G.R. No. L‑3427
November 6, 1907

FACTS
– The Capellania del Convento de Tambobong (the “capellania”) petitioned for registration of a tract of land (≈69 ha 16 ares 7 centares) with the Court of Land Registration.
– The petition was filed by Fr. Lino Cajili, parish priest and administrator of the capellania.
– Respondents‑appellants (Hipólito Cruz et al.) challenged:
1. The legal existence and corporate personality of the capellania, alleging that its present constitution does not comply with the 1697 deed of foundation by Agustín Sigua (e.g., lack of an Augustinian prior, non‑collection of stipulated rents).
2. Whether the capellania, not being a corporation with a board of directors, could satisfy the procedural requisites of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act), particularly §§ 19 and 21.
– The respondents also contested the extent of the land registered, claiming it exceeded the area shown in the 1891 government registration.

ISSUE
1. Whether the capellania, despite not meeting the strict historic criteria of its 1697 deed, may be recognized as a legal entity capable of owning and registering land.
2. Whether the Land Registration Act’s requirements for corporate applicants (vote of directors, etc.) can be liberally interpreted to admit entities like the capellania that lack a formal board.
3. Whether the discrepancy in the measured area of the land defeats the registration.

RULING
1. Existence & Personality: The court held that the capellania’s long‑standing recognition (over two centuries) and the 1891 government grant outweigh the technical non‑conformities with the ancient deed. The foundation deed was offered only to prove antiquity, not to define current powers. Absence of the original documents (destroyed by fire) does not invalidate the entity’s existence.

2. Statutory Interpretation: Sections 19 and 21 of Act 496 must be construed liberally (sec. 123) to effect the act’s general intentnamely, to secure registration of lands owned by actual owners. The requirement of a directors’ vote applies only where a corporation possesses such a board; the capellania, an ecclesiastical corporation without a board, may authorize an agent (Fr. Cajili) to sign and swear the application under § 21.

3. Land Area Discrepancy: The difference in hectareage was deemed an “estimate” issue. The surveyed boundaries, identified by observable monuments (three esteros), substantively correspond to the land described. Following Pamintuan v. Insular Government, physical monuments prevail over quantitative discrepancies.

Disposition: The judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED; costs are assessed against the appellants, except Rufino Romero.

Concurrence: Chief Justice Arellano and Justices Torres, Johnson, and Willard.