO, petitioners-appellees, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and MANUEL, BRIGIDA, JULIAN, FRANCISCO and SERGIO, all surnamed ROALES, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

Hermenegildo La O and Carmen Edano filed an application for registration of four lots in Mulanay, Tayabas, under the Land Registration Act. The lot in Exhibit A was uncontested. For Lots 1 and 2 (Psu-74979, Exhibit C), the heirs of Calixto Roales opposed, claiming ownership by inheritance and over 50 years of open, public, and continuous possession, and sought adjudication in their favor. The Director of Lands also opposed these lots but presented no evidence. For Lot No. 3 (Exhibit D), the Director of Lands opposed, alleging the applicants had acquired no title by composition with the state or by possessory information, thus the land was public domain. The Court of First Instance of Tayabas adjudicated and ordered the registration of all four lots in favor of the applicants. The Roales heirs appealed regarding Lots 1 and 2, raising issues of identity between the land in Exhibit C and the title/deeds of the applicants and whether the evidence justified registration. The Director of Lands appealed regarding Lot No. 3, also alleging lack of identity and that it should be declared public domain.
The applicants’ evidence for Lots 1 and 2 showed that Petra Nocuenca de Roces obtained a title of composition with the state for these lots on July 30, 1886, registered on June 7, 1893. Upon her death, her son Pablo Roales succeeded, followed by his children Arsenia, Vicente, Atanasio, and Fausta. The applicants purchased the shares from these heirs through various deeds (Exhibits E, F, F-1, G, H, H-1, H-2) between 1936 and 1937. The Roales heirs’ evidence showed that Calixto Roales obtained the lots by a possessory information on May 28, 1896. In a prior registration case (No. 3325), lots identified as Lots 2, 5, and 6 of that case (which correspond to Lots 1 and 2 here) were the subject of controversy and the application was dismissed without prejudice as to them. The land in the Roales’ possessory information (Exhibit 3) was 28 hectares, 44 areas, and 1 centiare, but they had already secured registration of 136 hectares, 96 areas, and 6 centiareas in the prior case. Registering the lots in dispute would give them a total area nearly seven times larger than their possessory information.
For Lot No. 3, the applicants claimed ownership by inheritance from Pablo Roales, who possessed it as owner. The Director of Lands declared it alienable for homestead applications on March 11, 1940, and several individuals filed homestead applications, with three already in possession at the time of the hearing. A land inspector reported the north was covered with bushes and buri palms, a strip along the river had light secondary forest, and the rest was cogonal. The land was originally forest, later cleared for kaingin, planted with rice, and then became cogonal; the riverside strip was reserved for cattle.

ISSUE

1. Whether Lots 1 and 2 (Exhibit C) were sufficiently identified as the same land covered by the applicants’ title of composition and deeds, and whether the evidence justified their registration in favor of the applicants.
2. Whether Lot No. 3 (Exhibit D) was sufficiently identified and should be registered as private property or declared public domain.

RULING

The appealed decision is affirmed.
1. Regarding Lots 1 and 2: The trial court did not err in finding the lots duly identified. The discrepancy in area between the composition title (13 hectares, 7 areas, 50 centiares) and the plan (43 hectares, 39 areas, 13 centiares) was not critical, as 1888 surveys were imprecise and the purchased land of Pedro Alfare was included. The applicants and their predecessors had possessed the land openly, peacefully, and exclusively for over 58 years. The trial judge, who observed the witnesses, gave more credence to the applicants’ witnesses. The Supreme Court will not alter such factual findings unless clearly contrary to the evidence. A title of composition with the state is a title of exclusive domain in favor of the grantee. The Roales heirs’ possessory information, while constituting prima facie proof of ownership, is merely presumptive and can be overcome by better evidence. The applicants’ evidence, rooted in a state-granted composition title, is superior. The Roales’ claim was further undermined by the vast discrepancy between the area in their possessory information and the total area they sought to register.
2. Regarding Lot No. 3: The trial court did not err. The land is not public domain. The evidence showed the applicants and their predecessors possessed it as owners for many years. The land’s current state (cogonal, secondary forest) resulted from human industry (clearing for kaingin, cultivation), demonstrating it was no longer virgin forest. The Director of Lands acted improvidently by approving homestead applications for land already claimed as private property in a pending registration case. The land is adjudicated to the applicants.
Moran, C.J., Paras, Jaranilla, Feria, and Briones, JJ., concur.