Name: DIANE GRACE R.

DURAN
Course/Year: BS GEOE - II
Subject: LAND REGISTRATIONS LAW
Instructor: ENGR. GERSON RYAN M. SUMAMPONG

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILLIPINES

G.R. NO. L-29075 (June 10, 1971)

CASE TITLE:

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE, ELDRED FEWKES,

APPLICANT-APPELLANT, v. NACITA VASQUEZ, DOMINGO VASQUEZ,
TRINIDAD GERARTE, HEIRS OF AUGUSTO ARAMBURO, SIMEON
ARAMBURO, RAMON VELASCO, JOSEFINA VELASCO ISAAC, EMILIA
VELASCO SAMSON, HEIRS OF JUAN VELASCO, SEGUNDO
CERDENIA, MAURICIO SAYSON, PACITA SAMSON and FLORENCIO
DYCOCO, OPPOSITORS-APPELLEE.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Fewkes, an American citizen, filed a petition for the registration of two lots and the
improvements on them with the Court of First Instance of Albay on March 2, 1967. The
application claimed that Fewkes purchased two (2) parcels of land from Juan G. Velasco, Jr.,
Brigida C. Velasco, and Trinidad G. Velasco. These parcels are known as Lot No. 21-A of Psu-
61470 (a portion of Lot No. 1383, Libon Pls-763 D), with an area of 223, 241 square meters or
less, and Lot No. 21-B (also a part of Lot No. 1383, Libon Pls-763 D), province of Albay.

The blue print and tracing cloth were attached to the application. The certified copies of
the land's tax records, the two absolute deeds of sale, dated June 20, 1966, and June 27, executed
in January 1967 by the Velascos in support of the applicant, print of the technical specifications
and the PSU-61470 designs descriptions of Lots 21-A and 21-B. In which the applicant claimed
to be free from encumbrances or legal rights to these properties and to be in real possession of
the lots.
Following the fulfillment of the aforementioned condition, on March 31, 1967, the
applicant filed a motion asking the court to order the Director of Lands and/or the Land
Registration Commission to approve subdivision plan Psu-61470, as it appeared that the lots
sought to be registered were portions of a larger lot identified in said subdivision plan as Lot No.
21. The court refused the motion, citing that the application for the registration of land is
insufficient with the approval of the subdivision plan, after issuing its order on April 28, 1967.
The court then issued a second decision on August 2, 1967, amending the application to include
the particular postal addresses of the adjoining owners listed in the application. Following the
initial hearing of the case on February 23, 1968, the court invalidated the applicant's
jurisdictional rights based on its determination that these properties were a part of the larger
parcel of land.
This time, after receiving notification that his request for review of the aforementioned
dismissal order had been turned down, the applicant, Fewkes, appealed to a higher court. The
main focus of the appellant's appeal was the rejection of his application to register his title. The
applicant's request for registration was denied, but it wasn't because the properties weren't
published; rather, it was because the two lots in question are a part of a larger plot of land known
as Lot no. 1383 of Libon 763-D (also known as Lot no. 21 of Psu-61470).
The court below erred in asserting that it lacked jurisdiction over the procedure, the
appellant claims, because the public description includes the elements that are being registered.
In other words, the land registration court would not have been granted jurisdiction over the
aforementioned tiny pieces if the description of the bigger parcel, Lot 1383 of Pls-764-D, from
which the properties sought to be registered were already published.
The premise of this argument that the court acquired jurisdiction over the property by
posting the larger parcel of land is false. According to Section 21 of the Land Registration Act,
that is erroneous.

ISSUE:

If the higher court rules in favor of his appeal for a reversal of the dismissal
judgment regarding his application for the registration of his title. Before issuing a dismissal
decision, the lower court ought to have instructed him to revise his application or get the
subdivision plant approved by the Director of Lands.

RULING:

The Applicant’s appeal is lawfully DISMISSED.

No findings of error in the appealed order, it is hereby confirmed, with casting
against the appellant. The application's dismissal here is considered legitimate without prejudice
to the filing of a legitimate application in accordance with the legal requirements.