GR L 62637; (August, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-62637 August 16, 1983
DIRECTOR OF LANDS and DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, petitioners, vs. HELEN U. VILLAROSA, CAROLINA U. VILLAROSA, ESTHER U. VILLAROSA and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Helen, Carolina, and Esther Villarosa applied for the registration of four parcels of land with an aggregate area of approximately 754 hectares in Quezon. They claimed ownership through inheritance from their father, Vicente Villarosa, whose line originated from their great-grandfather, Gregorio Villarosa. The applicants presented evidence of tax declarations and payments dating back to the lifetime of Vicente Villarosa and continuing in their names. They also asserted that their predecessors had been in open, continuous, and public possession of the land since the Spanish regime. The application was opposed by the Directors of Lands and Forestry, who contended that the land was part of the public forest, classified as timberland in 1955, and therefore inalienable and not registrable.
The Court of First Instance granted the application for registration, finding that the applicants had established a registrable title. The court ruled that the 1955 forestry classification, made without notice to the applicants, could not defeat property rights acquired through long possession. It noted that a large portion of the land was cogonal and contained no trees of commercial value, indicating it had long been used as pasture. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CFI decision, upholding its factual findings regarding the applicants’ possession.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the registration of the land, which the petitioners claim is part of the inalienable public forest or timberland.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the petition essentially raised factual questions, which are not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. Both lower courts found that the applicants and their predecessors had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since time immemorial, or at least since July 26, 1894, which is sufficient for confirmation of title under the Public Land Act.
The Court reiterated the doctrine that such possession, if proven, converts the land into private property, and a subsequent state classification declaring it as timberland cannot divest the vested rights of the occupant. The petitioners’ reliance on the 1955 forestry map was insufficient to overturn the concurrent factual determinations regarding the nature of the land and the character of the applicants’ possession. Justice Aquino dissented, arguing that the land, being classified as timberland and of such vast area, was not registrable, and that the possessory requirements were unlikely met.