Abaoag vs. Director of Lands

Long-continued, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of public land by native inhabitants, coupled with good-faith belief in ownership, creates a presumption of ownership sufficient to support registration under the Torrens system. The government bears the burden of overcoming this presumption; it cannot deprive long-time occupants of their land merely for failure to comply with subsequently enacted registration formalities.

The applicants-appellants are "Bagos" or Igorots, non-Christian indigenous inhabitants of the Philippines, who were invited in 1884 by the gobernadorcillo and principalia of the then town of Alava (now the municipality of Sison), Province of Pangasinan, to occupy and cultivate a tract of public land to increase the municipality's population. The land, which was unoccupied and unimproved public land at the time of delivery, has a superficial area of 77 hectares, 40 ares, and 50 centiares. The case implicates the legal status of native inhabitants who occupied land without paper titles under Spanish rule and the subsequent American colonial administration, particularly the application of the public land laws and the Torrens registration system to such occupants.

In 1884, a number of "Bagos" or Igorots or non-Christians, numbering about thirty at that time, were invited by the gobernadorcillo and principalia of the then town of Alava, now the municipality of Sison, Province of Pangasinan, to cultivate a tract of land with a superficial area of 77 hectares, 40 ares, and 50 centiares, in order to increase the population of the municipality. The "Bagos" entered upon the land, took possession of it, and have continued to live upon and cultivate it since that date. The appellants herein are some of the original thirty who entered upon the land, and the others are their legitimate descendants.

On or about February 28, 1919, the appellants presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan to have the parcel of land registered under the Torrens system, accompanied by an official plan prepared by the Bureau of Lands (Exhibit A). Various oppositions were presented, and a judgment by default was entered with the cause set for trial. During the trial, it was discovered that a new plan and new technical description were necessary, and the petitioners were ordered to present an amended plan. In compliance, a new plan was presented (Exhibit A-1), and the cause was set for hearing, with a number of witnesses presented by the petitioners to prove their right to registration. Immediately after the close of the petitioners' proof, the oppositors moved to dismiss on the ground that the petitioners had not presented sufficient proof of entitlement to registration; the motion was granted, and the petition was dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.

The record further shows that at the time of delivery of the land to the petitioners, it was unoccupied and unimproved public land. Since their entry in 1884, the petitioners and their ancestors have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same, believing in good faith that they were the owners. They cleared, improved, and cultivated the land and constructed and maintained their homes thereon, exercising every requisite act of ownership, for a period of more than thirty-nine years, without any interruption whatsoever. The land was never partitioned among the petitioners because it was the custom of the Bagos, Igorots, or non-Christians to occupy and possess their land in common. The petitioners believed, and had a right to believe, from the fact that the land was given by the gobernadorcillo and principalia of the municipality, that they thereby became the owners to the exclusion of all others.

No suggestion was made that the gobernadorcillo and the principalia of the town of Alava were not authorized in 1884, as representatives of the then existing Government, to give and deliver the land to the petitioners and their ancestors. Neither was it denied that the land is agricultural land, nor that it might not be registered under the Torrens system had the petitioners invoked the benefits of the public land law. No contention was made that the petitioners were ever given a paper title to the land. Their contention was simply that they were given the land; that they accepted it; that they lived upon, cultivated, improved, and occupied it to the exclusion of all others for a period of about thirty-nine years; and that therefore they are entitled to have it registered under the Torrens system.

• Sufficiency of Possession: The petitioners contended that they were given the land; that they accepted it; that they lived upon the land, cultivated it, improved it, and occupied it to the exclusion of all others for a period of about thirty-nine years; and that therefore they are entitled to have it registered under the Torrens system.
• Prescription by Long Possession: The petitioners argued that they have occupied and cultivated the land for a period sufficient to give them title and to have the same registered under the Torrens system.
• Good-Faith Belief in Ownership: The petitioners maintained that they believed, and had a right to believe, from the fact that the land was given by the gobernadorcillo and principalia of the municipality, that they thereby became the owners to the exclusion of all others.

N/A — The decision does not recount specific arguments advanced by the respondents beyond the motion to dismiss on the ground that the petitioners had not presented proof sufficient to show entitlement to registration.

• Presumption of Ownership from Long Possession: Whether the applicants' open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the land for approximately thirty-nine years, in good faith, is sufficient to entitle them to registration under the Torrens system notwithstanding the absence of a paper title.
• Propriety of Dismissal: Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petition without giving the applicants an opportunity to present additional evidence in support of their claim of title.

• Presumption of Ownership from Long Possession: Yes. Long-continued possession of public land by native inhabitants creates a presumption of ownership in their favor, and every presumption is against the government seeking to deprive them of it for failure to comply with subsequently enacted registration laws.
• Propriety of Dismissal: Yes, the lower court erred. Only under exceptional circumstances should an application for registration be dismissed over the objection of the applicant without giving him an opportunity to submit additional evidence when there are strong or reasonable grounds to believe he is the owner of the land.

• Presumption of Ownership from Long Possession: The Court relied on the doctrine announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in Cariño vs. Insular Government (7 Phil., 132; 212 U.S. 449), where Justice Holmes stated that the acquisition of the Philippines was not for the purpose of acquiring the lands occupied by the inhabitants, and that one who actually owned land for many years cannot be deprived of it for failure to comply with certain ceremonies prescribed either by the acts of the Philippine Commission or by Spanish law. The Court quoted Justice Holmes: "We hesitate to suppose that it was intended to declare every native, who had not a paper title, a trespasser and to set the claims of all the wilder tribes afloat. Whatever the law upon these points may be, every presumption is and ought to be against the government in the case like the present." The Court also noted that Spain did not assume to convert all the native inhabitants of the Philippines into trespassers of the land which they occupy, or even into tenants at will, citing Book 4, Title 12, Law 14 of the Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias. The Royal Cedula of October 15, 1754, provided: "Where such possessors shall not be able to produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they shall show that ancient possession as a valid title by prescription." The Court concluded that every presumption of ownership under the public land laws of the Philippine Islands is in favor of one actually occupying the land for many years, and against the Government which seeks to deprive him of it for failure to comply with provisions of subsequently enacted registration land acts.
• Propriety of Dismissal: The Court quoted Rodriguez vs. Director of Lands (31 Phil., 272, 279): "only under exceptional circumstances should an application for registry in the court of land registration be dismissed over the objection of the applicant, and without giving him an opportunity by the grant of new trial, or otherwise . . . to submit additional evidence in support of his claim of title, when there are strong or reasonable grounds to believe that he is the owner of all or any part of the land described in his application. This is specially true when the only ground for the dismissal of the application is the lack of formal or perhaps even substantial proof as to the chain of title upon which applicant relies, etc." The Court found that the lower court committed the errors complained of by the appellants in dismissing the petition.

• Presumption of Ownership in Favor of Long-Time Occupants of Public Land — Every presumption of ownership under the public land laws of the Philippine Islands is in favor of one actually occupying the land for many years, and against the Government which seeks to deprive him of it for failure to comply with provisions of subsequently enacted registration land acts. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the applicants' thirty-nine years of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession, in good faith, created a presumption of ownership sufficient to support their registration application.
• Ancient Possession as Valid Title by Prescription — Under the Royal Cedula of October 15, 1754, where possessors of land cannot produce title deeds, it is sufficient if they show ancient possession as a valid title by prescription. The Court applied this principle to recognize that the applicants' long-continued possession constituted a valid basis for claiming title.
• Dismissal of Registration Applications Only Under Exceptional Circumstances — Only under exceptional circumstances should an application for registration be dismissed over the objection of the applicant, and without giving him an opportunity by the grant of new trial or otherwise to submit additional evidence in support of his claim of title, when there are strong or reasonable grounds to believe that he is the owner of all or any part of the land described in his application. The Court applied this doctrine to reverse the dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings.

• "The acquisition of the Philippines was not for the purpose of acquiring the lands occupied by the inhabitants, and under the Organic Act of July 1, 1902, providing that property rights are to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants, one who actually owned land for many years cannot be deprived of it for failure to comply with certain ceremonies prescribed either by the acts of the Philippine Commission or by the Spanish law." — This passage from Cariño vs. Insular Government, quoted by the Court, articulates the core principle that long-time native occupants of land cannot be deprived of their property for failure to comply with formal registration requirements.
• "We hesitate to suppose that it was intended to declare every native, who had not a paper title, a trespasser and to set the claims of all the wilder tribes afloat. Whatever the law upon these points may be, every presumption is and ought to be against the government in the case like the present." — This statement by Justice Holmes, quoted by the Court, establishes the presumption against the government in favor of native occupants of land, forming the doctrinal foundation of the decision.
• "Where such possessors shall not be able to produce title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they shall show that ancient possession as a valid title by prescription." — This provision from the Royal Cedula of October 15, 1754, quoted by the Court, recognizes ancient possession as a valid title by prescription, supporting the applicants' claim.
• ". . . only under exceptional circumstances should an application for registry in the court of land registration be dismissed over the objection of the applicant, and without giving him an opportunity by the grant of new trial, or otherwise . . . to submit additional evidence in support of his claim of title, when there are strong or reasonable grounds to believe that he is the owner of all or any part of the land described in his application." — This passage from Rodriguez vs. Director of Lands, quoted by the Court, establishes the standard for when dismissal of a registration application is proper, supporting the reversal of the lower court's dismissal.

• Cariño vs. Insular Government, 7 Phil., 132; 212 U.S. 449 — Controlling precedent. The Court relied on this case, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1909, for the doctrine that native inhabitants who actually owned land for many years cannot be deprived of it for failure to comply with formal registration ceremonies, and that every presumption is against the government in such cases.
• Rodriguez vs. Director of Lands, 31 Phil., 272 — Followed. The Court quoted this case for the principle that only under exceptional circumstances should a registration application be dismissed without giving the applicant an opportunity to submit additional evidence when there are strong or reasonable grounds to believe he is the owner of the land.

• Book 4, Title 12, Law 14, Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias — Cited to show that Spain did not assume to convert all native inhabitants of the Philippines into trespassers of the land which they occupy, or even into tenants at will, supporting the recognition of native possessory rights.
• Royal Cedula of October 15, 1754 — Quoted for the provision that where possessors cannot produce title deeds, it is sufficient if they show ancient possession as a valid title by prescription, supporting the applicants' claim of title through long possession.
• Organic Act of July 1, 1902 — Referenced in the quoted portion of Cariño vs. Insular Government for the principle that property rights are to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants, supporting the protection of native occupants' property rights.

Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the case text.