G.R. No. 28151 , December 24, 1927
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and AMBROSIO CRISTAL and twenty others, petitioners, vs. Honorable EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, Judge of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, VICENTE LOPEZ and CARMEN GONZALES, respondents.

FACTS

In a cadastral proceeding, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija rendered a decision on August 3, 1918, regarding Lot 1897. The decision adjudicated the lot to the spouses Bartolome A. Ramos and Jorja Torres, but ordered the segregation of “portions of riparian forest land not exceeding 200 hectares covered with trees of the first, second and third groups” along specified creeks. The cadastral surveyor, with the aid of the forest inspector, was tasked to identify and segregate these portions. No appeal was taken from this judgment. Ownership of the lot eventually passed to the spouses Vicente Lopez and Carmen Gonzales, and the court amended its decision in 1922 to reflect this.

Subsequently, the provincial fiscal, at the request of the Director of Forestry, filed a petition on May 22, 1923, stating that an investigation revealed the land was not forest land throughout, and prayed that only a 15-meter strip on each side of the creeks be segregated. The Lopez spouses objected and applied for registration of the entire lot. After a hearing, the court, on July 9, 1923, found that Lot 1897 contained no forest land and ordered the registration of the entire lot in the name of the Lopez spouses. The provincial fiscal’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Meanwhile, between 1919 and the following years, several portions within the potential 200-hectare area were occupied as homesteads with the approval of the Bureau of Lands. The Director of Lands and these occupants filed a petition for certiorari, alleging that the court acted without jurisdiction in its July 9, 1923 order because the 1918 judgment (declaring the 200 hectares as public land and ordering segregation) had become final. They also alleged lack of notice regarding a subsequent order dated March 21, 1927, which directed placing the Lopez spouses in possession and ejecting the homesteaders.

ISSUE

Did the Court of First Instance act without or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the order of July 9, 1923, which directed the registration of the entire Lot 1897, thereby effectively setting aside the segregation of a 200-hectare forest area ordered in the final 1918 judgment?

RULING

NO, the Court of First Instance did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction. The petition for certiorari is denied.

The Supreme Court held that the 1918 judgment was not final and executory with respect to the specific 200-hectare area. The decision did not order the definite segregation of the entire 200 hectares. Instead, it ordered the segregation of an area “not to exceed 200 hectares” and only if it was “covered with trees of the first, second and third groups.” The judgment expressly mandated further proceedingsspecifically, a survey and inspectionto determine the actual existence, location, and extent of such forested areas. Therefore, the 1918 decision was conditional and required implementation.

The order of July 9, 1923, was a result of the proceedings ordered by the 1918 judgment. After the mandated inspection, the court found that there was no forest land meeting the specified conditions within Lot 1897. Consequently, ordering the registration of the entire lot was a legitimate compliance with and implementation of the 1918 decision, not a reversal of a final judgment. The court was acting within its jurisdiction to complete the cadastral proceeding.

Regarding the homesteaders’ claim of lack of notice for the March 21, 1927 order, the Supreme Court noted that they were not parties to the original registration case. The only parties at the time of the 1918 judgment and the subsequent 1923 proceedings were the registered claimants (Lopez spouses) and the fiscal representing the Directors of Lands and Forestry. As strangers who occupied the land later, the homesteaders were not entitled to personal notification of the proceedings.