THIRD DIVISION.
.
HON.
JEREMIAS L.
DOLINO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR,REGION VII,
VICTORINO
V. RENDON, OIC, COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAND NATURAL
RESOURCES
OFFICE (CENRO), and VIRGILIO L. LAUREL,OIC, LANDS
MANAGEMENT
BUREAU, ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES,
Petitioners, |
G.
R.
No. 127002
April 29, 2003
-versus-
COURT
OF APPEALS,
VIKING MANAGEMENT & DEV. CORP.,PINE GROVE
MANAGEMENT
& DEV. CORP., RALIP MANAGEMENT & DEV. CORP.,DAPAY MANAGEMENT
& DEV. CORP., ST. MATTHEW MANAGEMENT & DEV. CORP.,CRISTO REY
MANAGEMENT
& DEV. CORP., KURIT MANAGEMENT & DEV. CORP.,ST. AUGUSTINE
MANAGEMENT
& DEV. CORP., CEBU COUNTRY HOMES MANAGEMENT& DEV. CORP., LORENTINO
MANAGEMENT & DEV. CORP., CHERRY BLOSSOM PARK CORP.,BIG SUR HEIGHTS
MANAGEMENT CO., INC., CHRYSANTHEMUM VALLEY CORP.,RIVER WALK
MANAGEMENT
& CORP., ALL REPRESENTED BY ASTRID SALA-BOZA,
Respondents. |
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.:
On petition for
review on certiorari is the Court of Appeals October 22, 1996 decision
affirming that of Branch 58, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, granting
the petition for mandamus filed by Viking Management & Development
Corporation, et al., herein respondents, against herein petitioners
Jeremias
L. Dolino, Regional Director (Region VII) of the Department of
Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), Victoriano V. Rendon, Officer-in-Charge
of
the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), and
Virgilio
L. Laurel, Officer-in-Charge of the Lands Management Bureau, who are
all
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The antecedents of the
case, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
1. In
Cadastral
Case No. 10, LRC Record No. 9466, CAD-12 Ext., entitled Director of
Lands,
Petitioner, versus Faustino Abacahan, et al., Claimants, judgment[1]
was rendered on January 2, 1992 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5,
Cebu City (cadastral court) adjudicating Lot 13131 located in Cebu
City,
to claimants, spouses Romeo Archival and Imelda Tabal, and Lot 13138
located
in Cebu City, to claimants Paterna, Leonardo, Anastacio, Delfina,
Marcial,
Jr., D[a]nita, Lilian and Sarah Arceo. The said judgment having
acquired
final and executory character, the cadastral court in its Order dated
December
3, 1992 directed the issuance of the corresponding decree of
registration
in favor of the adjudicatees.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. In another
judgment[3]
dated September 28, 1990 in the same cadastral proceeding, Lot 13216
located
in Cebu City, was likewise adjudicated to claimants, spouses Zacarias
Inocando
and Juliana Molera, Adelina Inocando, Concepcion Famador and Socita
Inocando.
Similarly, upon finality of said judgment,[4]
the cadastral court (x x x x) directed the issuance of a decree of
registration
in favor of the aforesaid claimants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. It appears that
Lots
13131 and 13138 were later sold by the adjudicatees to Pine Grove
Management
& Development Corp., while Lot 13216 was subdivided into several
portions
by the adjudicatees who subsequently sold them to Kurit Management
&
Development Corp., St. Agustine Management & Dev. Corp., Cri[s]to
Rey
Management & Development Corp., St. Matthew Management &
Development
Corp., Dapay Management & Development Corp., and Ralip Management
&
Development Corp.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. It appears
further
that as a prerequisite to the issuance of the corresponding decrees of
registration the Land Registration Authority (LRA) has required that
Lots
13131, 13138, and 13216 be surveyed or resurveyed by surveyors of the
Land
Management Sector (then Bureau of Lands), which is under the Department
of Environment & Natural Resources (DENR). For that purpose,
the aforementioned owners of the lots requested the Land Management
Sector,
through the Regional Office of the DENR, to have the lots surveyed or
resurveyed
and to submit corresponding reports thereon.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. In the same
cadastral
case the claimants of Lot 13158[5]
located in Cebu City, namely: Erdimer, Emilia, Sinforoso and Epifanio
Soquib,
have already presented to the cadastral court evidence of ownership as
would entitle them to a favorable judgment. Thereafter, said lot
was similarly acquired by Pine Grove Management & Development
Corp.,
from the aforesaid claimants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6. Meanwhile, the
following
entities who claim to have been, by themselves or by their
predecessors-in-interest,
in open, continuous and adverse possession since June 12, 1945 of the
following
lots or portions thereof, are set to initiate land registration
proceedings
with the proper court, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1)
Cherry
Blossom Park Management Corp. - Lot 15970, Cebu Cadastre, Sirao,
Cebu City; Lot 15962-A-part, Cebu Cadastre, Sirao, Cebu City; Lot
15962-(PT), Cebu Cadastre, Sirao, Cebu City;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) Country
Homes Management
& Development Corp. - Lot 15966, Cebu Cadastre, Taptap, Cebu City;
Lot 15968, Cebu Cadastre, Taptap, Cebu City;
(3) Florentino
Management
& Development Corp. - Lot 15967-(PT), Cebu Cadastre, Taptap, Cebu
City;
(4) Viking
Management
& Development Corp. - Lot 15967-part, Cebu Cadastre, Taptap, Cebu
City;
(5) St. Jerome
Corporation
- Lot 15885, Cebu Cadastre, Sirao, Cebu City;
(6) Big Sur
Heights
Management Co., Inc. - Lot 15962-(PT), Cebu Cadastre, Sirao, Cebu City
(7)
Chrysanthemum Valley
Corp. - Lot 15962-(PT), Cebu Cadastre, Sirao, Cebu City; and
(8) River Walk
Management
& Development Corp. - Lot 15962-(PT), Cebu Cadastre, Sirao, Cebu
City.
7. Pine Grove
Management
& Development Corp., as present owner of Lots 13131 and 13138 and
Kurit
Management & Development Corp., Cristo Rey Management &
Development
Corp., St. Matthew Management & Development Corp., Dapay Management
& Development Corp. and Ralip Management & Development Corp.,
as
current owners of definite portions of Lot 13216 have made
representations
with the Land Management Sector and/or Regional Office of the DENR for
the resurvey of the aforesaid lots and/or portions thereof, and for
said
Office to submit their reports thereon as required by the LRA, but the
latter repeatedly failed and/or refused to act on their request;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
8. In the
meantime,
anticipating the need for such survey, resurvey and report by the Land
Management Sector as required by the LRA, Pine Grove Management &
Development
Corp. likewise requested the aforesaid government offices to undertake
the same for Lot 13158, but the latter has continuously refused to
accede
to its request;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
9. On the
other
hand, similar requests made by Cherry Blossom Park Management Co.,
Country
Homes Management & Development Corp., Florentino Management &
Development
Corp., Viking Management & Development Corp., St. Jerome Company
(sic),
Big Sur Heights Management Co. Inc., Chrysanthemum Valley Corp., and
River
Walk Management & Development Corp. for the survey or resurvey of
their
respective lots or portions thereof as mentioned in paragraph 6 hereof,
were turned down by the aforesaid government offices, thus preventing
them
from filing the corresponding land registration proceedings for their
lots.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Claiming that the
Regional
Office of the DENR has neglected to perform a duty entrusted to it by
law,
which is to conduct surveys and ocular inspections of areas subject of
applications for registration, Viking Management & Development
Corp.,
et al filed with the court a quo Special Civil Action No. CEB-15503
against
public respondents Jeremias L. Dolino in his capacity as Regional
Director,
Victorino V. Rendon, OIC, Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office
(CENRO), Virgilio L. Laurel, OIC, Land Management Bureau, all of the
DENR,
Region 7, in which they pray for, among others, a writ of mandamus
commanding
respondents to execute the requisite survey or resurvey of their lots,
and to render the necessary reports thereon as required by the LRA with
respect to Lots 13131, 13138, 13216 and 13158, and as will be needed to
initiate the proper land registration proceedings for the rest of the
lots.[6]
(Emphasis
and underscoring supplied).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioners opposed
the requests of respondents for survey and resurvey of the subject lots
and the submission of the required reports on the ground that they are
within a parcel of land which had been withdrawn from entry, sale,
disposition
or settlement by Presidential Proclamation (PP) No. 932.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PP No. 932, which was
promulgated on June 29, 1992, established the Kotkot and Lusaran River
Watershed Forest Reserve in the cities of Cebu and Danao and the
municipalities
of Balamban, Compostela, Consolacion, and Lilo-an, Province of Cebu,
"for
the purpose of protecting, maintaining or improving the water yield and
providing restraining mechanisms for inappropriate forest exploitation
and disruptive land-use." The area covered by the reservation was
placed under the administrative jurisdiction, supervision and control
of
the DENR, through its Forest Management Bureau, with the objective of
maintaining
its usefulness as a source of water for irrigation and domestic use and
other forestry purposes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While petitioners admitted
that PP No. 932 excluded from its operation lands which are already
subject
to private rights, they, however, averred that respondents have not yet
acquired vested rights over the subject lots since they are not yet
titled
and thus remain part of the public domain.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondents
countered that they have already acquired vested rights over the
subject
lots because they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous and adverse possession thereof since June 12, 1945, and have
even obtained final and executory judgments confirming their claim over
some of them.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its decision dated
March 13, 1995, the trial court granted the petition for mandamus and
ordered
petitioners to cause the survey and resurvey of the subject lots
- Lots 13131, 13138, 13216, 13158, 15970, 15962-A, 15962-part,
15966,
15968, 15967-part, 15885, and 15962-PT - and to render the
requisite reports as may be necessary for the Land Registration
Commission,
now the Land Registration Authority, to issue the decrees of
registration
and the certificates of title thereto to their respective claimants, as
indicated in the petition. It reasoned that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
issuance
of the decrees of registration had already been entered by the court in
certain parcels of land while all of the other parcels of land, subject
of this petition, have been in (the) open, continuous and adverse
possession
of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest since June 12,
1945.
Incontrovertibly, the possession of the petitioners and their
predecessors-in-interest
have long ripened into ownership by operation of law; hence,
petitioners
herein have already acquired vested rights over the lots or parcels of
land, subject of this petition x x x x[7]
(Underscoring supplied).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the contention of
petitioners
that the subject lots are forest lands or reserves withdrawn from
entry,
sale, disposition or settlement by PP No. 932, the trial court held
that
ownership thereto had been vested in respondents long before the
issuance
of said proclamation, hence, they are not covered thereby.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court of Appeals,
in affirming the decision of the trial court, made it clear that the
conduct
of a survey and inspection of lots subject of application for
registration
would not automatically result in their adjudication to the applicants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By the present petition,
petitioners echo the following errors they assigned to the trial court
before the Court of Appeals:
I
respondent Court of
appeals erred on a question of law in affirming the decision of the
trial
court holding that private respondents have a vested right over subject
lands because petitioners allegedly admitted that decrees of
registration
had already been rendered over certain parcels of subject lands and
that
as to the rest of the lands, private respondents and their
predecessors-in-interest
have been in open, continuous and adverse possession of the same.
II
respondent court of
appeals erred on a question of law by affirming the grant of the writ
of
mandamus by the lower court, considering that the survey of said lands
is not ministerial on the part of petitioners.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The first assigned error
fails. The Court of Appeals did not base its ruling on any such
supposed
admission by petitioners. The appellate court classified the
subject
lots into 1) those that had already been adjudicated to the private
claimants
by final judgment of the cadastral court prior to the issuance of PP
No.
932; 2) those where the claimants have already presented evidence of
their
ownership before the cadastral court; and 3) those where the claimants
still need to present evidence of their private rights before the
cadastral
court or the proper land registration court to determine whether they
have
already acquired vested rights over the claimed lots.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With respect to Lots
13131, 13138 and 13216, the Court of Appeals held that they fall under
above-said classification No. 1, i.e., by virtue of final judgment,
private
rights have been acquired as to exclude them from the scope of PP
No. 932. It is thus clear that the decision on review with
respect
to said lots was based on the evidence on record consisting of copies
of
the decisions of the cadastral court, the certifications that said
decisions
had become final and executory, and the orders for the issuance of the
decrees of registration.[8]
Whether petitioners admitted during the pre-trial conference that
decrees
of registration have been issued with respect to some of the subject
lots
is thus immaterial.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As for Lots 13158, 15962-A,
15962-part, 15966, 15968, 15967-part, 15885 and 15962-PT (the remaining
lots), the referral by the Court of Appeals to the
cadastral
court or the proper land registration court of the determination of
whether
respondents have acquired private rights thereover, as reflected in its
decision which states:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Not that we find appellees
Pine Grove Management & Development Corporation, et al. as having
acquired
private rights over Lots 13158, (15962), 15966, 15967, 15068, (15885)
and
15970 or portions thereof, since they have yet to establish such fact
before
the cadastral and/or land registration court at the proper time,[9]
is in order.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the other assigned
error which raises the issue of whether mandamus lies to compel
petitioners
to conduct a survey and resurvey of lots subject of application for
registration
and submit the necessary reports to the Land Registration Authority,
the
Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the trial court’s decision in the
affirmative
is likewise in order.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Sec. 17 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529, "THE PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE,"[10]
a survey of a land subject of an application for registration is an
essential
requisite.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Such survey does not,
however, automatically result in the adjudication of the land applied
for
in favor of the applicant, who is still required to prove that (a) the
land is an alienable and disposable part of the public domain, and (b)
his possession has been for the length of time and in the manner and
concept
required by law. The presumption is that land pertains to the
State,
and any person seeking to establish ownership over land must
conclusively
show that he is the owner.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The issue of whether
or not respondents have already acquired vested rights over the
remaining
lots because of their valid possession thereof, or whether their
claim to them is void as they are inalienable either because of PP No.
932 or some other prior law which provides that the subject lands
remain
forest lands, is a question of fact which should be properly resolved
before
the cadastral and/or land registration court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Section 2, par.
2 of P.D. No. 1529, it is the Regional Trial Courts which "shall have
exclusive
jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title
to
lands, including improvements and interests therein, and over all
petitions
filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and
determine
all questions arising upon such applications or petitions." (Emphasis
supplied) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
If respondents fail
to prove by satisfactory evidence their supposed vested or private
rights
over the remaining lots, then their applications for registration
should
necessarily be rejected by the cadastral court and/or land registration
court. However, without these lots being surveyed, respondents
would
not be able to initiate and pursue, as the case may be, the proper land
registration proceedings and would be precluded from establishing their
claimed vested rights thereon.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Since it appears that
cadastral and/or land registration proceedings over the remaining lots
are still on-going, the Solicitor General and the Director of Lands,
among
other government functionaries who are, under Sec. 23 of Pres. Decree
No.
1529, mandated to participate therein, can ventilate any claim adverse
to that of respondents.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby denied for lack of merit. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Corona, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Records, pp. 17-19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at p. 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at p. 22-23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at p. 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
August 6, 1992 Certification that cadastral proceedings over Lot No.
13158
are pending before the Cebu City Regional Trial Court, Records, p. 25.
[6]
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 22, 1996, Rollo, pp.
44-47.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated March 13, 1995, Records, p.
114.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Annexes "A" to "E," Records, pp. 17-24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at p. 55.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Sec. 17 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides: "What and where
to file. - The application for land registration shall be
filed
with the [Regional Trial Court] of the province or city where the land
is situated. The applicant shall file together with the
application
all original muniments of titles or copies thereof and a survey plan of
the land approved by the Bureau of Lands. The Clerk of Court shall not
accept any application unless it is shown that the applicant has
furnished
the Director of Lands with a copy of the application and all
annexes."
(Emphasis supplied).
[11]
Director of Forestry v. Muñoz, No. L-24796, June 28, 1968, 23
SCRA
1183, 1209.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |