Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

is sufficient, as will later appear, merely to notice that the

predecessor in interest to the petitioner at least held this tract
of land under color of title.

EN BANC

Subsection 6 of section 54, of Act No. 926, entitled The Public

Land Law, as amended by Act No. 1908, reads as follows:

G.R. No. L-13298

November 19, 1918

CORNELIO RAMOS, petitioner-appellant,

vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, objector-appellee.
Basilio Aromin for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Paredes for appellee.

MALCOLM, J.:
This is an appeal by the applicant and appellant from a
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, denying
the registration of the larger portion of parcel No. 1 (Exhibit A
of the petitioner), marked by the letters A, B, and C on the
plan, Exhibit 1, of the Government.
One Restituto Romero y Ponce apparently gained possession
of a considerable tract of land located in the municipality of
San Jose, Province of Nueva Ecija, in the year 1882. He took
advantage of the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, to obtain
a possessory information title to the land, registered as such
on February 8, 1896. Parcel No. 1, included within the limits of
the possessory information title of Restituto Romero, was sold
in February, 1907, to Cornelio Ramos, the instant petitioner,
and his wife Ambrosia Salamanca.
Ramos instituted appropriate proceedings to have his title
registered. Opposition was entered by the Director of Lands
on the ground that Ramos had not acquired a good title from
the Spanish government and by the Director of Forestry on
the ground that the first parcel was forest land. The trial court
agreed with the objectors and excluded parcel No. 1 from
registration. So much for the facts.
As to the law, the principal argument of the Solicitor-General
is based on the provisions of the Spanish Mortgage Law and of
the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, commonly known as
the Maura Law. The Solicitor-General would emphasize that for
land to come under the protective gis of the Maura Law, it
must have been shown that the land was cultivated for six
years previously, and that it was not land which pertained to
the "zonas forestales." As proof that the land was, even as
long ago as the years 1894 to 1896, forestal and not
agricultural in nature is the fact that there are yet found
thereon trees from 50 to 80 years of age.
We do not stop to decide this contention, although it might be
possible, following the doctrine laid down by the United States
Supreme Court with reference to Mexican and Spanish grantes
within the United States, where some recital is claimed to be
false, to say that the possessory information, apparently
having taken cognizance of the requisites for title, should not
now be disturbed. (Hancock vs. McKinney [1851], 7 Tex., 192;
Hornsby and Roland vs. United States [1869], 10 Wall., 224.) It

6. All persons who by themselves or their

predecessors and interest have been in the open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural public lands, as defined by
said Act of Congress of July first, nineteen hundred
and two, under a bona fide claim of ownership except
as against the Government, for a period of ten years
next preceding the twenty-sixth day of July, nineteen
hundred and four, except when prevented by war or
force majeure, shall be conclusively presumed to
have performed all the conditions essential to a
government grant and to have received the same,
and shall be entitled to a certificate of title to such
land under the provisions of this chapter.
There are two parts to the above quoted subsection which
must be discussed. The first relates to the open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of what,
for present purposes, can be conceded to be agricultural
public land, under a bona fide claim of ownership.
Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts
of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally
exercise over his own property. Relative to actuality of
possession, it is admitted that the petitioner has cultivated
only about one fourth of the entire tract. This is graphically
portrayed by Exhibit 1 of the Government, following:

The question at once arises: Is that actual occupancy of a part

of the land described in the instrument giving color of title
sufficient to give title to the entire tract of land?lawphil.net
The doctrine of constructive possession indicates the answer.
The general rule is that the possession and cultivation of a
portion of a tract under claim of ownership of all is a
constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the
adverse possession of another. (Barr vs. Gratz's Heirs [1819],
4 Wheat., 213; Ellicott vs. Pearl [1836], 10 Pet., 412; Smith vs.
Gale [1892], 144 U. S., 509.) Of course, there are a number of
qualifications to the rule, one particularly relating to the size
of the tract in controversy with reference to the portion
actually in possession of the claimant. It is here only
necessary to apply the general rule.
The claimant has color of title; he acted in good faith; and he
has had open, peaceable, and notorious possession of a
portion of the property, sufficient to apprise the community
and the world that the land was for his enjoyment. (See arts.
446, 448, Civil Code.) Possession in the eyes of the law does
not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square
meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession.
Ramos and his predecessor in interest fulfilled the
requirements of the law on the supposition that he premises
consisted of agricultural public land.
The second division of the law requires consideration of the
term "agricultural public land." The law affirms that the phrase
is denied by the Act of Congress of July 1st, 1902, known as
the Philippine bill. Turning to the Philippine Bill, we find in
sections 13 to 18 thereof that three classes of land are
mentioned. The first is variously denominated "public land" or
"public domain," the second "mineral land," and the third
"timber land." Section 18 of the Act of Congress comes
nearest to a precise definition, when it makes the
determination of whether the land is more valuable for
agricultural or for forest uses the test of its character.
Although these sections of the Philippine Bill have come
before the courts on numerous occasions, what was said in
the case of Jones vs. Insular Government ([1906], 6 Phil.,
122), is still true, namely: "The meaning of these sections is
not clear and it is difficult to give to them a construction that
will be entirely free from objection." In the case which gave
most serious consideration to the subject (Mapa vs. Insular
Government [1908], 10 Phil., 175), it was found that there
does exist in the Act of Congress a definition of the phrase
"agricultural public lands." It was said that the phrase
"agricultural public lands" as used in Act No. 926 means
"those public lands acquired from Spain which are not timber
or mineral lands."
The idea would appear to be to determine, by exclusion, if the
land is forestal or mineral in nature and, if not so found, to
consider it to be agricultural land. Here, again, Philippine law
is not very helpful. For instance, section 1820 of the
Administrative Code of 1917 provides: "For the purposes of
this chapter, 'public forest' includes, except as otherwise
specially indicated, all unreserved public land, including nipa
and mangrove swamps, and all forest reserves of whatever
character." This definition of "public forest," it will be noted, is
merely "for the purposes of this chapter." A little further on,
section 1827 provides: "Lands in public forests, not including
forest reserves, upon the certification of the Director of

Forestry that said lands are better adapted and more valuable
for agricultural than for forest purposes and not required by
the public interests to be kept under forest, shall be declared
by the Department Head to be agricultural lands." With
reference to the last section, there is no certification of the
Director of Forestry in the record, as to whether this land is
better adapted and more valuable for agricultural than for
forest purposes.
The lexicographers define "forest" as "a large tract of land
covered with a natural growth of trees and underbrush; a
large wood." The authorities say that he word "forest" has a
significant, not an insignificant meaning, and that it does not
embrace land only partly woodland. It is a tract of land
covered with trees, usually of considerable extent. (Higgins
vs. Long Island R. Co. [1908], 114 N. Y. Supp., 262; People vs.
Long Island R. Co. [1908], 110 N. Y. Supp., 512.)
The foresters say that no legal definition of "forest" is
practicable or useful. B. H. Baden-Powell, in his work on Forest
Law of India, states as follows:
Every definition of a forest that can be framed for
legal purposes will be found either to exclude some
cases to which the law ought to apply, or on the
other hand, to include some with which the law ought
not to interfere. It may be necessary, for example, to
take under the law a tract of perfectly barren land
which at present has neither trees, brushwood, nor
grass on it, but which in the course f time it is hoped
will be "reboise;" but any definition wide enough to
take in all such lands, would also take in much that
was not wanted. On the other hand, the definition, if
framed with reference to tree-growth, might (and
indeed would be almost sure to) include a garden,
shrubbery, orchard, or vineyard, which it was not
designed to deal with.
B. E. Fernow, in his work on the Economics of Forestry, states
as follows:
A forest in the sense in which we use the term, as an
economic factor, is by no means a mere collection of
trees, but an organic whole in which all parts,
although apparently heterogeneous, jumbled
together by accident as it were and apparently
unrelated, bear a close relation to each other and are
as interdependent as any other beings and
conditions in nature.
The Director of Forestry of the Philippine Islands has said:
During the time of the passage of the Act of Congress
of July 1, 1902, this question of forest and
agricultural lands was beginning to receive some
attention and it is clearly shown in section 18 of the
above mentioned Act; it leaves to the Bureau of
Forestry the certification as to what lands are for
agricultural or forest uses. Although the Act states
timber lands, the Bureau has in its administration
since the passage of this act construed this term to
mean forest lands in the sense of what was
necessary to protect, for the public good; waste
lands without a tree have been declared more

suitable for forestry in many instances in the past.

The term 'timber' as used in England and in the
United States in the past has been applied to wood
suitable for construction purposes but with the
increase in civilization and the application of new
methods every plant producing wood has some
useful purpose and the term timber lands is generally
though of as synonymous with forest lands or lands
producing wood, or able to produce wood, if
agricultural crops on the same land will not bring the
financial return that timber will or if the same land is
needed for protection purposes.
xxx

xxx

xxx

The laws in the United States recognize the necessity

of technical advice of duly appointed boards and
leave it in the hands of these boards to decide what
lands are more valuable for forestry purposes or for
agricultural purposes.
In the Philippine Islands this policy is follows to as
great an extent as allowable under the law. In many
cases, in the opinion of the Bureau of Forestry, lands
without a single tree on them are considered as true
forest land. For instance, mountain sides which are
too steep for cultivation under ordinary practice and
which, if cultivated, under ordinary practice would
destroy the big natural resource of the soil, by
washing, is considered by this bureau as forest land
and in time would be reforested. Of course, examples
exist in the Mountain Province where steep hillsides
have been terraced and intensive cultivation
practiced but even then the mountain people are
very careful not to destroy forests or other
vegetative cover which they from experience have
found protect their water supply. Certain chiefs have
lodged protests with the Government against other
tribes on the opposite side of the mountain cultivated
by them, in order to prevent other tribes from cutting
timber or destroy cover guarding their source of
water for irrigation.
Dr. M. S. Shaler, formerly Dean of the Lawrence
Scientific School, remarked that if mankind could not
devise and enforce ways dealing with the earth,
which will preserve this source of like "we must look
forward to the time, remote it may be, yet equally
discernible, when out kin having wasted its great
inheritance will fade from the earth because of the
ruin it has accomplished."
The method employed by the bureau of Forestry in
making inspection of lands, in order to determine
whether they are more adapted for agricultural or
forest purposes by a technical and duly trained
personnel on the different phases of the conservation
of natural resources, is based upon a previously
prepared set of questions in which the different
characters of the land under inspection are
discussed, namely:
Slope of land: Level; moderate; steep; very steep.

Exposure: North; South; East; West.

Soil: Clay; sandy loam; sand; rocky; very rocky.
Character of soil cover: Cultivated, grass land, brush
land, brush land and timber mixed, dense forest.
If cultivated, state crops being grown and
approximate number of hectares under cultivation.
(Indicate on sketch.)
For growth of what agricultural products is this land
suitable?
State what portion of the tract is wooded, name of
important timber species and estimate of stand in
cubic meters per hectare, diameter and percentage
of each species.
If the land is covered with timber, state whether
there is public land suitable for agriculture in vicinity,
which is not covered with timber.
Is this land more valuable for agricultural than for
forest purposes? (State reasons in full.)
Is this land included or adjoining any proposed or
established forest reserve or communal forest?
Description and ownership of improvements.
If the land is claimed under private ownership, give
the name of the claimant, his place of residence, and
state briefly (if necessary on a separate sheet) the
grounds upon which he bases his claim.
When the inspection is made on a parcel of public
land which has been applied for, the corresponding
certificate is forwarded to the Director of Lands; if it
is made on a privately claimed parcel for which the
issuance of a title is requested from the Court of
Land Registration, and the inspection shows the land
to be more adapted for forest purposes, then the
Director of Forestry requests the Attorney-General to
file an opposition, sending him all data collected
during the inspection and offering him the forest
officer as a witness.
It should be kept in mind that the lack of personnel of
this Bureau, the limited time intervening between the
notice for the trial on an expediente of land and the
day of the trial, and the difficulties in
communications as well as the distance of the land in
question greatly hinder the handling of this work.
In the case of lands claimed as private property, the
Director of Forestry, by means of his delegate the
examining officer, submits before the court all
evidence referring to the present forest condition of
the land, so that the court may compare them with
the alleged right by the claimant. Undoubtedly, when
the claimant presents a title issued by the proper
authority or evidence of his right to the land showing
that he complied with the requirements of the law,

the forest certificate does not affect him in the least

as such land should not be considered as a part of
the public domain; but when the alleged right is
merely that of possession, then the public or private
character of the parcel is open to discussion and this
character should be established not simply on the
alleged right of the claimant but on the sylvical
condition and soil characteristics of the land, and by
comparison between this area, or different previously
occupied areas, and those areas which still preserve
their primitive character.
Either way we look at this question we encounter difficulty.
Indubitably, there should be conservation of the natural
resources of the Philippines. The prodigality of the spendthrift
who squanders his substance for the pleasure of the fleeting
moment must be restrained for the less spectacular but surer
policy which protects Nature's wealth for future generations.
Such is the wise stand of our Government as represented by
the Director of Forestry who, with the Forester for the
Government of the United States, believes in "the control of
nature's powers by man for his own good." On the other hand,
the presumption should be, in lieu of contrary proof, that land
is agricultural in nature. One very apparent reason is that it is
for the good of the Philippine Islands to have the large public
domain come under private ownership. Such is the natural
attitude of the sagacious citizen.
If in this instance, we give judicial sanction to a private claim,
let it be noted that the Government, in the long run of cases,

has its remedy. Forest reserves of public land can be

established as provided by law. When the claim of the citizen
and the claim of the Government as to a particular piece of
property collide, if the Government desires to demonstrate
that the land is in reality a forest, the Director of Forestry
should submit to the court convincing proof that the land is
not more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes.
Great consideration, it may be stated, should, and
undoubtedly will be, paid by the courts to the opinion of the
technical expert who speaks with authority on forestry
matters. But a mere formal opposition on the part of the
Attorney-General for the Director of Forestry, unsupported by
satisfactory evidence will not stop the courts from giving title
to the claimant.
We hold that the petitioner and appellant has proved a title to
the entire tract of land for which he asked registration, under
the provisions of subsection 6, of section 54, of Act No. 926,
as amended by Act No. 1908, with reference to the Philippine
Bill and the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, and his
possessory information.
Judgment is reversed and the lower court shall register in the
name of the applicant the entire tract in parcel No. 1, as
described in plan Exhibit A, without special finding as to costs.
So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Street and Fisher, JJ., concur.