Republic of the Philippines v. CA & Roberto A. Miguel(G.R. No.

L-60487)TOPICs:

Application for registration under the Torrens system of the land in dispute, which is claimed by theRP as
part of the public domain and by the private respondent by virtue of a valid transfer.

Exercised more caution in accepting secondary evidence in lieu of Spanish titles, since during that

time there’s a lot of fake titles discovered.

FACTS:

-Subject property is situated in Tinambac, Camarines Sur and part of a parcel of land consisting of
about1,800 hectares (allegedly originally acquired by Ambrocio Mallupa under a possessory information
titlein the registry of Nueva Caceres on Nov. 27, 1894)-

Then inherited by Ambrocio’s children, Francisco and Basilia

- Dec. 14, 1951, Francisco sold about 250 hectares of the land to spouses Cariño and delivered to them

his father’s title and all related documents

- Segundo Cariño had the record of the possessory info. reconstituted by the RD of Camarines Sur.-Such
copy was lost by Antonio Martinez, a real estate agent to whom Cariño entrusted it on May19,1956 for
possible sale- Cariño then sold the land (July 24, 1963) to Roberto A. Miguel, who filed the registration
on May 4,1966. In CFI of Cam Sur.-trial judge then approved such application and was upheld on appeal
which affirmed that thepossessory information title had validly conferred ownership on the applicant-
such decision was challenged by the RP as not supported with evidence and rendered with grave
abuseof discretion

ISSUE:

1.

Whether the secondary evidence of a copy of the possessory information title or theexistence/validity of
such title was worthy of credence?2.

Whether such application should be granted?

RULING:

1. No, the loss of the original possessory information title was not proven. Martinez was not presentedin
court and the only basis was the allegations of Cariño. Cariño claims to have commissioned Martinezto
sell the land by virtue of an authority dated July 8, 1957 while the receipt of the title wasacknowledge on
May 19,1956 or more than a year earlier.-Miguel, being a lawyer should have exercised due care in
inquiring as to the loss of the original title orshould have satisfied himself that the required continuous,
actual, public and adverse possession of 20years had been completely complied with.2. No, the
application should be denied since the property is hereby declared as part of the publicdomain
.-Governing laws: Spanish Mortgage Law, !st Public Land Act and 2

nd

Public Land act, Land RegistrationAct and Cadastral Act.-Assuming the existence of the title, the second
condition of possession for 20 years was not satisfied