CITY OF BAGUIO vs.

MARCOS
GR No. L-26100; February 28, 1969

Lutes, the claimant of the subject parcel of land filed its Petition to Re-open the cadastral
proceedings. The land sought to be re-open was declared as public land by virtue of a
final decision.

Prayer of Lutes: The land be registered in his name.

An opposition to the re-opening was filed by herein Petitioners, Joaquin and Bucchols,
who were according to them are tree farm lessees by virtue of an agreement issued by
the Bureau of Foresty. The City of Baguio also filed its opposition. The court denied the
said opposition.

Lutes then filed an opposition regarding the claims of herein Joaquin and Bucchols on the
ground that there was already a judgment declaring the lease agreement as null and void.
At first, the cadastral court denied Joaquin and Bucchols petition to intervene but later on
the court reverse its own ruling on the ground that the judgment declaring the lease
agreement as null and void are not binding because they are not parties on the case.

Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus and Preliminary
Injunction before the Court of Appeals questioning the jurisdiction of the cadastral court
over the petition to re-open. The Preliminary Injunction was granted.

Decision of the CA: Petitioners are not bound by the declaratory judgment. However, as
lessees, they do not have the right to oppose the opening of the cadastral case.

1. Does the private petitioner have the legal personality to appear in the re-
opening proceeding considering that they are lessees?

Yes. Lessees gave sufficient legal interest in the proceedings.

Under RA 931, since there is a lease agreement, the lessees are under the
provision of the Rules of Court, which states persons who may have the intervene,
to wit: they have legal interests in the matter in litigation or in the success of either
of the parties.

2. Is publication necessary in the re-opening of cadastral proceedings?

No. In the case of De Castro vs Marcos, the court ruled that as long as the court
has already acquired jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of the
petition for re-opening then there is no need to publish. Thus, the rule on
publication is not jurisdictional.

3. Does the cadastral court have the power to re-open the cadastral
proceeding?

pg. 1
 Yes. Under Act 931, it authorized court proceedings of claims to parcels of land
declared as public land by virtue of judicial decisions rendered within FORTY
YEARS next preceding the approval of Act 319.

In this case, it was in July 25, 1961 that Lutes filed the petition to re-open with the
cadastral court of Baguio and a judicial decision was rendered in November 13,
1922, declaring that the subject land as public domain, which falls within the
prescribed 40- year period.

NOTE: Act No. 931 vs. LRA Section 34

- RA 931, Section 1, authorizes court proceedings of claims to parcel of

land declared as public land. The said Act, provides that:
All persons who:
1. Have claims to the parcel of land;
2. Have been in actual possession of the parcel of land at the time of the survey;
and

3. That there are some JUSTIFIABLE REASONS that they were not able to file
their claim in the proper court during the time provided for by the law

That the parcel of land:

1. Have been the OBJECT of the CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS;

2. That the parcel of land, HAVE BEEN or ABOUT TO BE DECLARED LANDS
OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN;
3. And the declaration must be through judicial proceedings which were
INSTITUTED within the 40 years NEXT PRECEEDING the approval of RA 931;
and
4. That the parcels of land are NOT alienated, reserved, leased and granted,
provisionally or permanently disposed of by the 1) GOVERNMENT; and 2)
Court of First Instance.

Thus, if the above-stated conditions were met, then ANY PERSON has the right to petition
for a re-opening of judicial proceedings under Act 2259, within 5 years after the date Act
931 took effect.

- Section 34 of the Land Registration Act, which was enunciated in the

case of Leyva vs Jandoc, which authorizes only a person who has a
claim of interest to file an opposition to an application for registration.

The opposition must be based on a right of dominion or some other real right
independent of and not at all subordinate to the rights of the Government and the
opposition must be necessarily predicated upon the property in question being part
of the public domain.

pg. 2
 o Thus, the lessee’s right is IMPLIEDLY recognized by RA 931. However,
under Section 34 of the Land Registration Act, if the land subject of a
petition to re-open has already been leased by the government, the
petition can no longer prosper.

As to the question on whether the Director of Lands has the sole authority or the
only party who has the right to oppose the petition for re-opening?

- No. Under Act 931, it if involves a lease contract or agreement, a question

of ownership should not be inquired and the lessee may have the legal
standing to intervene in the proceeding provided that the conditions under
Section 1 of Act 931 are met or complied with.

pg. 3