REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, v.

MARJENS INVESTMENT CORPORATION,

G.R. No. 156205, November 12, 2014
Facts:
On December 22, 1998, or almost 46 years after the issuance of OCT No. 0-669,
Republic, represented by the Region IV Regional Executive Director of the DENR,
filed a petition before the Court of Appeals for annulment of judgment, cancellation
of title, and reversion against respondents, the Register of Deeds for the Province of
Batangas, and the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City.
Petitioner alleges that respondents appear as registered owners of a land identified
as Lot 1 Pcs-943, which is a portion of Lots 1 and 2, plan Psu-114430 LRC Record No.
N-3454, covered by TCT No. T-18592.
The OSG alleges that upon verification, it was ascertained that the land covered by
TCT No. T-18592 is within the unclassified public forest per Land Classification
Control Map No. 10, therefore, cannot be subject of disposition or registration and
the registration proceedings, the judgment in the subject case, the OCT No. O-669
issued pursuant thereto, and all subsequent titles are null and void. The land
covered by TCT No. T-18592, not having been legally registered, remains and forms
part of the public domain of the State.
In their comment, respondents deny the OSG's allegations. They claim that their
titles, their predecessors' titles, and their mother title are issued in accordance with
law, and that the property was registered and brought under the Torrens system.
Respondents contend that the subject property was already private property even
before the Spanish Crown ceded sovereignty over the Philippine Islands to the
United States of America.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the case and applied the case of Cariho v. Insular
Government of the Philippine Islands, which recognized private ownership of lands
already possessed or held by individuals under claim of ownership as far back as
testimony or memory goes and therefore never to have been public land that Spain
could bequeath to the United States of America. Unconvinced, the OSG filed this
petition for review on certiorari before the Court.
Issue:
W/N the subject property is a private property.
Discussion:
The case of Cario v. Insular Government of the Philippine Islands states that
"[prescription is mentioned again in the royal cedula of October 15, 1754, cited in 3
Philippine, 546; '[w]here 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.' It may be that this means possession from before 1700; but, at all
events, the principle is admitted. As prescription, even against Crown lands, was
recognized by the laws of Spain we see no sufficient reason for hesitating to admit
that it was recognized in the Philippines in regard to lands over which Spain had
only a paper sovereignty."
As for respondents, it is undisputed that the subject property traces its title to the
property originally owned by Rita Vda. de Ilustre since 1890. From her it passed on
to several hands until it was transferred to Hammon H. Buck, who successfully
registered it in his name. From 1890, respondents' predecessors in interest had
been in peaceful, open, continuous, exclusive, adverse, and notorious possession in
the concept of an owner of the subject property. Following the Cario ruling, the
subject property had been a private land and excluded from the public domain since
1890 prior to the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. Therefore, it
is not part of the public domain that passed on from Spain to the United States of
America.
For the same reason, it is also not part of the unclassified public forest as petitioner
claims. InRepublic v. Court of Appeals and Cosalan, the Court held that " 'while the
Government has the right to classify portions of public land, the primary right of a
private individual who possessed and cultivated the land in good faith much prior to
such classification must be recognized and should not be prejudiced be
considered forestry land, unless private interests have intervened before such
reservation is made'"
Ruling: WHEREFORE, premises
is AFFIRMED.

considered,

the

Court

of

Appeals

Decision