G.R. No. L-8473; March 7, 1916
SANTIAGO YASON and MARIA NAVARRO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. JULIO MAGSAKAY and THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, defendants. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, appellant.

FACTS:
Plaintiffs Santiago Yason and Maria Navarro filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija to recover possession of 8 hectares of land, which they claimed formed part of a larger 30-hectare tract owned and possessed by Maria Navarro. Maria Navarro inherited the land from her father, Teodulo Navarro, who had possessed it peacefully for over 25 years, and she herself had been in possession for about 11 years. Defendant Julio Magsakay occupied the 8-hectare portion in May 1910 after applying for a homestead over it in March 1910. During the proceedings, Magsakay submitted a sworn affidavit and a letter to the Director of Lands, acknowledging that the land belonged to Maria Navarro and requesting cancellation of his homestead application. The provincial fiscal, and later the Attorney-General on behalf of the Director of Lands, intervened, arguing that the land was part of the public domain subject to homestead grant. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Magsakay to deliver possession of the land. Only the Director of Lands appealed; Magsakay did not.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiffs have a better right to possess the 8-hectare land as against the claim of the Director of Lands that it is part of the public domain subject to homestead disposition.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court found that Maria Navarro and her predecessor had been in open, continuous, and peaceful possession of the land for more than 30 years, establishing a prima facie right of ownership. The defendant Magsakay had effectively renounced his homestead claim by executing documents that admitted Navarro’s ownership and by requesting cancellation of his application. Since Magsakay did not appeal, and his abandonment of the homestead application removed any conflict over the land’s status, the Director of Lands had no standing to object on his behalf. The Court upheld the plaintiffs’ right to possession. Costs were imposed on the appellant.