G.R. No. L-13663; March 25, 1960
ESPERIDION ADORABLE, ET AL., claimants-appellees, vs. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, movant-appellant.

FACTS

In Cadastral Case No. 88 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Esperidion Adorable and his siblings claimed Lot No. 3249 in barrio Madong, Janiuay, Iloilo. The Justice of the Peace of Janiuay, authorized to hear the case, rendered judgment awarding the lot to the claimants. The Director of Forestry received a copy of the decision on January 14, 1956. Before the decision became final, on January 31, 1956, the Director, through the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo, filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial. The motion alleged that the Director was not notified of the hearing, that his office had a claim over a portion of the lot for river bank protection or as permanent timberland, and that he was unduly denied the opportunity to appear and present evidence. The lower court denied the motion, holding it was not obliged to notify the Director because he did not file any claim over the land, and that the Director should be deemed to have notice since an employee of the Bureau of Forestry was present at the hearing with a cadastral map. The Director of Forestry appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the appeal to the Supreme Court as it involved purely legal questions.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in denying the Director of Forestry’s motion for reconsideration and new trial without conducting a hearing to inquire into the truth of his allegations regarding the character of the land.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the lower court and remanded the records for a hearing on the motion. The Court held that while the lower court was not legally bound to send personal notice of the hearing to the Director of Forestry under Section 32 of Act No. 496 (as amended), because the land description did not show it bordered on a river, stream, sea, or lake and a Forestry Bureau employee was present at the hearing, the court nonetheless acted incorrectly in summarily dismissing the motion without inquiry. The Director’s motion was based on the claim that a portion of the land was needed for river bank protection or formed part of permanent timberland. If true, possession of such forest land cannot convert it into private property, and it would be beyond the cadastral court’s jurisdiction to register it under the Torrens system. Therefore, the lower court should have set the motion for hearing to receive evidence on these allegations so that any portion forming part of the forest or timber zone could be excluded from the decree of registration. The records were remanded for a hearing on the motion, after which a new judgment shall be rendered. No costs were awarded.