Case #3.

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, however, possession is not gained by mere nominal CLAIM.

LASAM V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

G.R. NO. 42859, March 17, 1938

FACTS:

Lasam filed a case in Court for the registration of a parcel of land,

containing an area of around 24,000,000 hectares. He presented Exhibit L as proof
of his possession over the land. Exhibit L is a certified copy of an application. This
application states that Lasam’s predecessor in interest, Domingo Narag, has
owned the land since time immemorial. However, the property described in
Exhibit L is 15,000,000 hectares only and the property sought to be registered is
24,000,000 hectares.

Furthermore, the document, mentions a fifth parcel of land which is the

same parcel described in another Exhibit K. Apparently, the surveyor of the land
delineated the property based on what the possessor at that time pointed out to
him; he based his study mostly on hearsay. According to the applicant, before his
occupation of the land, only about 2 hectares were cultivated. But then, they
justified this by invoking the doctrine of constructive possession (That a person in
possession of the land does not have to have his feet on every square meter of
ground before it can be said that he is in possession).

Thus, the Director of Lands opposed the registration on the ground that
a) it is not supported by any title fit for registration and
b) that the land sought to be registered is public land.

ISSUE:

WON the applicant is entitled to registration because of the required

possession during the time prescribed by law? Is he entitled to the 24,000,000
hectares of land considering that the area possessed is only 2 hectares?

HELD:

NO. First, the Court ruled that Exhibit L cannot be a valid application
because the identity of the land was not clearly established.

Second, although there is proof that Lasam might have possessed a portion
of the parcel land, the proof is lacking in certainty as to the portion occupied and
the extent thereof. Although the counsel invokes the doctrine of constructive
possession, the said application is subject to certain qualifications, and this court
was careful to observe that among these qualifications is one particularly relating
to the size of the tract in controversy with reference to the portion of land actually
in possession of the claimant. While, therefore, 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, possession is not gained by mere
nominal CLAIM. The mere planting of a sign or a symbol of possession cannot
justify a Magellan-like claim of dominion over an immense tract of territory.

An applicant for registration of land, if he relies on a document

evidencing his title thereto, must prove not only the genuineness of his title but
the identity of the land therein referred to. The document in such a case is either
a basis of his claim for registration or not at all. If, as in this case, he only claims
a portion of what is included in his title, he must clearly prove that the property
sought to be registered is included in that title.

While "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", possession under paragraph 6 of section 54 of Act No. 926, as
amended by paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874, is not gained by mere
nominal claim. The mere planting of a sign or symbol of possession cannot justify
a Magellan-like claim of dominion over an immense tract of territory. Possession
as a means of acquiring ownership, while it may be constructive, is not a mere
fiction.