Director of Lands Vs Abaja

DOCTRINE:
By looking at and investigating the legislative history of the stature, the court will be able to arrive at its
correct interpretation.
CASE SUMMARY:
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros denying the motion
of the appellants to set aside the decision of that court in Cadastral Case No. 22, G. L. R. O. Record No.
174. declaring lot No. No. 712 public land, and to reopen the case as to said lot in accordance with the
provisions of Act No. 4043 of the Philippine Legislature.
FACTS:
On June 12, 1919, the Assistant Director of Lands filed in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros
a petition praying that the titles with respect to a tract of land containing about 23,443,355 square
meters, divided into lots and situated in the municipality of Hog, Occidental Negros, be settled and
adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 2259, otherwise known as the Cadastral Act.
After due hearing, the lower court, in a decision dated August 15, 1925, declared lot No. 712, comprising
about 1,322 square meters, public land because no one appeared to claim it. On January 25, 1934, a
motion was filed in the same court by the herein appellants, Roman de Arruza and Mario Luzuriaga,
through their attorney, praying that the aforesaid decision of the lower court be set aside in so far as
lot No. 712 was concerned, that a new trial be granted and that they be allowed to present their claim
under the provisions of Act No. 4043.
On February 2, 1934, the provincial fiscal of Occidental Negros, on behalf of the government, filed an
opposition to the appellants' motion contending that the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros
had no jurisdiction to reopen the case with respect to lot No. 712 because the motion was not filed within
the time limit prescribed by Act No. 4043. On April 20, 1934, the judge of the said court denied the
motion of the appellants.
The appellants assign three errors alleged to have been committed by the court below all of which raise
but one legal question, namely, whether the ten-year period mentioned in Act No. 4043 should be
counted from the date the decision was rendered or from the date judicial proceedings were instituted
in a cadastral case.
ISSUE:
Can the appellants avail of the Act No. 4195?
HELD:
No. Because the because the cadastral proceedings in question were instituted on June 12, 1919, or
more than fifteen years before the approval of that Act. The decision of the lower court was affirmed.
RATIO:
In determining the intention of the lawmaker, we are permitted to look to prior laws on the same
subject and to investigate the antecedents or the legislative history of the statute involved:
o Act No. 4043 was not the only Act passed by the Philippine Legislature to enable persons
whose lands had been declared public lands by virtue of the operation of the cadastral system
to recover said lands after complying with certain prescribed conditions.
In 1923, the Legislature enacted Act No. 3059 (declared in force by Executive
Proclamation No. 57, dated September 25, 1923); in 1930, it approved Act No. 3672
(declared in force by Executive Proclamation No. 299, dated February 28, 1930), and
more recently in 1934, it passed Act No, 4195 (declared in force by Executive
Proclamation No. 767, dated February 7, 1935). A cursory scrutiny of these four Acts
will show that while the titles of Acts Nos. 4043 and 4195 refer to "parcels of
land that have been declared public land, by virtue of judicial decisions rendered
etc.", those of the earlier Acts Nos. 3059 and 3672 fail to make any such allusion. The
title of Act No. 3059 is as follows:
"An Act to provide that certain claims to parcels of land that have been
declared public land may be filed in the proper court within the period of
one year, under certain conditions." The title of Act No. 3672 is as follows:
"An Act to authorize the filing in the proper court, under certain conditions,
of certain claims of title to parcels of land that have been declared public
land, within the period of one year from the date of the promulgation of this
Act."
The title of Act No. 4043 is as follows:
o "An Act to authorize the filing in the proper court, under
certain conditions, of certain claims of title to parcels of land that
have been declared public land, by virtue of judicial decisions
rendered within the fifteen years next preceding the approval of this
Act." (Underscoring ours.)
And the title of Act No. 4195 reads:
o "An Act to authorize the filing in the proper court, under
certain conditions, of certain claims of title to parcels of land that
have been declared public land, by virtue of judicial decisions
rendered within the fifteen years next preceding the approval of this
Act." (Underscoring ours.) Upon the other hand, the bodies of all
the four Acts just mentioned speak in clear and, unmistakable terms
of parcels of land that "have been, or are about to be, declared land
of public domain, by virtue of judicial proceedings instituted etc,"
The discrepancy between the titles and the bodies of Acts Nos. 4043 and 4195 may be explained. Act
No. 4043 was originally House Bill No. 949 (First Session, Ninth Philippine Legislature). The said bill as
presented referred in both its title and body solely to the rendition of judicial decisions.
It will also be observed that the body of Act No. 4043, like those of Acts Nos. 3059, 3672 and 4195,
employ the phrase "are about to be, declared land of public domain". A judicial decision may declare
lands to be of the public domain but to say that a decision is about to declare it so would be
absurd. The fact that the construction placed upon the statute by the appellants would lead to an
absurdity is another argument for rejecting it.
The contention of the appellants that the reference made in Executive Proclamation No. 549 to the
rendition of judicial decisions as the starting point in the computation of the ten-year period
mentioned in Act No. 4043 amounts to a contemporaneous construction placed upon the statute by
the Executive Department of the Government and, therefore, is entitled to great weight and respect, is
devoid of foundation. All that the proclamation did was to copy the title of the statute to which it
referred. At any rate, the intention of the Legislature, as disclosed by a uniform trend of
legislation, is clearly expressed in the body of Act No. 4043, and it is our duty to give effect to that
intention in the case before us (sec. 288, Code of Civil Procedure).
The more recent Act No. 4195 repeals Act No. 4043. But the provisions of said Act No. 4195 can not be
availed of by the claimants and appellants herein, because the cadastral proceedings in question were
instituted on June 12, 1919, or more than fifteen years before the approval of that Act. It appearing,
however, that the other provisions of the Act have been complied with, that is to say, (1) that at the
time of the survey, the claimants were in actual possession of the parcel of land involved, (2) that for
some justifiable reason, they were unable to file their claim in. the proper court during the period
established by law, (3) that the land has not yet been alienated, reserved, teased, granted, or otherwise
provisionally or permanently disposed of by the Government, and (4) that all taxes, interests and
penalties thereof have been paid, the claimants and appellants herein may bring the matter to the
attention of the proper administrative authorities for such action as they might deem proper and
equitable.

Director of Lands Vs Abaja

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Director of Lands Vs Abaja

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Director of Lands Vs Abaja

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOCTRINE:

You might also like