G.R. No.

83290 September 21, 1990

STA. MONICA INDUSTRIAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:
In 1985, respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed with the
Court of Appeals a complaint for the annulment of the decree in Land Registration Case No. 6431,
OCT No. 48, TCT No. T-1369 and TCT No. T-7696.
Said decree confirmed the title of De Perio and as a result, an original certificate of title was
issued in his favor. Later, OCT No. 48 was cancelled and TCT No. T-1369 was issued to De Valencia
pursuant to an extrajudicial settlement of De Perios estate. TCT No. T-7696 was issued when De
Valencia sold a parcel of land to Baloy. The other parcel of land was subdivided into five (5) lots. One
of the lots was previously sold to the Province of Zambales, the corresponding title was issued to the
Republic of the Philppines. Petitioner, Sta. Monica Industrial and Development Corporation, acquired
two of the lots.
Republic moved to amend its complaint to include as party defendants all the other
transferees of the land and, thereafter, filed its amended complaint.
Respondent alleged that the decree in LRC No. 6431 was null and void for lack of jurisdiction
because the land was inside the U.S. naval reservation and that it was still within the forest zone in
1912, having been released therefrom only in 1961, and hence cannot be the subject of disposition
or alienation as private property. Named defendants were De Valencia and her husband, Baloy and
his wife and the Register of Deeds of Zambales.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the land registration court had jurisdiction over the two (2) parcels of land claimed by
De Perio, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner herein.

HELD:
The land registration court had jurisdiction over the two (2) parcels of land, and that OCT No. 48 and
the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) derived from OCT No. 48 are valid.
Law applicable to the case

It has been established that Act No. 926, known as the Public Land Act, which took effect on July 26,
1904, was the law applicable to De Perio's petition for confirmation of his title to the two (2) parcels
of land. It provided:
SEC. 54. The following-described persons or their legal successors in right,
occupying public lands in the Philippine Islands, or claiming to own any such lands or
an interest therein, but whose titles to such lands have not been perfected, may
apply to the Court of Land Registration of the Philippine Islands for confirmation of
their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
6. All persons who by themselves or their predecessors in 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 taking effect of this Act, 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.
xxx xxx xxx
In other words, a person who had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious session and
occupation of public agricultural land for a period of at least ten (10) years prior to July 24, 1904
could petition for the confirmation of his title over the land he had so possessed and occupied.
If De Perio had title to the land in 1904, although still imperfect, then it could not have been
prejudiced by the proclamation of Governor-General Smith in 1908 which reserved for naval
purposes land in Subic, Zambales. Said proclamation recognized the existence of private rights.
Moreover, it is now almost thirty (30) years since the land was released in 1961. In a few more
months, the possessors of the land would acquire title to the portions they adversely possess
through acquisitive prescription, without need of title or of good faith, pursuant to the Civil Code [Art.
1137].

ON OTHER ISSUES:

Nature of the Subject Parcels of Land

Public Respondent failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the judgment in the land
registration case was fatally defective.

The land registration court confirmed De Perio's title to the two (2) parcels of land after due notice
and hearing. Once of the conclusions that may be derived is that the two (2) parcels of land are
agricultural as defined by law, i.e., that they are neither timber land nor mineral land.

If the land is agricultural as defined by law, and as confirmed by Judge Ostrand, it could not have
been forest land as claimed by public respondent, the subsequent land classification map
notwithstanding. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the two (2) parcels of land were in the
Olongapo townsite and were bounded by privately-owned land.