GR L 16076; (November, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16076-77 November 28, 1964
ESTEBAN VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. MISAMIS LUMBER CO., INC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
In 1929, Misamis Lumber Co., Inc. filed a petition for land registration (Land Registration Case No. 110) over 709 hectares based on deeds of sale from the Neris and the Ledesmas, who derived title from Simeon Ledesma’s possessory information title registered on March 31, 1894. The Supreme Court, in Misamis Lumber Co. vs. Director of Lands (57 Phil. 881), dismissed the petition on February 21, 1933, finding the land was forested when the company took possession and the land was not properly identified.
Subsequently, the Director of Lands initiated Cadastral Proceedings (Case No. 17, G.L.R.O. Cad. Rec. No. 1640) covering Lot No. 5308. Misamis Lumber Co. filed an answer claiming ownership over a portion (3,711,460 sq. m.) of Lot No. 5308 based on the same possessory information title.
Meanwhile, Esteban Villanueva filed Civil Case No. 859 against Sinforoso Tagaytay and others to recover possession of an agricultural land within the cadastral area. The defendants claimed to be tenants of Misamis Lumber Co., which was later joined as a defendant. The Director of Lands intervened in Civil Case No. 859, asserting the land was public domain but covered by Villanueva’s pending sales application (No. 8210) filed in 1926, and that Villanueva had been in possession since 1926 until disturbed by defendants.
Cadastral Case No. 17 and Civil Case No. 859 were jointly tried. The CFI declared Lot No. 5308 as public land but awarded a portion to Villanueva based on his sales application, ordering defendants to vacate. Both Misamis Lumber Co. (and its tenants) and Villanueva appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed the CFI, adjudicating the southern portion of Lot No. 5308 (371 hectares) to Misamis Lumber Co. and dismissing Villanueva’s complaint in Civil Case No. 859. Villanueva appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals disregarded the principle of res judicata by not following the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Misamis Lumber Co. vs. Director of Lands (57 Phil. 881).
2. Whether the Court of Appeals overlooked the doctrine that only actual occupancy and possession of lands with imperfect title can ripen into ownership.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On res judicata, the Court held the defense fails due to lack of identity of subject matter. The prior case involved a registration petition for 709 hectares where the application was denied primarily for failure to properly identify the land and because most (but not all) of the area was forested when the company took possession. The present case involves a specific, identified portion (371 hectares) of Lot No. 5308 claimed in the cadastral proceedings. The prior denial was without prejudice, and it was not specified whether the forested area included the portion now under consideration.
2. On the requirement of actual possession, the Court, bound by the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, held that Simeon Ledesma’s registered possessory information title (covering 278 hectares with boundaries Capucao River and Lubolan Creek) ripened into a title of ownership after 20 years of continuous possession (by 1914), as his and his heirs’ actual possession was sufficiently proven. The Court of Appeals found reliable evidence that Simeon Ledesma and later his children were in actual possession, and that Misamis Lumber Co., upon purchase, took actual possession of a considerable portion (about 30 hectares) by clearing and cultivating it through tenants. The land had also been declared for taxation.
Regarding the 30-hectare area claimed by Villanueva under his sales application, the Court agreed it was part of Lot No. 5308 but found it was the same area cleared and cultivated by Misamis Lumber Co. after its purchase in 1925. Therefore, the Bureau of Lands could not validly sell land that was no longer public domain but already private property of the company. Villanueva’s action to recover possession necessarily failed.
Costs were imposed against petitioner-appellant Esteban Villanueva.