G.R. No. 18664 - MARCH 1922 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 18664March 31, 1922 Maria Gonzalez vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. 18624March 31, 1922 Gregorio Marquez, et al.vs. Bartolome Revilla, et al. G.R. No. 16530March 31, 1922 Mamerto Laudico, et al. vs. Manuel Arias Rodriguez, et al. G.R. No. 17254March 29, 1922 Crispulo Villaruel vs. Tan King G.R. No. 17925March 28, 1922 People of the Philippines vs. Evaristo Abaya G.R. No. 18203March 27, 1922 People of the Philippines vs. Telesforo Dorado, et al. G.R. No. 17024March 24, 1922 Domingo Bearneza vs. Balbino Dequila G.R. No. 17933March 23, 1922 People of the Philippines vs. Atanasio Nanquil G.R. No. 16924March 23, 1922 United States vs. Gregorio Perfecto G.R. No. 18402March 22, 1922 Calixto Berbari vs. Carlos A. Imperial, et al. G.R. No. 17866March 20, 1922 Andree C. Chereau vs. Asuncion Fuentebella, et al. HorrillenoMarch 20, 1922 In re: Antonio Horrilleno G.R. No. 18240March 18, 1922 People of the Philippines vs. Engracia Capacia G.R. No. 18054March 18, 1922 People of the Philippines vs. Arsenio R. Suñga TionkoMarch 17, 1922 In re: Eusebio Tionko G.R. No. 17230March 17, 1922 Jose Velasco vs. Tan Liuan & Co., et al. G.R. No. 18056March 16, 1922 United States vs. Angel R. Sevilla G.R. No. 18336March 15, 1922 Sikatuna vs. Potenciana Guevara, et al. G.R. No. 17865March 15, 1922 People of the Philippines vs. Cipriana Bucsit, et al. G.R. No. 17633March 14, 1922 Clara W. Gilmer vs. L. Hilliard G.R. No. 16869March 13, 1922 Heirs of Antonio Enriquez, et al. vs. Francisco Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. 18600March 9, 1922 B.E. Johannes vs. George R. Harvey, et al. G.R. No. 18432March 9, 1922 People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Encarnacion G.R. No. 17436March 9, 1922 People of the Philippines vs. Sergio Manzanilla, et al. G.R. No. 16878March 9, 1922 Serapio Banaad vs. Alejandro Castañeda G.R. No. 16570March 9, 1922 Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. vs. Vicente Sotelo Matti G.R. No. 16492March 9, 1922 E. Macias & Co. vs. Warner, Barnes & Co. G.R. No. 15950March 9, 1922 Carlos Palanca vs. Director of Lands, et al. G.R. No. 18699March 8, 1922 Tan Chico vs. Pedro Concepcio, et al. G.R. No. 17584March 8, 1922 People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Santiago G.R. No. 17603March 8, 1922 People of the Philippines vs. Rosalio Panaligan, et al. G.R. No. 17729March 7, 1922 L.P. Fiege, et al. vs. Smith, Bell & Company, Ltd., et al. G.R. No. 17283March 7, 1922 People of the Philippines vs. Sixto Hernandez, et al. G.R. No. 1755March 4, 1922 People of the Philippines vs. Graciano L. Cabrera, et al. G.R. No. 17748March 4, 1922 People of the Philippines vs. Graciano L. Cabrera, et al. G.R. No. 17493March 4, 1922 United States vs. Gregorio Perfecto, et al. G.R. No. 18081March 3, 1922 In re: Cheong Boo. Mora Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee G.R. No. 17775March 1, 1922 United States vs. Pedro Vega, et al. G.R. No. 17226March 1, 1922 L.S. Moon & Co. vs. Francis Burton Harrison, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Maria Gonzalez vs. Director of Lands Gregorio Marquez, et al.vs. Bartolome Revilla, et al. Mamerto Laudico, et al. vs. Manuel Arias Rodriguez, et al. Crispulo Villaruel vs. Tan King People of the Philippines vs. Evaristo Abaya People of the Philippines vs. Telesforo Dorado, et al. Domingo Bearneza vs. Balbino Dequila People of the Philippines vs. Atanasio Nanquil United States vs. Gregorio Perfecto Calixto Berbari vs. Carlos A. Imperial, et al. Andree C. Chereau vs. Asuncion Fuentebella, et al. In re: Antonio Horrilleno People of the Philippines vs. Engracia Capacia People of the Philippines vs. Arsenio R. Suñga In re: Eusebio Tionko Jose Velasco vs. Tan Liuan & Co., et al. United States vs. Angel R. Sevilla Sikatuna vs. Potenciana Guevara, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Cipriana Bucsit, et al. Clara W. Gilmer vs. L. Hilliard Heirs of Antonio Enriquez, et al. vs. Francisco Enriquez, et al. B.E. Johannes vs. George R. Harvey, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Encarnacion People of the Philippines vs. Sergio Manzanilla, et al. Serapio Banaad vs. Alejandro Castañeda Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. vs. Vicente Sotelo Matti E. Macias & Co. vs. Warner, Barnes & Co. Carlos Palanca vs. Director of Lands, et al. Tan Chico vs. Pedro Concepcio, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Santiago People of the Philippines vs. Rosalio Panaligan, et al. L.P. Fiege, et al. vs. Smith, Bell & Company, Ltd., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Sixto Hernandez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Graciano L. Cabrera, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Graciano L. Cabrera, et al. United States vs. Gregorio Perfecto, et al. In re: Cheong Boo. Mora Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee United States vs. Pedro Vega, et al. L.S. Moon & Co. vs. Francis Burton Harrison, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 18664 March 31, 1922
MARIA GONZALEZ,petitioner,
vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS,respondent.
Vicente Sotto for petitioner.
Attorney-General Villa-Real for respondent.
ROMUALDEZ,J.:
This is an action for mandamus, originally commenced in this court, to compel the Director of Lands to issue a certificate of title to the herein petitioner over lot no. 271, under the provisions of sections 12 and 16 of Act No. 1120, with costs.
In his answer to this petition, the respondent, through his counsel, the Attorney-General, denies generally an specifically the facts alleged by the petitioner and asks for the dismissal of the action with the costs against the petitioner.
A dispute having thus arisen as to the facts, this court commissioned its clerk to receive, after due notice to the parties, the evidence which they might desire to present. Consequently, both parties introduced their evidence, from which the following facts appear:
On the 26th of January, 1909, the Director of Lands agreed to sell to Francisco Gonzalez, the father of the petitioner, lot No. 271, now in question, for the price of eighty-four pesos (P84), payable in nineteen yearly installments. Payments on these installments were made until the amount of the price was fully paid.
The aforesaid lot No. 271 adjoins lot No. 270, for the purchase of which Pablo Manguerra has applied. It was found by Pablo Manguerra that the camarin (shed) which ought to be within lot No. 270 covered by his application, was within lot No. 271, that is to say, that the boundaries of this lot No. 271 should be so fixed as not to include the saidcamarin, which, the petitioner admits, does not belong to her, nor to her predecessor in interest, Francisco Gonzalez.
In a letter dated August 20, 1919, the Director of Lands advised Francisco Gonzalez of this error, committed in the survey of these two lots, and since then negotiations have been held with a view to an amicable settlement, to which the petitioner seems to be opposed, alleging that the camarin belongs to the brother of her father, but that the latter is the owner of the land on which it is situated.
There exists, therefore, a controversy as to whether thecamarinin question should, or should not, be included in lot No. 271, that is, as to what the true limits of this lot should be. This being the case, the object which is the subject-matter of this contract of sale is not definite, and the duty of the respondent to issue the title in question not yet clear.
Whether the Director of lands may, or may not, have contracted any obligation under this sale, is not a matter to be decided in this proceeding. The question is whether or not the Director of Lands has the ministerial duty to issue the title claimed. And we believe that no such duty exists as yet under the aforesaid circumstances.
It appears from the record that the Director of Lands refuses to issue the title in question for the reason that it has not as yet been finally decided whether the land occupied by the aforesaidcamarinmust be included in lot No. 271, or in lot No. 270, the purchase of which has been applied for by different purchasers. Act No. 1120, specially sections 7, 11, and 12 thereof, gives the Director of Lands ample discretion to decide this question. Applying analogous statutes and solving a question similar to that under consideration, the Federal Supreme Court decided this point inIn reEmblen, laying down, among others, the following doctrine:
The determination of the contest between the claimants of conflicting rights of pre-emption, as well as the issue of a patent to either, was within the general jurisdiction and authority of the land department, and cannot be controlled . . . by mandamus. . . . (In reEmblen, 161 U. S., 52, 56; 40 L. e., 613.)
We find that the writ applied for cannot be issued in this proceeding; wherefore the petition is dismissed with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.
Araullo, C.J., Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand and Johns, JJ., concur.