G.R. No. L-5432
TOMAS INOCENCIO, petitioner-appellant, vs. MIGUEL GAT-PANDAN, ET AL., respondents-appellees.
November 20, 1909

FACTS:
Tomas Inocencio filed a petition with the Court of Land Registration to register a parcel of land in Tondo, Manila, claiming absolute ownership. He purchased the land from Mariano Inocencio, who acquired it from Isaias de los Santos. Isaias de los Santos inherited the land from his father, Jose de los Santos, who allegedly initiated possessory information proceedings for the land, which was approved in 1900.

Miguel Gat-Pandan and his sister Quiteria opposed the application, initially claiming they inherited the land from their grandfather, Pedro Bernardino. They later amended their opposition, stating they inherited it from their mother, Maria Bernardino, who in turn acquired it from her brother, Pedro Bernardino. They further alleged that Maria Bernardino possessed the lot prior to 1896 and that the lot was erroneously included in Isaias de los Santos’ possessory information.

The Court of Land Registration found that neither the petitioner nor the objectors had established ownership of the land and, consequently, overruled the opposition and dismissed the application. The petitioner’s motion for a new trial was denied, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Did the lower court err in dismissing Tomas Inocencio’s application for registration of title, considering his claim of ownership derived from Isaias de los Santos and the opposition from Miguel Gat-Pandan and Quiteria?

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the application for registration.

1. Lack of Absolute Ownership by Petitioner: Even assuming Jose de los Santos was the original owner, the records showed he had four children, including Isaias de los Santos. Upon Jose de los Santos’ death, his four children, as heirs by force of law, succeeded him as co-owners of the property (Articles 657, 661, 807, Civil Code). Isaias de los Santos, as a co-heir, could not lawfully dispose of the entire lot without the consent of his other co-heirs and co-owners (Article 348, Civil Code). Thus, Isaias could only transfer his proportionate share. Consequently, Mariano Inocencio and subsequently Tomas Inocencio could not have acquired absolute ownership in fee simple as required for registration under Section 19 of Act No. 496 .

2. Failure to Prove Predecessor’s Title: The Court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that Jose de los Santos was the owner of the land or possessed it for the time fixed by law. The lot was “erroneously included” in the possessory information proceedings by Isaias de los Santos.

While the trial court also found that the objectors’ ownership was not proven (and they did not appeal this finding), this fact does not automatically entitle the petitioner to register the property. The petitioner bears the burden of proving absolute ownership to secure registration.

In conclusion, Tomas Inocencio failed to establish his title as the absolute owner in fee simple. Therefore, the judgment appealed from, dismissing the application for registration, was affirmed.