GR L 14223; (October, 1919) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14223; October 13, 1919
LEDESMA, KAPPELER & CO., petitioner-appellant, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, opponent-appellee.
FACTS:
On October 29, 1917, Ledesma, Kappeler & Co. filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the registration under the Torrens system of a parcel of land. The Director of Lands opposed the registration, claiming the land was public land belonging to the Government of the United States under the administration of the Philippine Government. The trial court granted registration for most of the land but excluded a portion of approximately 48 hectares, finding it to be a manglar (mangrove) and therefore not registrable as agricultural land. The petitioner appealed this partial denial.
The evidence established that the petitioner and its predecessors had been in possession of the entire land since 1885 and had obtained a possessory information title in 1895, duly registered. The disputed 48-hectare area was admitted to be mostly mangrove, parts of which had been converted into a fishpond (vivero de peces), and contained trees like bacauan, bungalon, and alipata. The objector attempted to classify the land as forestry land but presented no proof regarding its comparative value for forestry versus agricultural purposes.
ISSUE:
Whether the 48-hectare mangrove land is registrable as agricultural land under the Torrens system.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and ordered the registration of the entire parcel, including the 48-hectare mangrove area.
Applying the doctrine established in Ankron vs. Government of the Philippine Islands (40 Phil. 10), the Court held that in the absence of proof showing that land is more valuable for forestry than for agricultural purposes, it is presumed to be agricultural land. The record contained no evidence of the land’s value for forestry. Conversely, the petitioner presented ample proof that the land, including the mangrove area, had been used for agricultural purposes for a long period. Therefore, the land is registrable as agricultural land under the Torrens system. The Court revoked the lower court’s judgment and decreed the registration of all land in the original petition. No costs were awarded.