Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > September 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13686 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF JUSTO MALFORE v. DlR. OF FORESTRY

109 Phil 586:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13686. September 30, 1960.]

HEIRS OF JUSTO MALFORE, applicants-appellees, v. DlRECTOR OF FORESTRY, Oppositor-Appellant.

Carolina Grino-Aquino for Appellees.

Asst. Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Antonio M. Consing for Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC LAND LAW; RESERVATION ALONG BANKS OF RIVERS FOR PERMANENT TIMBERLAND. — Section 90 of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended by Republic Act 1273, which imposes a reservation of forty meters wide along the bank on each side of any river or stream for the purpose of reserving the same as permanent timberland of the Government, is applicable only to lands of the public domain subsequently acquired by a private person or entity through any of the modes provided under said Act, and not to those sought to be registered as lands of private ownership under the provisions of the Cadastral Law or the Land Registration Act.

2. PRIVATE LANDS; SERVITUDE WHICH A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE COMPELLED TO RECOGNIZE IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT. — The only servitude which a private property owner is required to recognize in favor of the Government under Section 39 of the land registration Act, is the easement of a "public highway, way, private way established by law, or any government canal or lateral thereof," where the certificate of title does not state that the boundaries thereof have been determined. But, even in those cases, it is necessary that the easement should have been previously "established by law," which implies that the same should have been pre-existing at the time of the registration of the land in order that the registered owner may be compelled to respect it. Where the easement is not pre-existing, and is sought to be imposed after the Land has been Registered under the Land Registration Act, proper expropriation proceedings should be had, and just compensation paid to the registered owner thereof. For, it is elementary that public use may not be imposed on private property without proper expropriation proceedings and payment of just compensation made to the owner. (Sec. 1 [2], Art. III, Constitution; Rule 69, Rules of Court.)


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


This is an appeal taken by the Director of Forestry from an order of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo (in Cadastral Case No. 86) denying his motion to reserve a strip of land in Lot No. 5316 claimed by the heirs of Justo Malfore, as a permanent timberland, pursuant to Section 90 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 1273.

On January 20, 1947, Placida Malfore, acting in behalf of the heirs of Justo Malfore, filed an answer in the above-mentioned court and cadastral case, claiming ownership of a parcel of land (lot No. 5316) located in Barrio Quipot, Janiuay, Iloilo.

On November 24, 1952, the Director of Forestry, represented by the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo, filed an opposition to the said claim, alleging that a portion of said land is within a timberland reserved by the Director of Forestry on September 17, 1932 and belongs to the public domain.

On March 5, 1953, the court rendered a decision denying the claim of Malfore on the ground that they failed to prove their right of ownership to said land.

On August 23, 1953, the claimants filed a motion for reconsideration of said decision setting the same for hearing on August 29, 1953. For reasons which do not appear in the records, said motion remained enacted upon until on November 18, 1955, or after more than 2 years, the Director of Forestry, represented by the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo, withdrew his opposition to Malfore’s claim and, instead, filed a motion asking the court to reserve a strip of land, 40 meters wide, along the east bank of the Mapatag Creek in said Lot 5316, for the protection of its banks, or as a permanent timberland, pursuant to the provision of Section 90 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 1273, which went into effect on June 14, 1955.

On November 23, 1955, the Malfores filed an opposition to the said motion, claiming that the aforecited provision of the statute is not applicable to the land in question, as the same is not public land but the private property of the claimants. On the same date, the court rendered a decision, setting aside its former decision of March 5, 1953, and adjudicating said Lot No. 5316 and ordering its registration in favor of the Malfores.

On December 3, 1955, the court issued an order denying the aforementioned motion dated November 18, 1955 of the Director of Forestry. From this order, the Director of Forestry appealed to the Court of Appeals, but said court, in its resolution of January 27, 1958, elevated the case to this Court as the only question involved in the appeal is one of law.

The only issue presented in this appeal is whether Section 90 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 1273, is applicable only to lands of the public domain subsequently acquired by a private person or entity through sales patent, lease, or homestead under the said Act, or also to those sought to be registered as lands of private ownership under the provisions of the Cadastral Law 1 or the Land Registration Act. 2

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1273, purports to amend Section 90 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, known as the Public Land Law. As thus amended, said section reads:ClubJuris

"Sec. 90. Every application under the provisions of this Act shall be made under oath and shall set forth:clubjuris

x       x       x


"(i) That the applicant agrees that a strip forty meters wide starting from the bank on each side of any river or stream that may be found on the land applied for, shall be demarcated and preserved as permanent timberland to be planted exclusively to trees of known economic value, and that he shall not make any clearing thereon or utilize the same for ordinary farming purposes even after the patent shall have been issued to him or a contract of lease shall have been executed in his favor." (Italics supplied.)

From the above-quoted provisions, it is clear that Republic Act 1273 refers to lands covered by "applications under the provisions of this Act" (Public Land Law); that the applicant shall agree to such reservation, as a condition to the granting of his application; and that the condition is enforceable "even after the patent (sales, homestead or free) shall have been issued to him or a contract of lease shall have been executed in his favor." All of these conditions can refer only to applicants for portion of a public domain. Whatever right or title the applicant acquires, he obtains it from the government which is entitled to impose any condition. In the case at bar, there is no application under the Public Land Law, but a claim of private ownership under the Cadastral Act. The court merely confirms appellee’s title to the land as against the whole world including the government.

Furthermore, Section 2 of Commonwealth Act 141, of which Republic Act 1273 became part, explicitly provides that its provisions "shall apply to the lands of the public domain." (See Garcia v. Dinero, 45 Off. Gaz. [9th Supp. ] 101, citing Lecaste v. Director of Lands, 63 Phil., 654, and Lesada v. Omanan, 59 Phil., 547.) Since the land in question is, admittedly, private land (and was so claimed by appellee and adjudicated by the Court), and not land of the public domain, it is quite obvious that the above-quoted provision of Republic Act No. 1273 is inapplicable to it. (See Central Capiz v. Ramirez, 40 Phil., 883.)

In support of his argument that the provision of the statute quoted above is applicable to private lands, the oppositor-appellant, represented by the Solicitor General, cites Section 39 of the Land Registration Act as imposing a similar incumbrance on lands of private ownership registered under the Torrens System. The cited section provides:ClubJuris

"Sec. 39. Every person receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land who takes a certificate of title for value in good faith shall hold the same free of all incumbrances except those noted on said certificate, and any of the following incumbrances which may be subsisting, namely:clubjuris

x       x       x


"Third. Any public highway, way, private way established by law, or any Government irrigation canal or lateral thereof, where the certificate of title does not state that the boundaries of such highway, way, or irrigation canal or lateral thereof, have been determined.

"But if there were easements or other rights appurtenant to a parcel of registered land which for any reason have failed to be registered, such easements or rights shall remain so appurtenant notwithstanding such failure, and shall be held to pass with the land until cut off or extinguished by the registration of the servient estate, or in any other manner." clubjuris

Examination of the above-quoted provision, discloses nothing which can be constructed as divesting a private property owner of a portion of his land located along a creek, for the purpose of reserving the same as a permanent timberland of the Government. It has been held that the title intended to be created by the Land Registration Act, is one which is not subject to any sort of restriction, limitation, or reduction, except those named in the certificate of registration and in the law itself, as having been preserved against the land. (De Jesus v. City of Manila, 29 Phil., 73, citing City of Manila v. Lack, 19 Phil., 324.)

It is to be observed that the only servitude which a private property owner is required to recognize in favor of the Government under the aforequoted provision, is the easement of a "public highway, way, private way established by law, or any government canal or lateral thereof," where the certificate of title does not state that the boundaries thereof have been determined. But, even in these cases, it is necessary that the easement should have been previously "established by law," which implies that the same should have been pre-existing at the time of the registration of the land in order that the registered owner may be compelled to respect it. Where the easement is not per-existing and is sought to be imposed after the land has been registered under the Land Registration Act, proper expropriation proceedings should be had, and just compensation paid to the registered owner thereof. For, it is elementary that public use may not be imposed on private property without proper expropriation proceedings and payment of just compensation made to the owner. (See. 1 [21, Art III, Constitution; Rule 69, Rules of Court.)

It is our conclusion, therefore, that Section 90 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act 1273, is applicable only to lands of the public domain subsequently acquired by a private person or entity through any of the modes provided under said Act, and not to those sought to be registered as lands of private ownership under the provisions of the Cadastral Law or the Land Registration Act.

Wherefore, finding no error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed. So ordered, without costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Act No. 2259, as amended.

2. Act No. 496, as amended.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



September-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12645 September 15, 1960 - JUANA PADRON VDA. DE VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-14179 September 15, 1960 - PERMANENT CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. JUAN FRIVALDO

    109 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-13943 September 19, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELIANO ARRANCHADO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-13815 September 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS OYCO

    109 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. L-14740 September 26, 1960 - ANDRES SANTOS, ET AL. v. HON. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ETC.

    109 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-14939 September 26, 1960 - ELVIRA VIDAL TUASON DE RICKARDS v. ANDRES F. GONZALES

    109 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-12298 September 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO AGARIN

    109 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. L-12906 September 29, 1960 - DUMANGAY GUITING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. L-13255 September 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSE COJUANGCO

    109 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-13475 September 29, 1960 - PHIL. SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-15226 September 29, 1960 - LEE GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-10119 September 30, 1960 - RAFAEL LACSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 462

  • G.R. Nos. L-10352-53 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO MANlGBAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-11329 September 30, 1960 - CIPRIANO B. MOTOS v. ROBERTO SOLER, ET AL.

    109 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-11440 September 30, 1960 - SERGIO F. DEL CASTILLO v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-12030 September 30, 1960 - JOSE J. ROTEA v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    109 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-12149 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF EMILIO CANDELARIA, ETC. v. LUISA ROMERO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. L-12328 September 30, 1960 - CARLOS J. RIVERA v. TOMAS T. TIRONA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-12353 September 30, 1960 - NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-12641 September 30, 1960 - EMILIANA C. ESTRELLA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM., ET AL.

    109 Phil 514

  • G.R. Nos. L-12664-65 September 30, 1960 - ANTONINO LAZARO, ET AL. v. FIDELA R. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-12894 September 30, 1960 - LILIA JUANA BARLES, ET AL. v. DON ALFONSO PONCE ENRILE

    109 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-13023 September 30, 1960 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. TERESA DUAT VDA. DE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-13283 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERAPIO CARUNUNGAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-13349 September 30, 1960 - MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR C. CALAMBA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 542

  • G.R. Nos. L-13389-90 September 30, 1960 - CAPITOL SUBD., INC., ET AL. v. ALFREDO LOPEZ MONTELIBANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-13417 September 30, 1960 - JOSE B. VILLACORTA, ETC. v. HON. FERNANDO VILLAROSA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-13426 September 30, 1960 - INT’L. OIL FACTORY v. TOMASA MARTINEZ VDA. DE DORIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-13446 September 30, 1960 - MAXIMO SISON v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-13467 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN NECESITO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-13546 September 30, 1960 - GREGORIO VERZOSA v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 571

  • G.R. Nos. L-13567-68 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSARIO B. DE LEON

    109 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-13582 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO P. BAYLOSIS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-13686 September 30, 1960 - HEIRS OF JUSTO MALFORE v. DlR. OF FORESTRY

    109 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. L-13912 September 30, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CONSUELO L. VDA. DE PRIETO

    109 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. L-13941 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO A. RODRIGUEZ, ETC. v. S. BLAQUERA, ETC.

    109 Phil 598

  • G.R. Nos. L-13992 & L-14035 September 30, 1960 - MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    109 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-14008 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRIZON REMOLLINO

    109 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-14348 September 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRIACO YEBRA

    109 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. L-14395 September 30, 1960 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. CATALINA V. YANDOC, ET AL.

    109 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. L-14497 September 30, 1960 - FELIX PAULINO, SR., ET AL. v. HON. JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-14628 September 30, 1960 - FRANCISCO HERMOSISIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. L-14630 September 30, 1960 - LY HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. L-14733 September 30, 1960 - ERLINDA ESTOPA v. LORETO PIANSAY, JR.

    109 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. L-14737 September 30, 1960 - LEONCIA VELASCO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-14817 September 30, 1960 - ANDRES G. SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. NORTHERN LUZON TRANS. CO. INC.

    109 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-14822 September 30, 1960 - KHAW DY, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    109 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. L-14874 September 30, 1960 - ANTONIO PEREZ v. ANGELA TUASON DE PEREZ

    109 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-14914 September 30, 1960 - JOHN TAN CHIN ENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-14930 September 30, 1960 - MARLI PLYWOOD & VENEER CORP. v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-15021 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. L-15101 September 30, 1960 - IN RE: CHUA TIAN SANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. L-15158 September 30, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. HON. NECIAS O. MENDOZA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. L-15179 September 30, 1960 - TEODORA AMAR v. JESUS ODIAMAN

    109 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-15208 September 30, 1960 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO GANGCAYCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-15266 September 30, 1960 - TAN HOI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-15274 September 30, 1960 - DOMINGO ALMONTE UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-15305 September 30, 1960 - CITY OF MANILA v. ARCADIO PALLUGNA

    109 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-15327 September 30, 1960 - FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. HON. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

    109 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-15380 September 30, 1960 - CHAN WAN v. TAN KIM, ET AL.

    109 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-15392 September 30, 1960 - REX TAXlCAB CO., INC. v. JOSE BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-15454 September 30, 1960 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. EMILIANA FERRER, ET AL.

    109 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. L-15802 September 30, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGALONA, JR., ET AL.

    109 Phil 723

  • G.R. Nos. L-15928-33 September 30, 1960 - DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS CIA. DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-16088 September 30, 1960 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. FIDELA MORIN DE MARBELLA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-16226 September 30, 1960 - GUILLERMO REÑOSA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 740