G.R. No. L-17046; April 25, 1961
Juan Aduan, et al., applicants-appellees, vs. Pantaleon Alba, et al., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Appellees Juan Aduan, et al., successfully petitioned for the registration of a parcel of land in Aringay, La Union, and were issued Original Certificate of Title No. O-247. Subsequently, they filed a motion for a writ of possession in the Court of First Instance, alleging that appellants Pantaleon Alba, Macario Alba, and others were pasturing animals and destroying crops on the titled land. The appellants opposed the motion, claiming possession of portions of the land and asserting that those portions were the subject of their own pending homestead applications with the Bureau of Lands.
The parties entered into a stipulation of facts, agreeing to exclude a specific northern portion from the writ due to a separate civil case. Based on this stipulation, the trial court issued an order for the writ of possession. After a motion for reconsideration clarified the exclusion of another portion related to a different opponent, the court amended its order. Appellants Alba, whose opposition was ultimately disregarded, interposed the present appeal.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in issuing the writ of possession and in not nullifying the appellees’ certificate of title based on the appellants’ claims that the land is forestry land and that they were not notified of the original registration proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order. The legal logic proceeds from the appellants’ lack of standing to challenge the title on the ground that the land is forestry in character. The Court held that the right to raise such an issue belongs to the government, specifically the Bureau of Forestry, which was duly notified of the original registration proceedings but filed no opposition. This failure to oppose belies the appellants’ claim.
Regarding the alleged lack of personal notice, the Court found the claim unavailing. The petition for registration was published in the Official Gazette, which constitutes constructive notice to the whole world, including the appellants, and is deemed sufficient in law. Furthermore, the appellants’ possession, being based merely on a subsidiary homestead application on what they themselves claim is forest land, does not confer a registrable right superior to the appellees’ already-issued Torrens title. The appellants’ interest remains inchoate and subordinate to the government’s, and thus provides no legal basis to defeat the writ of possession issued to the registered owners. The order was affirmed without costs.