You are on page 1of 2

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.

Restituto Romero y Ponce by royal decree apparently gained possession of
a considerable tract of land. Parcel No. 1, included within the limits of the
possessory information title of Restituto Romero, was sold to Cornelio
Ramos, the instant petitioner, and his wife.
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. As to the law, the principal argument of the Solicitor-General is
based on the provisions of the Spanish Mortgage Law and of the Maura
Law. The Solicitor-General would emphasize that for land to come under
the protective ægis 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." Subsection 6 of section 54, of Act No.
926, entitled The Public Land Law, as amended by Act No. 1908, is
pertinent to the case.
There are two parts to the said 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.

and he has had open. We hold that the petitioner and appellant has proved a title to the entire tract of land for which he asked registration. if the remainder is not in the adverse possession of another. Civil Code. unsupported by satisfactory evidence was submitted to prove that the land is a forest land it will not stop the courts from giving title to the claimant.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? net The doctrine of constructive possession indicates the answer. 448. peaceable. 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. 1. Since only a mere formal opposition on the part of the Attorney-General for the Director of Forestry. 446. he acted in good faith. It is here only necessary to apply the general rule. one particularly relating to the size of the tract in controversy with reference to the portion actually in possession of the claimant. (See arts. and notorious possession of a portion of the property. without special finding as to costs. Ramos and his predecessor in interest fulfilled the requirements of the law on the supposition that he premises consisted of agricultural public land.) 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. . sufficient to apprise the community and the world that the land was for his enjoyment.) The claimant has color of title. Judgment is reversed and the lower court shall register in the name of the applicant the entire tract in parcel No. (there are a number of qualifications to the rule. as described in plan Exhibit A. So ordered.