1

G.R. No. L-60413 October 31, 1990 2) in favor of the Bureau of Forest Development, 12,341 hectares;

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, 3) in favor of the Heirs of Liberato Bayaua, 4,000 hectares; and
vs.
HON. SOFRONIO G. SAYO, Judge, Br. I, C I, Nueva Vizcaya, HEIRS OF CASIANO 4) in favor of Philippine Cacao & Farm Products, Inc., 8,000 hectares.
SANDOVAL, HEIRS OF LIBERATO BAYAUA, JOSE C. REYES, and PHILIPPINE CACAO
AND FARM PRODUCTS, INC., respondents.
The remaining area of 5,500 hectares was, under the compromise agreement, adjudicated to
and acknowledged as owned by the Heirs of Casiano Sandoval, but out of this area, 1,500
Celso D. Gangan respondent Heirs of Liberato Bayaua. hectares were assigned by the Casiano Heirs to their counsel, Jose C. Reyes, in payment of
his attorney's fees. In consideration of the areas respectively allocated to them, all the parties
Acosta & Associates fox Phil. Cacao and Farm Products, Inc. also mutually waived and renounced all their prior claims to and over Lot No. 7454 of the
Santiago Cadastre.
Jose Reyes & Associates for Heirs of Casiano Sandoval, et al.
In a decision rendered on March 5, 1981, the respondent Judge approved the compromise
agreement and confirmed the title and ownership of the parties in accordance with its terms.

NARVASA, J.: The Solicitor General, in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, has taken the present
recourse in a bid to have that decision of March 5, 1981 annulled as being patently void and
rendered in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Solicitor General
Sought to be annulled and set aside in this special civil action of certiorari is the decision of contends that —
respondent Judge Sofronio G. Sayo rendered on March 5, 1981 in Land Registration Case No.
N-109, LRC Record No. 20850, confirming, by virtue of a compromise agreement, the title of
the private respondents over a tract of land. 1) no evidence whatever was adduced by the parties in support of their petitions for registration;

The spouses, Casiano Sandoval and Luz Marquez, filed an original application for registration 2) neither the Director of Lands nor the Director of Forest Development had legal authority to
enter into the compromise agreement;
of a tract of land identified as Lot No. 7454 of the Cadastral Survey of Santiago, BL Cad. 211
(July 17, 1961) and having an area of 33,950 hectares. The land was formerly part of the
Municipality of Santiago, Province of Isabela, but had been transferred to Nueva Vizcaya in 3) as counsel of the Republic, he should have been but was not given notice of the compromise
virtue of Republic Act No. 236. agreement or otherwise accorded an opportunity to take part therein;

Oppositions were filed by the Government, through the Director of Lands and the Director of 4) that he was not even served with notice of the decision approving the compromise; it was the
Forestry, and some others, including the Heirs of Liberato Bayaua. 1 In due course, an order of Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Quirino Province that drew his attention to the "patently
general default was thereafter entered on December 11, 1961 against the whole world except erroneous decision" and requested him to take immediate remedial measures to bring about its
the oppositors. annulment.

The case dragged on for about twenty (20) years until March 3, 1981 when a compromise The respondents maintain, on the other hand, that the Solicitor General's arguments are
agreement was entered into by and among all the parties, assisted by their respective counsel, premised on the proposition that Lot 7454 is public land, but it is not. According to them, as
namely: the Heirs of Casiano Sandoval (who had since died), the Bureau of Lands, the Bureau pointed out in the application for registration, the private character of the land is demonstrated
of Forest Development, the Heirs of Liberato Bayaua, and the Philippine Cacao and Farm by the following circumstances, to wit:
Products, Inc. Under the compromise agreement, the Heirs of Casiano Sandoval (as applicants)
renounced their claims and ceded — 1) the possessory information title of the applicants and their predecessors-in-interest;

1) in favor of the Bureau of Lands, an area of 4,109 hectares; 2) the fact that Lot 7454 was never claimed to be public land by the Director of Lands in the
proper cadastral proceedings;
 2

3) the pre-war certification of the National Library dated August 16, 1932 to the effect that the part therein, a totally unacceptable proposition. The result has been the adjudication of lands of
(Estadistica de Propiedades) of Isabela issued in 1896 and appearing in the Bureau of Archives, no little extension to persons who had not submitted any substantiation at all of their pretensions
the property in question was registered under the 'Spanish system of land registration as private to ownership, founded on nothing but the agreement among themselves that they had rights
property owned by Don Liberato Bayaua, applicants' predecessors-in-interest; and interests over the land.

4) the proceeding for registration, brought under Act 496 (the Torrens Act) presupposes that The assent of the Directors of Lands and Forest Development to the compromise agreement
there is already a title to be confirmed by the court, distinguishing it from proceedings under the did not and could not supply the absence of evidence of title required of the private respondents.
Public Land Act where the presumption is always that the land involved belongs to the State.
As to the informacion posesoria invoked by the private respondents, it should be pointed out
Under the Regalian Doctrine 2 all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private that under the Spanish Mortgage Law, it was considered a mode of acquiring title to public
ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Hence it is that all applicants in land registration lands, subject to two (2) conditions: first, the inscription thereof in the Registry of Property, and
proceedings have the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land thus sought to be second, actual, public, adverse, and uninterrupted possession of the land for twenty (20) years
registered forms part of the public domain. 3 Unless the applicant succeeds in showing by clear (later reduced to ten [10] years); but where, as here, proof of fulfillment of these conditions is
and convincing evidence that the property involved was acquired by him or his ancestors either absent, the informacion posesoria cannot be considered as anything more than prima
by composition title from the Spanish Government or by possessory information title, or any facie evidence of possession. 7
other means for the proper acquisition of public lands, the property must be held to be part of
the public domain . 4 The applicant must present competent and persuasive proof to Finally, it was error to disregard the Solicitor General in the execution of the compromise
substantiate his claim; he may not rely on general statements, or mere conclusions of law other agreement and its submission to the Court for approval. It is, after all, the Solicitor General, who
than factual evidence of possession and title. 5 is the principal counsel of the Government; this is the reason for our holding that "Court orders
and decisions sent to the fiscal, acting as agent of the Solicitor General in land registration
In the proceeding at bar, it appears that the principal document relied upon and presented by cases, are not binding until they are actually received by the Solicitor General." 8
the applicants for registration, to prove the private character of the large tract of land subject of
their application, was a photocopy of a certification of the National Library dated August 16, It thus appears that the compromise agreement and the judgment approving it must be, as they
1932 (already above mentioned) to the effect that according to the Government's (Estadistica are hereby, declared null and void, and set aside. Considerations of fairness however indicate
de Propiedades) of Isabela issued in 1896, the property in question was registered under the the remand of the case to the Registration Court so that the private parties may be afforded an
Spanish system of land registration as private property of Don Liberato Bayaua. But, as this opportunity to establish by competent evidence their respective claims to the property.
Court has already had occasion to rule, that Spanish document, the (Estadistica de
Propiedades,) cannot be considered a title to property, it not being one of the grants made
during the Spanish regime, and obviously not constituting primary evidence of ownership. 6 It is WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Judge complained of is ANNULLED and SET
an inefficacious document on which to base any finding of the private character of the land in ASIDE. Land Registration Case No. N-109 subject of the petition is REMANDED to the court of
question. origin which shall conduct further appropriate proceedings therein, receiving the evidence of the
parties and thereafter rendering judgment as such evidence and the law may warrant. No
pronouncement as to costs.
And, of course, to argue that the initiation of an application for registration of land under the
Torrens Act is proof that the land is of private ownership, not pertaining to the public domain, is
to beg the question. It is precisely the character of the land as private which the applicant has SO ORDERED.
the obligation of establishing. For there can be no doubt of the intendment of the Land
Registration Act, Act 496, that every applicant show a proper title for registration; indeed, even Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
in the absence of any adverse claim, the applicant is not assured of a favorable decree by the
Land Registration Court, if he fails to establish a proper title for official recognition.

It thus appears that the decision of the Registration Court a quo is based solely on the
compromise agreement of the parties. But that compromise agreement included private
persons who had not adduced any competent evidence of their ownership over the land subject
of the registration proceeding. Portions of the land in controversy were assigned to persons or
entities who had presented nothing whatever to prove their ownership of any part of the land.
What was done was to consider the compromise agreement as proof of title of the parties taking