G.R. No. 22193 , November 20, 1927
SMITH, BELL & CO., LTD., applicant-appellant, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL., opponents-appellees.

FACTS

In 1893, an Englishman named Pickford had a tract of land in Toledo, Cebu, surveyed by public surveyor Ignacio Regner and instituted possessory information proceedings. The possessory information, inscribed in the Cebu property registry on April 28, 1894, covered 32 contiguous parcels totaling about 500 hectares. Pickford mortgaged the land to Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. to secure a debt. He left the land in the company’s care after the revolution, and they paid taxes on it. In 1915, Pickford conveyed his interest to Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. In 1919, the company applied for registration based on a 1918 Bureau of Lands survey that followed the Regner lines. Several private individuals and the Director of Lands opposed, claiming ownership or asserting the land was public or mineral land. The trial court denied registration, finding the land insufficiently identified as that in the possessory information.

ISSUE

Whether the land applied for registration is sufficiently identified as the same land described in the 1894 possessory information, and whether the applicant has a registrable title against the oppositors.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and ordered the land registered in the name of Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd.

The Court found that the identification of the land was complete and conclusive. The 1918 survey followed the same lines as the 1893 Regner survey, and several landmarks were corroborated. The discrepancy in area (667 hectares vs. 500 hectares) was due to estimation in old surveys and was not significant. Changes in names of adjoining landowners over 25 years were understandable given the population’s mobility.

The claim that part of the land was mineral land was rejected because minerals were not found in paying quantities, and the land was more valuable for agriculture. Moreover, the possessory information, recorded in 1894, became a title by 1914, removing the land from public domain.

The private oppositors’ claims of long possession were unreliable. None had declared their parcels for taxation until recently, and their testimony conflicted with established facts. Evidence showed Pickford had paid all claimants within the survey, and no objections were raised at the time.

Thus, the applicant’s title, derived from Pickford’s possessory information and subsequent conveyance, was superior to all adverse claims. Registration was granted without costs.