Ramos v.

Director of Lands, 39 Phil 175

G.R. No. L-13298 November 19, 1918
MALCOLM, J.
(Digested by Nikki Diane D. Cadiz)

Doctrine:
Possession (Art. 531) - 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.

Constructive possession - 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, if the remainder is not in
the adverse possession of another.

Facts: Restituto Romero gained possession of a tract of land located in the municipality of San
Jose, Province of Nueva Ecija, in the year 1882. He took advantage of the Royal Decree of
February 13, 1894, to obtain a possessory information title to the land, registered as such on
February 8, 1896. Parcel No. 1, included within the limits of the possessory information title of
Restituto Romero, was sold in February, 1907, to Cornelio Ramos, the instant petitioner, and his
wife Ambrosia Salamanca.

Ramos instituted appropriate proceedings to have his title registered. But the Director of Lands
opposed 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.

Issue: Is there actual occupancy of a part of the land (Parcel # 1) described in the instrument
giving color of title sufficient to give title to the entire tract of land?

Ruling: Yes. The doctrine of constructive possession indicates the answer. 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, if the remainder is not in the adverse possession of another.

The claimant has color of title; he acted in good faith; and he has had open, peaceable, and
notorious possession of a portion of the property, sufficient to apprise the community and the
world that the land was for his enjoyment. 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. Ramos and his predecessor in interest fulfilled the requirements of the law on the
supposition that he premises consisted of agricultural public land.

The Court holds that the petitioner and appellant has proved a title to the entire tract of land for
which he asked registration, under the provisions of subsection 6, of section 54, of Act No. 926,
as amended by Act No. 1908, with reference to the Philippine Bill and the Royal Decree of
February 13, 1894, and his possessory information.

Analysis: Constructive Possession of Immovables – Complete control is possible only in

movable. With respect to an immovable, it is required that there is uninterrupted repetition of
acts of the owner. 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. It is sufficient that
petitioner was able to subject the property to the action of his will.