GR 66130; (September, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 66130 September 8, 1994
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF ISABEL TESALONA and the HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents.
FACTS
On June 23, 1971, Isabel, Consuelo, and Serapia Tesalona filed an application for registration of five parcels of land (Lot Nos. 1-5, Plan Psu 215382, total area 74,343 sq. m.) in Barrio Butanyog, Mulanay, Quezon. Their claim was based on an alleged possessory information title dated May 20, 1896, issued to Maria Rosita Lorenzo under the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, covering only 1.0481 hectares. The Director of Lands opposed, alleging the land was part of the inalienable public domain. The trial court initially adjudicated Lots 3, 4, and 5 to the applicants but declared Lots 1 and 2 as government-owned, subject to the rights of a private oppositor/lessee. The applicants appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which modified the decision and confirmed their title over Lots 1 and 2 as well. The Director of Lands filed this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in confirming the title of the Heirs of Isabel Tesalona over Lot Nos. 1 and 2.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court and dismissed the application for registration of Lot Nos. 1 and 2.
1. The applicants failed to submit the original tracing cloth plan of the land, a mandatory statutory requirement for registration. The submission of a blueprint copy was insufficient, and the requirement could not be waived.
2. The basis of the claim, a Spanish possessory information title, was not properly presented. Only an unclear, illegible copy was submitted without establishing the loss or unavailability of the original as required by the Rules of Court.
3. The land was classified as forest land. The trial court found, based on the Commissioner’s Report, that the parcels were within the unclassified public forest and mangrove areas. Possession of forest lands, no matter how long, cannot ripen into private ownership. The rules on confirmation of imperfect title do not apply unless such land is officially released and reclassified as alienable agricultural land.
The Court noted that the government did not appeal the registration of Lots 3, 4, and 5, so the validity of that adjudication was not put in issue, but the dismissal was without prejudice to the government pursuing appropriate action regarding those lots.