G.R. No. L-57112 November 29, 1984
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, petitioner, vs. Judge Sinforoso Fañgonil, of CFI Baguio and Benguet, Branch IV, Modesta Paris, Lagya Paris, Samuel Baliwan, Pablo Ramos, Jr., Josephine Abanag, Menita T. Victor, Emiliano Bautista and Odi Dianson, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves applications for land registration filed from 1972 to 1976 by the private respondents over lots within the Baguio Townsite Reservation. The applications were filed under Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act) or, alternatively, under Section 48 of the Public Land Law based on alleged possession for over thirty years. The Director of Lands opposed the applications and moved for their dismissal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, prescription, and res judicata. The motions were based on a prior 1922 decision in “Expediente de Reserve No. 1, GLRO Reservation Record No. 211,” a proceeding in rem initiated in 1912 to conclusively determine private claims within the Baguio Townsite Reservation. The 1922 decision declared all lands within the reservation as public domain, except those already adjudicated as private property, and forever barred all claims not presented for registration within the six-month period fixed by law following the 1915 notice.
The trial judge, respondent Judge Fañgonil, denied the motions to dismiss. He conceded that the lands within the reservation are public domain and that Section 48 of the Public Land Law could not be invoked. However, he refused to dismiss the applications outright, ruling that there was a necessity to receive evidence in a regular hearing to determine whether the applicants’ predecessors were properly served with personal notice in the 1915 proceeding, as required by Act No. 627 for persons in visible possession. He relied on the 1933 case of Zarate vs. Director of Lands.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in denying the motions to dismiss and in ordering a hearing on the issue of service of notice in the 1922 case.

RULING

Yes, the trial court committed reversible error. The 1922 decision in Case No. 211 is a final judgment in rem that conclusively adjudicated the status of lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation. It established the rule that lots within the reservation are public domain and not registerable under Act No. 496 . The legal logic is grounded on the principles of res judicata and the conclusive nature of the 1915 proceeding. Under Act No. 627 , service of the 1915 notice was certified by the clerk of court, and this certificate is by law “conclusive proof of service.” The Zarate case, cited by the trial judge, is an isolated exception from 1933 where applicants proved they were in visible occupation in 1915 and were not personally served. That situation is not duplicated here. The court record of Case No. 211 was completely destroyed during the war, making it impossible to produce evidence on service at this late hour. Moreover, the applicants bear the burden of proof, and they failed to present any evidence apart from unreliable oral testimony during the hearing on the motions. The passage of over fifty years from the 1922 decision completely bars the claims. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. Therefore, the order denying the motions to dismiss is reversed and set aside, and the applications for registration are dismissed.