Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Possession of public land, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership without clear and convincing proof of a registerable title and proof that the land has been classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain. Espartinez failed on both counts because Exhibit L was a mere archival excerpt without metes and bounds and without proof of compliance with Spanish title laws.

The Director of Lands and the Director of Forest Development are the government officials charged with administration and protection of lands of the public domain against private appropriation, while Isidro Espartinez is the private applicant asserting private ownership over Lot 6783, Cad 239, Ligao Cadastre. Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 1942, allows confirmation of imperfect title for Filipino citizens in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of agricultural lands of the public domain under bona fide claim of ownership since July 26, 1894. Confirmation presupposes that the land is already classified as disposable agricultural land and that the applicant overcomes the presumption that the land remains public domain.

On March 28, 1885, a parcel in Ligao, now Pioduran, Albay was adjudicated to Faustino Llacer, as shown by an entry on page 424 of the Gaceta de Manila stating adjudication of 80 hectares and 16 centiares for pfs. 10053 pursuant to resolutions from February 16 to 28. After the death of Faustino Llacer, the same parcel was adjudicated to then minor Sotera Llacer through an order of the CFI of Albay dated November 11, 1913 in Civil Case No. 422 for intestate settlement of Faustino Llacer and Maria Prollamante. The land earlier declared for taxation in the name of the heirs of Faustino Llacer and Maria Prollamante was thereafter declared by Sotera Llacer in her own name, and in CAR Case No. 523 Sotera Llacer and her husband Bonifacio Viscaya were declared by the Legazpi City agrarian tribunal as landholders of Lot 6783.

On November 26, 1969, Sotera Llacer sold Lot 6783 described as containing 1,036,172 square meters to Isidro Espartinez for P8,500.00, and on June 11, 1970 they executed an amended deed of sale to reflect their agreement that Espartinez would assume responsibility and expenses for ejecting occupants pursuant to the decision in CAR Case No. 523. Thereafter Espartinez declared the property for taxation and paid real property taxes, secured a survey plan and technical description indicating an actual area of 103 hectares, 61 ares and 72 centares, planted the land to sugar cane and coconuts, and used a portion as grazing area for cattle and carabaos.

After jurisdictional publication and posting were complied with, an order of general default was issued except as to the Bureau of Lands and Bureau of Forestry represented by the fiscal. According to the government, through the Solicitor General who entered appearance on December 12, 1972, neither Espartinez nor his predecessors-in-interest had sufficient title in fee simple, had not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession for at least thirty years, could not avail of Section 48 of the Public Land Act, and the parcel remained public domain not subject to private appropriation. Seventeen persons claiming to be farmer-settlers sought to lift the default and opposed registration, while Espartinez for his part moved to dismiss their opposition on the ground that they were with one exception mere homestead applicants barred by dismissal for failure to prosecute in Civil Case No. 2976 and by CAR Case No. 523 declaring Sotera Llacer owner and the oppositors her tenants. The trial tribunal credited the chain from Faustino Llacer to Sotera Llacer to Espartinez, the tax declarations and payments, and the agricultural use, and the IAC sustained those factual findings.

• Lack of Registerable Title: Petitioner argued that IAC erred in granting confirmation notwithstanding Espartinez's failure to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he has a registerable title to the property.
• Alienable and Disposable Character and Required Documents: Petitioner argued that IAC erred in directing registration even in the absence of proof that the land is alienable and disposable and despite Espartinez's failure to adduce certain required documents.

• Possessory Information Title: Whether Exhibit L, the 1885 Gaceta de Manila excerpt of adjudication to Faustino Llacer, constitutes a possessory information title convertible to ownership.
• Sufficiency of Other Title Evidence: Whether tax declarations, tax payments, survey plan, intestate order, and prior civil and agrarian cases establish a registerable title, including where the tracing cloth plan was not presented and the claimed area exceeds Exhibit L by about 23 hectares.
• Confirmation Under Section 48(b): Whether Espartinez may obtain confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 without proof that Lot 6783 is classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain.

• Possessory Information Title: No. Exhibit L is neither a titulo de informacion posesoria nor a title by composicion con el estado and did not establish ownership of Espartinez's predecessors-in-interest.
• Sufficiency of Other Title Evidence: No. Tax declarations, unapproved survey plan, missing tracing cloth plan, intestate adjudication without transmissible rights, and non-registration cases could not prove registerable title.
• Confirmation Under Section 48(b): No. Section 48(b) presupposes disposable agricultural land, and without such proof possession however long cannot ripen into ownership while Lot 6783 is presumed public domain.

• Possessory Information Title: The SC reasoned that Exhibit L as described by IAC itself is only a copy of a certification by the Chief of the Archives Division of an excerpt of an entry on page 424 of the 1885 Gaceta de Manila. The entry contains no accurate description with metes and bounds for identification and states no reason for the adjudication. Even granting an adjudication or grant, it could not be deemed converted possessory information without proof of compliance with Article 393 of the Spanish Mortgage Law, citing Director of Lands vs. Reyes, and absent such proof it conferred no ownership, citing Heirs of Inocencio Santiago vs. Castro.
• Sufficiency of Other Title Evidence: The SC reasoned that tax declarations and tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership, citing Ferrer-Lopez vs. Court of Appeals. The survey plan was inadmissible for lack of approval by the Director of Lands, citing Director of Lands vs. Heirs of Juana Carolino, and the absence of the tracing cloth plan required by the Revised Administrative Code became material because of the discrepancy between 80 hectares in Exhibit L and 103 hectares claimed, with no proof of detachment by the Land Registration Commission and no traverse by Espartinez. The 1913 intestate order conveyed nothing because Llacer had no transmissible rights at the outset, while Civil Case No. 2976 and CAR Case No. 523 were not land registration cases and did not definitively pass upon ownership.
• Confirmation Under Section 48(b): The SC reasoned that Section 48(b) applies only to citizens occupying lands of the public domain or claiming such lands whose titles have not been perfected, in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of agricultural lands of the public domain under bona fide claim since July 26, 1894, who shall be conclusively presumed to have performed conditions for a government grant. An applicant must overcome the presumption that the land is public domain, citing Heirs of Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry, to be applied strictly here given the 23-hectare excess over Exhibit L. Having presented no proof of classification as disposable public domain, Espartinez's possession could not ripen into ownership, citing Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, Adorable vs. Director of Lands, Director of Forestry vs. Muñoz, and related cases, giving rise to the presumption that Lot 6783 remains public domain.

• Possessory information title under Spanish law — A Gaceta excerpt of adjudication without metes and bounds and without stated basis is not a titulo de informacion posesoria or composicion con el estado; conversion to ownership requires proof of compliance with Article 393 of the Spanish Mortgage Law, which Espartinez failed to show.
• Tax declarations and tax payments — Tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership, though they may corroborate possession; alone they cannot establish registerable title.
• Survey plan approval — A survey plan not approved by the Director of Lands is inadmissible to prove identity and area, and absence of the tracing cloth plan is fatal where identity is disputed by a material area discrepancy.
• Confirmation of imperfect title; alienable and disposable land — Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 presupposes prior classification as disposable agricultural land; the applicant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land is public domain, and possession however long cannot ripen into private ownership without such proof.
• Non-registration adjudications — Orders in intestate, civil, or agrarian cases that do not definitively pass upon registrability cannot substitute for registration, and a successor acquires no greater rights than a predecessor who had no transmissible rights.

• "Tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership" — States the rule rejecting tax documents as proof of registerable ownership in this application.
• "These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter." — Quotes the conclusive-presumption clause of Section 48(b) that applies only after statutory possession of disposable agricultural land is shown.
• "whatever possession he might have had, and however long, cannot ripen into private ownership" — States the consequence of Espartinez's failure to prove alienable and disposable classification for Lot 6783.

• Director of Lands vs. Reyes, L-27594, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 177 — Controlling on requirements of Article 393 of the Spanish Mortgage Law for conversion of possessory information into ownership.
• Heirs of Inocencio Santiago vs. Castro, G.R. No. 62014-16, April 2, 1984, 128 SCRA 545 — Followed to hold Exhibit L established no ownership as neither possessory information nor composicion title.
• Ferrer-Lopez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 50420, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 393 — Controlling that tax declarations and tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership.
• Director of Lands vs. Heirs of Juana Carolino, G.R. No. 61598, December 12, 1985, 140 SCRA 396 — Followed to reject unapproved survey plan and to presume land remains public domain absent clear proof.
• Heirs of Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry, L-30035, November 29, 1983, 126 SCRA 69 — Controlling on applicant's burden to overcome presumption of public domain, strictly applied here.
• Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 58867, June 22, 1984, 129 SCRA 689 — Followed with Adorable, Muñoz, Abanzadao and Republic cases for rule that possession without disposable classification cannot ripen into ownership.
• Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 56613, March 14, 1988, 158 SCRA 568 — Cited for when tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with, distinguished because area discrepancy made the plan material.
• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 61462, July 31, 1984, 131 SCRA 140 — Cited on proof that tracing plan was detached and kept by the Land Registration Commission, which Espartinez failed to show.

• Section 48(b), Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 1942 — Allows confirmation for Filipinos in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of agricultural lands of the public domain under bona fide claim since July 26, 1894; SC held Espartinez could not invoke it without proving disposable agricultural character and thirty-year qualified possession from a valid source.
• Article 393, Spanish Mortgage Law — Sets requisites for converting possessory information into registration of ownership; SC held Exhibit L failed for want of proof of compliance per Director of Lands vs. Reyes.
• Sections 1858 and 1864, Revised Administrative Code — Require presentation of tracing cloth plan; SC held its absence was material here to resolve the 80-hectare versus 103-hectare discrepancy and identify the land with certainty.

• Melencio-Herrera, J. (Dissenting) — Maintained Espartinez earned confirmation by tacking 87 years of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession from 1885 to 1972, with tax declarations plus possession constituting great weight; argued alienable and disposable proof became statutory only under P.D. No. 1073 in 1977, five years after the 1972 filing, that agricultural use proved agricultural character, that certified survey plan and technical description sufficed for identity absent government objection, and that Section 48(b) creates a conclusive presumption of performance of grant conditions admitting no contrary proof.