G.R. No. 30528, October 25, 1929
MODESTO LIMJOCO and TEODORA HONSAYCO, applicants-appellees, vs. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, SANTIAGO QUIJANO, and RAFAEL VILLAROMAN, opponents. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, appellant.

FACTS

Spouses Modesto Limjoco and Teodora Honsayco filed an application for registration of a parcel of land. The Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry, Santiago Quijano, and Rafael Villaroman opposed. The trial court initially dismissed the application for insufficiency of evidence. Upon motion for reconsideration, a new trial was granted, excluding the portions claimed by Quijano and Villaroman. After further proceedings, the court decreed registration in favor of the applicants, overruling the oppositions of the Director of Lands and the Director of Forestry. The Director of Lands appealed, arguing that the applicants failed to prove the land’s identity and their sufficient title, and erroneously invoked benefits under Act No. 926.

The applicants traced their title back to Isabel Gatbonton, who obtained a composition title from the Spanish Government in 1886. The original title was lost during the change of sovereignty. Ownership passed through several persons via public documents and sales until it reached the applicants. They and their predecessors possessed the land, using parts for fishery and agriculture, and paid taxes. The applicants’ claim was supported by Exhibit C, a notarized mortgage deed executed by Gatbonton, which recited the existence of her composition title, and Exhibit D, a certified copy from the Bureau of Lands detailing the administrative steps and payment for that title.

ISSUE

1. Whether the applicants sufficiently proved the identity of the land sought to be registered.
2. Whether the applicants established a sufficient title warranting registration, despite the loss of the original Spanish composition title.

RULING

1. Yes, the identity of the land was sufficiently proved. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding. The evidence, including testimonies and plans, explained discrepancies in boundaries and area. The land applied for was identified as the eastern portion of a larger tract described in Exhibit C, bounded by natural markers like creeks. The difference in area was accounted for by the application covering only half of the original parcel.

2. Yes, the applicants established a sufficient title for registration. The Court held that the loss of the original composition title did not defeat the claim. Under Section 321 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the contents of a lost document may be proven by a recital in an authentic document or by witness testimony. Exhibit C (the notarized mortgage deed) was an authentic document that recited the issuance of the composition title to Gatbonton. This was corroborated by Exhibit D, the official record from the Bureau of Lands, which detailed the administrative process, payment, and final issuance of the title in 1886. The unbroken chain of possession and ownership from Gatbonton to the applicants, along with tax payments, further supported their claim. Since the land was private property acquired through a Spanish grant, it was not public land, rendering the appellant’s argument regarding Act No. 926 inapplicable.

The appealed judgment was affirmed.