SUSI v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS (1925) VILLA-REAL, J.

: DOCTRINE: A presumption juris et de jure is established in paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874, amending Act No. 926, that all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government are complied with when a person is in actual and physical possession, personally and through his predecessors, of an agricultural land of the public domain openly, continuously, exclusively and publicly since July 26, 1894, with a right to a certificate of title to said land. FACTS: Valentin Susi filed a complaint in CFI Pampanga against Angela Razon and the Director of Lands, praying to be declared sole and absolute owner of the subject parcel of land. He also prayed that the sale made by the Director of Lands in favor of Razon be annulled on the ground that the land is a private property. Lastly, he prayed for damages and costs against Razon. o Answer of Director Lands: Denied each allegation. Special defense - subject land was part of the public domain before its sale to Angela Razon, which was made in accordance with law. CFIs JUDGMENT: Susi is entitled to the possession of the land; The sale to Razon is annulled. Certificate of title issued in her name was cancelled. Costs against Razon. o The Director of Lands appealed. The subject landholding used to be a fishpond owned by Nemesio Pinlac. On Dec 18, 1880 Pinlac sold it to Apolonio Garcia and Basilia Mendoza for P12 with right to repurchase. After 8 years and the destruction of the fishpond, Garcia and Mendoza sold it to Valentin Susi for P12 with the right to repurchase. The possession and occupation of the land by Susi and his predecessors was found to have been open, continuous, adverse and public, without any interruption, except during the revolution, and except when Razon commenced an action in CFI Pampanga in 1913 to recover the possession of the land. This action was dismissed. Subsequently, in 1914 Razon applied to the Director of Lands for the purchase of the land. Susi filed an opposition asserting his possession of the land for 25 years. After an administrative investigation, Susis opposition was overruled. A certificate of title was issued in Razons name and registered in the register of deeds Pampanga on August 31, 1921. Armed with said document, Razon required Susi to vacate the land, he refused to do so, she brought an action for forcible entry and unlawful detainer in the justice of the peace court of Guagua, Pampanga, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the case being one of title to real property. Valentin Susi then brought this action. Issue: Who has better right to the land Susi or Razon? SUSI. Ratio: It clearly appears from the evidence that Valentin Susi has been in possession of the land in question openly, continuously, adversely, and publicly, personally and through his predecessors for at least 45 years. Court took note of the fact that in 1880 when the land was

sold by Pinlac he had already made a fish pond thereon. The Court declared that the Carino doctrine is applicable because Pinlacs possession can hardly be estimated because it has been so long that it is beyond the reach of memory. o When Razon applied for the purchase of said land, Susi had already been in possession for 34 years. Furthermore, there is a presumption juris et de jure in favor of Susi that is established in paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874, amending Act No. 926, that all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government were complied with, for he has been in actual and physical possession, personally and through his predecessors, of an agricultural land of the public domain openly, continuously, exclusively and publicly since July 26, 1894, with a right to a certificate of title to said land under the provisions of Chapter VIII of said Act. o Susi had already acquired a grant of the government by operation of law when Razon applied for a grant with the Director of lands. It is not necessary that certificate of title should be issued in order that a grant may be sanction by the courts. An application therefore is sufficient, under the provisions of section 47 of Act No. 2874. Susi having acquired the land by a grant of the State, it had already ceased to be the public domain and had become private property, at least by presumption. Being private property, Director of lands could no longer dispose of the land to Razon for he/the govt no longer had any title or control over it. Thus, Razon acquired no rights to the land because the sale if VOID. The contention of the Director of lands that the land is public domain therefore Susi cannot maintain an action to recover possession is untenable. As above stated the land had already become the private property of Susi through operation of law. Thus, Susi has the right to bring an action to recover possession even though he lacks judicial sanction of his title.