G.R. No. 27818 , December 24, 1927
ROALES BROTHERS AND COUSINS, petitioners-appellants, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, opponent-appellant.

FACTS

Roales Brothers and Cousins applied for the registration of various parcels of land comprising nearly all of Bonga Island. Their claim originated from Tomas Roales, who entered possession and began cultivating the island about ten years before the American occupation. Between 1893 and 1895, he obtained a grant for the entire island from the Military Political Commander of Illana Bay and formed an association called “Fortuna.” After Fortuna failed to pay land taxes, the island was sold at public auction to Francisco Diaz, from whom the appellants acquired the parcels. The lower court granted registration for parcels 4, 6, 7, 8, and a portion of lot 2, finding actual possession and cultivation. However, it denied registration for the remaining portion of lot 2 and all of lot 3, concluding that neither the applicants nor their predecessors had actual possession of these specific areas.

ISSUE

Whether the applicants’ actual possession and cultivation of a significant portion of Bonga Island constitute constructive possession of the entire island, including the portions not physically occupied, thereby entitling them to registration under the law.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s denial and ordered the registration of the entirety of lots 2 and 3 in the applicants’ names. Applying the doctrine established in *Ramos vs. Director of Lands* (39 Phil. 175), the Court held that the peaceable, continuous, and notorious possession and cultivation of a substantial portion of a tract of land, under a claim of ownership of the whole, constitutes constructive possession of the entire tract, provided no adverse claimant occupies the remainder. The evidence showed that the applicants and their predecessors had cultivated and were in actual possession of more than two-thirds of the island. This actual possession, coupled with the historical grant covering the entire island, extends constructively to the unoccupied portions. Furthermore, there was evidence that the disputed areas had been used for pasturing cattle and cutting timber. Therefore, the same legal basis supporting the registration of the other parcels also applies to the remainder of lot 2 and all of lot 3.