Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius - The express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies

the exclusion of all others.

Republic of the Philippines vs Estenzo G.R. No. L-35512 February 29, 1988

Facts: The parties in this case contest the ownership of a parcel of land situated in Barrio Valencia,
Ormoc City. The petitioners, Republic of the Philippines and Director of Lands, maintain that the land is
public land by virtue of a 1940 cadastral court decision. Private respondents Felipe Adolfo and Francisco
Padilla, referred in this case as Spouses, claim that the land belongs to them based on their purchase
thereof from the original claimant, Apolonia Parrilla, and its subsequent adjudication in their favor by
Judge of the court of 1st instance Numeriano Estenzo in 1972. The Spouses filed a petition to "re-open
the October 31, 1940 decision of the Cadastral Court under Rep. Act No. 931, as amended by Rep. Act
No. 2061 and further amended by Rep. Act No. 6236" in 1972. The SPOUSES, claiming to be the owners
of Lot No. 8423 by virtue of having purchased the same in 1948, likewise allege that due to the excusable
negligence, accident or mistake of the previous claimant and her counsel, the land was declared public
land in 1940. The Spouses also argued that the land has not been reserved, leased, alienated, or
disposed by the government. Spouses also claim that since 1940 they have been in possession of the
land and have declared the land for purposes of taxation. Spouses also explained that they have not
applied for homestead over the land under the Public Land act of 1941. Despite the opposition of the
Director of Lands respondent Judge Estenzo granted the SPOUSES' petition on May 9, 1972. The Republic
and the Director of Lands now assail that decision by way of appeal by certiorari.The petitioners' stance
that the lower court is without jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition to re-open the cadastral
proceedings is premised on their argument that SPOUSES' petition is barred by the expiration of the
period for re-opening of cadastral proceedings under Rep. Act No. 931. RA 931 took effect in 1953 and
only provides a 5-year period for the reopening of cadastral proceedings or until 1958. This was,
however, extended until 31 DEC 1968 by RA 2061. Nonetheless, Judge Estenzo has no jurisdiction to
decide on the case in 1972 since the period allowable by the pertinent laws has expired. Spouses,
however, argue that their petition can be taken as one for the confirmation of an imperfect title. Hence,
even if Judge Estenzo has no jurisdiction over the case under RA 931 and RA 2061, they can reopen the
cadastral proceedings by virtue of RA 6236 of 1971 which extended the time limit for the filing of
applications for free patents and for the judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles until
December 31, 1976.

Issue: WON cadastral cases are embraced by the provisions of RA 6236

Decision and Reason: No. SC explained that "A close look at SPOUSES' petition to re-open the cadastral
proceedings of 1940 would show that their cause of action is premised on Rep. Act No. 931 and not on
confirmation of imperfect title." In discussing RA 6236 SC further noted that, "The law makes no
reference to re-opening of cadastral cases." As expressed by SC, "If Rep. Act 6236 had intended that the
extension it provided for applies also to reopening of cadastral cases, it would have so provided in the
same way that it provided the extension of time to file applications for free patent and for judicial
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title. " The 1972 decision of the respondent Judge Estenzo was
SET ASIDE .