G.R. No. 27206 , December 31, 1927
RUFINA NAÑAGAS, ET AL. vs. THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN NARCISO, ET AL.

FACTS

The heirs of Ramon Pimentel (applicants-appellants) filed an application for the registration of a tract of land in San Andres, Tayabas, with an area of over 1,309 hectares. Their claim was based on a possessory information title issued to Ramon Pimentel in 1895, which described a land of only about 743 hectares. The application was opposed by several parties, including the Municipality of San Narciso, the inhabitants of the barrio of San Andres, and the Director of Forestry. The Court of First Instance partially granted the application but ordered the exclusion of: (1) a 32-hectare forested portion on the western boundary; (2) three trails within the land; and (3) a rectangular tract (500m x 300m) constituting the inhabited portion of the barrio of San Andres. The applicants appealed this partial denial.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the trial court erred in excluding the rectangular tract occupied by the barrio of San Andres.
2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding conversations with the applicants’ predecessor-in-interest.
3. Whether the trial court erred in excluding the 32-hectare forested portion.
4. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the exclusion/survey of the three trails.

RULING

1. On the exclusion of the barrio tract NO ERROR, but MODIFIED as to area. The Supreme Court affirmed the exclusion of the land occupied by the barrio. The evidence showed that the barrio was officially established as a *visita* in 1879, long before Pimentel acquired his possessory title in 1895. While the inhabitants had previously petitioned Pimentel for a donation of the land (Exhibits H, H-1, H-2), these documents did not constitute an admission that Pimentel was the true owner, but were merely a pragmatic appeal to settle their status. The possessory title could not prevail over the prior, official establishment of the barrio. However, the Court limited the excluded area strictly to 500 by 300 meters as described in the inhabitants’ petition, and not a larger area as might have been implied.

2. On the admissibility of testimony NO ERROR. The testimony of a witness regarding conversations with the deceased Ramon Pimentel was admissible. The rule disqualifying a party or interested person from testifying against the executor or administrator of a deceased person (Section 383, Act No. 190 ) did not apply because the witness was not a party *against* the estate, but was an opponent/defendant in a registration case *instituted by* the heirs. Such testimony, while to be weighed with caution, is not inadmissible.

3. On the exclusion of the 32-hectare forest portion NO ERROR. The Supreme Court sustained the trial court’s factual finding. The western boundary in Pimentel’s title was described as “certain hills or mountains.” Under the rule, a description bounded by mountains extends only to the foot thereof unless clear evidence shows otherwise. The undisputed evidence showed the excluded portion was stony and on a steep hillside. Furthermore, the significant discrepancy between the area in the title (743 has.) and the application (1,309 has.) supported the conclusion that this forest land was outside the titled property.

4. On the exclusion/survey of the three trails ERROR. The Supreme Court found the order for the *deslinde* or survey of the trails to be erroneous. There was no evidence presented that these trails were public roads or that any easement over them had been acquired by prescription. The mere existence of trails does not justify their exclusion from a certificate of title. Under the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ), the registration of land is subject to any existing public or private highways, but their existence is not affected by the registration proceedings; they need not be separately surveyed and excluded from the plan.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment was MODIFIED:
1. By eliminating the order for the survey and exclusion of the three trails.
2. By limiting the excluded area for the barrio of San Andres to a rectangular tract of 500 meters by 300 meters.
The judgment was AFFIRMED in all other respects. No costs.