Case Digest - City of Baguio Et Al Vs Hon. Pio Marcos, CFI Et Al GR No L-26100 1969

G.R. No.
L-26100 February 28, 1969
CITY OF BAGUlO, REFORESTATION ADMINISTRATION,

FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, SR., FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR., and TERESITA J.
BUCHHOLZ petitioners,
vs.
HON. PIO R. MARCOS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Baguio,
BELONG LUTES, and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
1st Assistant City Fiscal Dionisio C. Claridad, Augusto Tobias and Feria, Feria, Lugtu and La'O
for petitioners.
Bernardo C. Ronquillo for respondents.
SANCHEZ, J.:
FACTS:
On April 12, 1912, the Director of Lands in the Court of First Instance of Baguio instituted the
reopening of cadastral proceedings (a land registration/ titling proceeding) Civil Case No.1. A
decision on November 13, 1922 was rendered; the land involved (Baguio Townsite) was
among those declared public lands.
On July 25, 1961, Belong Lutes petitioned cadastral court to reopen said civil case. He claims
that the land (Baguio Townsite) be registered in his name upon the grounds that:
1.) he and his predecessors have been in continuous possession and cultivation of
the land since Spanish times;
2.) his predecessors were illiterate Igorots, thus were not able to file their claim to
the land in question.
On the other hand, Francisco G. Joaquin Sr., Francisco G. Joaquin, Jr. and Teresita J. Buchholz,
as tree farm lessees of the land in question, opposed the reopening. Their contentions are as
follows:
1.) The reopening petition was filed outside the 40-year period provided by R.A.
931;
2.) Petition to reopen the case was not published; and
3.) as lessees of the land, they have a standing to appear in the reopening
proceedings.
ISSUE/HELD:
- WoN the title of RA 931 is in conflict with Sec. 1 of the same act?
a.) YES
The Title of the Act reads —

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 FORTY YEARS NEXT
PRECEDING THE APPROVAL OF THIS ACT.
Section 1 thereof provides —
SECTION 1. All persons claiming title to parcels of land that have been
the object of cadastral proceedings, who at the time of the survey were in
actual possession of the same, but for some justifiable reason had been unable
to file their claim in the proper court during the time limit established by law, in
case such parcels of land, on account of their failure to file such claims, have
been, or are about to be declared land of the public domain by virtue of
judicial proceedings instituted within the forty years next preceding
the approval of this Act, are hereby granted the right within five years
after the date on which this Act shall take effect, to petition for a
reopening of the judicial proceedings under the provisions of Act
Numbered Twenty-two hundred and fifty-nine, as amended, only with respect to
such of said parcels of land as have not been alienated, reserved, leased,
granted, or otherwise provisionally or permanently disposed of by the
Government, and the competent Court of First Instance, upon receiving such
petition, shall notify the Government through the Solicitor General, and if after
hearing the parties, said court shall find that all conditions herein established
have been complied with, and that all taxes, interests and penalties thereof
have been paid from the time when land tax should have been collected until
the day when the motion is presented, it shall order said judicial proceedings
reopened as if no action has been taken on such parcels.
- WoN private petitioners have personality to appear in the reopening proceedings?
a.) YES. The court allowed the reopening of the case since the case was filed within
the 40-year period imposed by the act.
If the title is to be followed, the date November 13, 1922 should be the
date used in reckoning the period (which is still within the 40-year period;
counted from the date of the enactment of R.A. 931 which is June 20, 1953).
But if the wordings of the title are to be followed, the date April 12, 1912,
which is the date the Director of lands instituted the reopening of the case,
would render the petition invalid since it is already outside the 40-year period.
The rule on statutory construction provides that laws should be construed

liberally. The spirit or the intent of the law should be looked upon and should prevail over its
letter.
In this case, R.A. 931 clearly gives an opportunity to any person who has
any interest in any parcel of land which has been declared as public
land to present his claim within the time prescribed. This act is a piece
of remedial legislation; its intent provides a mode of relief to landowners who,
before the act had no legal means of perfecting titles. Therefore, the court
cannot see an inconsistency between the title and its section.
The title of the act is indisputably clear, as it expresses the very substance of
the law itself. The constitutional jurisdiction that the subject of the statute
must be expressed in the title, breathes the spirit of command because the
constitution does not exact of Congress the obligation to read during its
deliberations the entire text of the bill.
Therefore, by the statute, the petition of Lutes to reopen the case, decision on
which was rendered on Nov. 13, 1922, comes within the 40-year period.

Case Digest - City of Baguio Et Al Vs Hon. Pio Marcos, CFI Et Al GR No L-26100 1969

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - City of Baguio Et Al Vs Hon. Pio Marcos, CFI Et Al GR No L-26100 1969

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

Case Digest - City of Baguio Et Al Vs Hon. Pio Marcos, CFI Et Al GR No L-26100 1969

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the petition filed by Belong Lutes about?

What were the contentions of Francisco G. Joaquin Sr., Francisco G. Joaquin, Jr. and Teresita J. Buchholz in opposing the reopening?

G.R. No.

L-26100 February 28, 1969

CITY OF BAGUlO, REFORESTATION ADMINISTRATION,

2.) Petition to reopen the case was not published; and

The Title of the Act reads —

Section 1 thereof provides —

- WoN private petitioners have personality to appear in the reopening proceedings?

The rule on statutory construction provides that laws should be construed

You might also like