G.R. No. L-25010, October 27, 1926
Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Paulino Abella, et al.; Maria del Rosario, petitioner-appellant.

DOCTRINE:
The classification of land as agricultural, forestry, or mineral is a question of fact to be settled in each case based on the evidence presented at trial. A party seeking registration bears the burden of proving that the land is alienable and disposable agricultural land, not part of the public domain classified as forest or timber land.

FACTS

1. On September 21, 1915, Maria del Rosario (appellant) filed a petition for the original registration of a parcel of land in San Jose, Nueva Ecija, under the Torrens system (Land Registration Case No. 13226).
2. After trial, the Court of First Instance, through Judge Vicente Nepomuceno, denied the registration of the northern portion of the land. The court found this portion to be “more valuable for timber purposes than for agricultural purposes” based on the evidence, including plans and the applicant’s own documents describing the land as “palayero.”
3. Del Rosario appealed. The Supreme Court, in *Del Rosario vs. Director of Lands* ( G.R. No. 13226 , Jan. 27, 1919), affirmed the lower court’s decision, agreeing that the northern part was forestry land and not included in her possessory information title.
4. Subsequently, on April 26, 1921, the Acting Director of Lands initiated a cadastral proceeding for the area, which included the same land claimed by Del Rosario. She filed an opposition, claiming the same land denied to her in the previous case.
5. In the cadastral case, Del Rosario presented no new evidence, relying solely on the same evidence from the prior registration case.
6. The cadastral court (Judge C. Carballo) adjudicated and ordered the registration in her name only of Lots 3238, 3240, 3242, and 3243, which corresponded to the portion granted to her in the first case. It denied her claim to the northern portion (previously classified as forestry land).
7. Del Rosario appealed, arguing the lower court erred in not registering the entire land covered by her opposition.

ISSUE

Did the cadastral court err in denying the registration of the northern portion of the land claimed by Maria del Rosario?

RULING

NO, the cadastral court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

1. Res Judicata and Burden of Proof: The classification of the northern portion as forestry land was already settled with finality in the first registration case ( G.R. No. 13226 ). Del Rosario, in opposing the cadastral petition, bore the burden of proving her right to registration. She failed to present any new or additional evidence to overturn the prior finding or to demonstrate that the character of the land had changed. She merely re-litigated the same claim with the same evidence.

2. Question of Fact: The determination of whether land is agricultural, forestry, or mineral is a question of fact. The cadastral court, based on the evidence before it (which was identical to the evidence in the first case), correctly found no basis to classify the disputed northern portion as agricultural land alienable for private ownership.

3. Motion for Rehearing: Del Rosario filed a motion for rehearing in the Supreme Court, submitting new proof to show the land was agricultural. The Court denied this motion, ruling that the evidence was not newly discovered (it existed at the time of trial) and was insufficient to justify a new trial.

4. Legal Principle Cited: The Court cited *Ankron vs. Government of the Philippine Islands* (40 Phil. 10), which held that the classification of public land is a question of fact, unless the Bureau of Forestry had previously classified it under its authority before any private interest intervened.

Therefore, the appellant failed to discharge her burden of proof. The judgment of the cadastral court was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.