Tendenilla, Jizza Sofia Cristine T.

Land Titles and Deeds

2018-0290 Atty. Francis Doble
G.R. No. L-46935 April 18, 1941
GREGORIO REYES UY UN, appellant, vs. MAMERTA PEREZ e ISIDORO
VILLAPLANA, respondent.

BRIEF SUMMARY: Gregorio Uy Un have obtained a land through a public auction. At the same
time, Vicente Villaplana has a free title over the same land. Vicente and his family were in
possession of the land, and so Uy Un filed for the recovery of the land. The Villaplanas were
removed from the land, and seek for an appeal, in which the Court of Appeals declared that the
land was public and that could be subject to the grant of free title. Uy Un opposed and claimed that
the land has ceased to be of public when the Villaplanas had been in possession of it in the concept
of an owner since 1902. The Supreme Court ruled that until the title was issued, the Villaplanas
did not have the juridical concept of being the real owners of the land or that stopped belonging to
the public lands of the State susceptible of alienation; that this was the legal condition of the land
until the government issued the free title.

RULE OF LAW: Subsection (b) of article 45 of Law No. 2874, known as Public Land Law,
provided that those who, by themselves or through their quasis, would have been in open,
contiguous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
domain, intending in good faith to acquire property, except against the Government, since July 28,
1894, are entitled to the confirmation of their rights and to the issuance of a certificate of titling in
accordance with the Law of the Registry of Property, and have in their favor the presumption juris
et de jure of having fulfilled all the necessary conditions for the concession of the Government
and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of said Law.

FACTS: Martin Villaplana was a possessor of a land during Spanish Government period, and as
its owner he declared it for the 1902 assessment, and introduced improvements consisting of
coconut trees. He sold the land to his son Vicente Villaplana, married to the Mamerta Perez.
Vicente requested it as "Free Patent." Vicente, having contracted a debt of P291.05 from Gregorio
Reyes Uy Un, was sued by the latter for the payment of said amount and was sentenced to pay it.
The corresponding order of execution was issued, and after completion, was sold to Uy Un. Later,
Vicente was granted a free title. The Guinayangan Peace Court, Tayabas granted the possession of
the land to Uy Un, while Vicente’s wife and children were released from the property by virtue of
a preliminary prohibition.
The Court of Appeals declared that the land was public and that it formed part of the public lands
of the State that could be disposed of by free consent. Uy Un averred that the subject land has
ceased to be of public when the CA declared that Martin possessed the land as an owner since
1902 and that Vicente owned it in the same concept, thus made the land private.

ISSUE: Whether the land is of public dominion and Vicente had acquired a title over the land.

HELD: Yes. The subsection (b) of article 45 of Law No. 2874, known as Public Land Law, which
is the law in force during the possession of the Villaplanas and the issuance of the gratuitous title,
provided that those who, by themselves or through their quasis, would have been in open,
contiguous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
domain, intending in good faith to acquire property, except against the Government, since July 28,
1894, are entitled to the confirmation of their rights and to the issuance of a certificate of titling in
accordance with the Law of the Registry of Property, and have in their favor the presumption juris
et de jure of having fulfilled all the necessary conditions for the concession of the Government
and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of said Law.
In this case, the Villaplanas and Uy Un had an inactive Sunday law on the ground, to request and
obtain confirmation of said right and to be issued the certificate of title in accordance with the Law
of the Registry of Property; they also had the benefit of the presumption that they had fulfilled all
the conditions necessary for the granting of the title, but until the title was issued they did not have
the juridical concept of being the real owners of the land or that stopped belonging to the public
lands of the State susceptible of alienation. That this was the legal condition of the land until the
government issued the free title, as confirmed by Article 54 of the same law that provides that
from now on it will not be possible to acquire title, legal right or right by reason of equity on land
of the public domain by prescription or by possession or occupation as owner, or by agreement or
by virtue of any law in force prior to the American occupation, except as expressly provided by
the laws dictated after such occupation of the Philippine Islands by the U.S. The fact that Vicente
Villaplana requested the free title of the land on December 7, 1922, is another fact that shows that
in his opinion he had not acquired a perfect title and that it continued to be public land of the State.