GR 44199; (March, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 44199; March 8, 1938
CRISPULO SIDECO, applicant-appellee, vs. HEIRS OF SERAPIO BALAJADIA, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.
FACTS
Crispulo Sideco applied for the registration of a parcel of land known as Hacienda del Progreso in Nueva Ecija, which he acquired by inheritance from his father, Anastacio Sideco. Anastacio had purchased the land from the Spanish Government in 1881, evidenced by a title (Exhibit A) and a plan (Exhibit B). Stone monuments were placed during the original survey, many of which were still found in 1932 when a new survey (Exhibit C) was conducted. The oppositors, various heirs and individuals, claimed ownership over 15-16 small portions within the hacienda, based on alleged possession without any documentary title. They presented tax declarations and receipts, but these referred to lots (bacoors) different from the rice lands they claimed. One oppositor presented a will, but it did not evidence ownership of land. The trial court adjudicated the hacienda to Sideco, segregating only three portions claimed by other oppositors who did not appeal. The appellants opposed, also arguing that Sideco could not register the land because he had sold it to Margarita David Puatu with a right of repurchase.
ISSUE
1. Whether the portions claimed by the oppositors-appellants form part of the Hacienda del Progreso owned by Sideco.
2. Whether Sideco, having executed a sale with a right of repurchase, could validly apply for registration of the land.
RULING
1. Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed that the claimed portions are part of the hacienda. Sideco established ownership through a valid title from the Spanish Government and continuous, public possession. The oppositors’ claims, based on uncorroborated testimony and tax documents referring to different properties, were insufficient to overcome the evidence of the state-granted title. The court found the opposition appeared to be a confabulation to appropriate parts of the hacienda.
2. Yes. The documents constituted a single contract of sale with a right of repurchase (pacto de retro). Under Act No. 2164, amending the Land Registration Act, the vendor in such a sale may file an application for registration, especially since Sideco remained in possession and there was no evidence the redemption period had expired. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision adjudicating the land to Sideco was affirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.