G.R. No. 44237 - FEBRUARY 1989 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 44237February 28, 1989Victoria Ong De Ocsio vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 53597February 28, 1989D.C. Crystal, Inc. vs. Alfredo C. Laya G.R. No. 55226February 28, 1989Nic V. Garces, et al. vs. Hon. Vicente P. Valenzuela, et al. G.R. No. 55228February 28, 1989Miguela Cabutin vs. Geronimo Amacio G.R. No. 56803February 28, 1989Lucas M. Caparros vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 59438February 28, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Jose Salondro, Jr. G.R. No. 62219February 28, 1989Spouses Teofisto Verceles vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch XV-Pasig) G.R. No. 78210February 28, 1989Teofilo Arica, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 80391February 28, 1989Sultan Alimbusar P. Limbona vs. Conte Mangelin G.R. No. 81123February 28, 1989Crisostomo Rebollido, et al. vs. Honorable Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82252February 28, 1989Seagull Maritime Corporation vs. Nerry D. Balatongan G.R. Nos. 83635-53February 28, 1989Delia Crystal vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. No. 32266February 27, 1989The Director of Forestry vs. Ruperto A. Villareal G.R. No. 34807February 27, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Fabio Tachado G.R. No. 46955February 27, 1989Consorcia Agustino, et al. vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 48129February 27, 1989Teresita M. Esquivel vs. Joaquin O. Ilustre G.R. Nos. 62968-69February 27, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Ruperto Gimongala G.R. No. 66634February 27, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Agapito Molato G.R. No. 74065February 27, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Nerio C. Gaddi G.R. No. 74657February 27, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Serrano G.R. No. 74871February 27, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Celso Jandayan Y Inojales G.R. No. 74964February 27, 1989Dilson Enterprises, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 76893February 27, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Paco G.R. No. 77980February 27, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Eddie Abaya, et al. G.R. No. 78269February 27, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Romeo G. Bachar G.R. No. 78517February 27, 1989Gabino Alita, et al, vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80001February 27, 1989Carlos Leobrera vs. the Court of Appeals G.R. No. 83558February 27, 1989National Power Corporation vs. Honorable Abraham P. Vera G.R. No. 40628February 24, 1989Tropical Homes Inc. vs. Onofre Villaluz G.R. No. 55090February 24, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Loreto Canizar Gohol G.R. No. 85497February 24, 1989Eastern Paper Mills Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 35578February 23, 1989The People of the Philippines vs. Pedrito Detalla, et al. G.R. No. 40824February 23, 1989Government Service Insurance System vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 41423February 23, 1989Luis Joseph vs. Crispin V. Bautista G.R. No. 49344February 23, 1989Aristoteles Reynoso vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 53569February 23, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Robles G.R. No. 82998February 23, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Baluyot G.R. No. 75866February 23, 1989The New Owners/Management of Tml Garments vs. Antonio V. Zaragosa G.R. Nos. 84673-74February 21, 1989Florencio Salvacion vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. 47275February 21, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Ceferino Somera @ Boy G.R. No. 47917February 21, 1989Rufino Mendivel vs. Secretary of National Defense G.R. No. 48122February 21, 1989Visia Reyes vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. 53969February 21, 1989Purificacion Samala vs. Hon. Luis L. Victor G.R. No. 64571February 21, 1989Teodoro N. Florendo vs. Hon. Judge Luis R. Ruiz G.R. No. 76427February 21, 1989Johnson and Johnson Labor Union-Ffw vs. Director of Labor Relations G.R. No. 81385February 21, 1989Eduardo B. Olaguer vs. Regional Trial Court G.R. No. 81389February 21, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Renato C. Dacudao G.R. No. 81520February 21, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Neil Tejada G.R. No. 83699February 21, 1989Philamlife Insurance Company vs. Hon. Edna Bonto-Perez G.R. No. 30859February 20, 1989Maria Mayuga Vda. De Cailles vs. Dominador Mayuga G.R. No. 35825February 20, 1989Cora Legados vs. Hon. Doroteo De Guzman G.R. No. 39451February 20, 1989Isidro M. Javier vs. Purificacion C. Reyes G.R. No. 44642February 20, 1989Auria Limpot vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 45323February 20, 1989Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Hon. Francisco L. Estrella G.R. No. 63561February 20, 1989Marcelina Loay Dingal vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 68021February 20, 1989Heirs of Fausta Dimaculangan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 81031February 20, 1989Dr. Arturo L. Alejandro vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 84076February 20, 1989Col. Antonio Q. Romero vs. Chief of Staff, AFP G.R. No. 55322February 16, 1989Moises Jocson vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 72476February 14, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Armando Y. Macabenta G.R. Nos. 75440-43February 14, 1989Alejandro G. Macadangdang vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 72424February 13, 1989Intestate Estate of Carmen De Luna vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 74930February 13, 1989Ricardo Valmonte, et al. vs. Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. G.R. No. 80058February 13, 1989Ernesto R. Ang vs. the Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 79937-38February 13, 1989Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. vs. Maximiano C. Asuncion B.M. No. 44February 10, 1989Eufrosina Yap Tan vs. Nicolas El. Sabandal G.R. No. 34710February 10, 1989Armando Locsin vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 51450February 10, 1989Valentin Solivel vs. Hon. Marcelino M. Francisco G.R. No. 76018February 10, 1989Philippine National Bank vs. Hon. Benigno M. Puno G.R. No. 79596February 10, 1989C.W.Tan Mfg. vs. National Labor Relations Commission A.M. No. 1616February 9, 1989Rodora D. Camus vs. Atty. Danilo T. Diaz A.M. No. 2361February 9, 1989Leonila J. Licuanan vs. Atty. Manuel L. Melo G.R. No. 38969-70February 9, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Feliciano Muñoz G.R. No. 48705February 9, 1989Eduardo V. Reyes vs. Minister of Labor G.R. No. 64362February 9, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Honorable Rafael M. Declaro G.R. No. 67662February 9, 1989People of the Philippines vs. Marcos Manalang G.R. No. 73022February 9, 1989Georgia Adlawan, et al. vs. the Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. Nos. 77930-31February 9, 1989Jeremias Ebajan vs. the Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 78239February 9, 1989Salvacion A. Monsanto vs. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. G.R. No. 83320February 9, 1989Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. NLRC G.R. No. 50422February 8, 1989Nicolas Arradaza vs. Honorable Court of Appeals G.R. No. 50954February 8, 1989Eduardo Sierra vs. Government Service Insurance System G.R. No. 53515February 8, 1989San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union (Ptgwo) vs. Hon. Blas F. Ople, et al. G.R. No. 55665February 8, 1989Delta Motor Corporation vs. Eduarda Samson Genuino, et al. G.R. No. 57664February 8, 1989Angelito Ortega vs. the Honorable Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 58910February 8, 1989The Robert Dollar Company vs. the Hon. Juan C. Tuvera G.R. No. 77828February 8, 1989Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration G.R. No. 79752February 8, 1989Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80587February 8, 1989Wenphil Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 82819February 8, 1989Luz Lumanta, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 84141February 8, 1989Top Rate International Services, Inc. vs. the Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 28661February 2, 1989Raymundo Seriña, et al. vs. the Court of Appeals G.R. No. 79690-707February 1, 1989Enrique A. Zaldivar vs. the Honorable Sandiganbayan, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Victoria Ong De Ocsio vs. Court of AppealsD.C. Crystal, Inc. vs. Alfredo C. LayaNic V. Garces, et al. vs. Hon. Vicente P. Valenzuela, et al.Miguela Cabutin vs. Geronimo AmacioLucas M. Caparros vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Jose Salondro, Jr.Spouses Teofisto Verceles vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch XV-Pasig)Teofilo Arica, et al. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionSultan Alimbusar P. Limbona vs. Conte MangelinCrisostomo Rebollido, et al. vs. Honorable Court of AppealsSeagull Maritime Corporation vs. Nerry D. BalatonganDelia Crystal vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.The Director of Forestry vs. Ruperto A. VillarealPeople of the Philippines vs. Fabio TachadoConsorcia Agustino, et al. vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.Teresita M. Esquivel vs. Joaquin O. IlustrePeople of the Philippines vs. Ruperto GimongalaPeople of the Philippines vs. Agapito MolatoPeople of the Philippines vs. Nerio C. GaddiPeople of the Philippines vs. Leonardo SerranoPeople of the Philippines vs. Celso Jandayan Y InojalesDilson Enterprises, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Eduardo PacoPeople of the Philippines vs. Eddie Abaya, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Romeo G. BacharGabino Alita, et al, vs. Court of AppealsCarlos Leobrera vs. the Court of AppealsNational Power Corporation vs. Honorable Abraham P. VeraTropical Homes Inc. vs. Onofre VillaluzPeople of the Philippines vs. Loreto Canizar GoholEastern Paper Mills Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionThe People of the Philippines vs. Pedrito Detalla, et al.Government Service Insurance System vs. Court of AppealsLuis Joseph vs. Crispin V. BautistaAristoteles Reynoso vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Felipe RoblesPeople of the Philippines vs. Mariano BaluyotThe New Owners/Management of Tml Garments vs. Antonio V. ZaragosaFlorencio Salvacion vs. Commission on ElectionsPeople of the Philippines vs. Ceferino Somera @ BoyRufino Mendivel vs. Secretary of National DefenseVisia Reyes vs. Republic of the PhilippinesPurificacion Samala vs. Hon. Luis L. VictorTeodoro N. Florendo vs. Hon. Judge Luis R. RuizJohnson and Johnson Labor Union-Ffw vs. Director of Labor RelationsEduardo B. Olaguer vs. Regional Trial CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Hon. Renato C. DacudaoPeople of the Philippines vs. Neil TejadaPhilamlife Insurance Company vs. Hon. Edna Bonto-PerezMaria Mayuga Vda. De Cailles vs. Dominador MayugaCora Legados vs. Hon. Doroteo De GuzmanIsidro M. Javier vs. Purificacion C. ReyesAuria Limpot vs. Court of AppealsPhilippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Hon. Francisco L. EstrellaMarcelina Loay Dingal vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtHeirs of Fausta Dimaculangan vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtDr. Arturo L. Alejandro vs. People of the PhilippinesCol. Antonio Q. Romero vs. Chief of Staff, AFPMoises Jocson vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Armando Y. MacabentaAlejandro G. Macadangdang vs. SandiganbayanIntestate Estate of Carmen De Luna vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Ricardo Valmonte, et al. vs. Feliciano Belmonte, Jr.Ernesto R. Ang vs. the Court of AppealsSun Insurance Office, Ltd. vs. Maximiano C. AsuncionEufrosina Yap Tan vs. Nicolas El. SabandalArmando Locsin vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Valentin Solivel vs. Hon. Marcelino M. FranciscoPhilippine National Bank vs. Hon. Benigno M. PunoC.W.Tan Mfg. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionRodora D. Camus vs. Atty. Danilo T. DiazLeonila J. Licuanan vs. Atty. Manuel L. MeloPeople of the Philippines vs. Feliciano MuñozEduardo V. Reyes vs. Minister of LaborPeople of the Philippines vs. Honorable Rafael M. DeclaroPeople of the Philippines vs. Marcos ManalangGeorgia Adlawan, et al. vs. the Hon. Intermediate Appellate CourtJeremias Ebajan vs. the Hon. Court of AppealsSalvacion A. Monsanto vs. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr.Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. NLRCNicolas Arradaza vs. Honorable Court of AppealsEduardo Sierra vs. Government Service Insurance SystemSan Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union (Ptgwo) vs. Hon. Blas F. Ople, et al.Delta Motor Corporation vs. Eduarda Samson Genuino, et al.Angelito Ortega vs. the Honorable SandiganbayanThe Robert Dollar Company vs. the Hon. Juan C. TuveraEastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Philippine Overseas Employment AdministrationSolid Homes, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsWenphil Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionLuz Lumanta, et al. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionTop Rate International Services, Inc. vs. the Court of Appeals, et al.Raymundo Seriña, et al. vs. the Court of AppealsEnrique A. Zaldivar vs. the Honorable Sandiganbayan, et al.The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-44237 February 28, 1989
VICTORIA ONG DE OCSIO,petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and the RELIGIOUS OF THE VIRGIN MARY, represented by M.O. Leoncia Pacquing, R.V.M.,respondents.
Elpedio N. Cabasan for petitioner.
Padilla Law Office for private respondent.
NARVASA,J.:
From the adverse judgment of the Court of Appeals,1affirmingin totothat of the Trial Court,2the petitioner has come to this Court on an appeal by certiorari to plead for reversal of (1) the factual determination that she had sold the lot in controversy to private respondent, and (2) the legal conclusion that neither the 1973 nor the 1987 Constitution disqualifies the corporation known as the Religious of the Virgin Mary, from acquiring the land in question and registering it in its name. In light of the time-honored rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally final, and the doctrine lately laid down by this Court on the precise legal issue now raised by petitioner, her appeal must fail.
The controversy at bar arose in connection with cadastral proceedings initiated by the Director of Lands, in behalf of the Republic, for the settlement and adjudication of title to a large tract of land measuring 261.5791 hectares, divided into 1,419 lots, situated in the City of Iligan.3
Victoria Ong de Ocsio (herein petitioner) seasonably presented an answer to the petition. She alleged that she was the owner, by purchase, of two (2) parcels of land with specific boundaries comprehended in the cadastral proceeding: Lot No. 1272, measuring 256 square meters, and Lot 1273 a road lot, measuring 21 square meters; and that as owner, she had been in possession of both lots for fifteen (15) years, and her predecessors-in-interest, for sixty (60) years.4Title to the same parcels of land was however claimed by the Religious of the Virgin Mary.5In its answer, it averred that it had bought the lots from Victoria Ong de Ocsio and had been in possession as owner thereof for over four years, and its possession and that of its predecessors was immemorial.
Evidence was received on these conflicting assertions after which the Cadastral Court rendered judgment, declaring that the evidence satisfactorily established that Victoria Ong de Ocsio had in truth sold Lot No. 1272 to the Religious of the Virgin Mary in virtue of a deed of sale dated April 12, 1956 (Exhibit 1), and Lot No. 1273 was a road right of way granted to the City of Iligan. The judgment contained the following dispositive portion,viz:6
WHEREFORE, the court renders judgment adjudicating Cadastral Lot 1272, Iligan Cadastre, to the Religious of the Virgin Mary, a duly registered domestic religious corporation, the members of which are all Filipino citizens, with main office in the City of Manila, but the building existing thereon is hereby declared to be the property of claimant Victoria Ong de Ocsio who is hereby ordered to remove Said building out of the premises within 90 days from date hereof. The claim of Victoria Ong de Ocsio with respect to said cadastral lot is dismiss. No pronouncement is made as to costs.
Let the corresponding decree issue 30 days after this decision shall have become final.
As aforestated, the Court of Appeals affirmed the cadastral court's decisionin toto.So, too, will this Court.
Both the cadastral Court and the Court of Appeals came to the conclusion, after analysing and weighing the testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, that Virginia Ong de Ocsio's version of the facts was not true-that it was another property, not Lot No. 1272, that she had conveyed to the religious corporation but that it was indeed Lot No. 1272 that was subject of the sale and had indeed been transferred to the latter. Now, findings of fact of this sort, contained in a decision of the Court of Appeals are by long and uniformly observed rule conclusive on the parties and on the Supreme Court, as well;7subject only to a few specified exceptions,8none of which obtains here, said findings may not be reviewed on appeal.
As regards the issue of law raised by her, petitioner fares no better. CitingManila Electric Co. v. Castro-Bartolome,114 SCRA 799 (1982) andRepublic v. Villanueva,114 SCRA 875 (1982), in relation to Section 11, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution, she asserts that as the private respondent is a religious corporation, it is disqualified to obtain judicial confirmation of an imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act which grants that right only to natural persons. The cited rulings no longer control. Current doctrine, first announced by the Court en banc in Director of Lands v. I.A.C. 146 SCRA 509 (1986), is that open, continuous and exclusive possession of alienable public land for at least thirty (30) years in accordance with the Public Land Actipso jureconverts the land to private property, and a juridical person who thereafter acquires the same may have title thereto confirmed in its name. Virtually the same state of facts obtained in said case that now obtain here. A private corporation had purchased the land originally of the public domain from parties who had, by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest, possessed and occupied it since time immemorial. It had thereafter instituted proceedings for confirmation of title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. In upholding its right to do so, the court held that the fact that the proceedings had been instituted by said purchaser in its own name and not in the name of the transferors was "xx simply xx (an) accidental circumstance, productive of a defect hardly more than procedural and in nowise affecting the substance and merits of the right of ownership sought to be confirmed." The ruling was reaffirmed in two later cases,Director of Lands v. Manila Electric Co.,153 SCRA 686 (September 11, 1987), andRepublic v. C.A.,156 SCRA 344 (October 30, 1987) where the same question of law was raised. In the latter it was expressly held that the prohibitions in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions against acquisition or registration of lands by or in behalf of private corporations do not apply to public lands already converted to private ownership by natural persons under the provisions of the Public Land Act. In the present case, Virginia Ong de Ocsio and her predecessors-in-interest having possessed Lot No. 1272 for the period and under the conditions prescribed by law for acquisition of ownership of disposable public land prior to the sale of the property to the Religious of the Virgin Mary, confirmation of title thereto in the latter's name is, under the precedents referred to, entirely in order.
WHEREFORE,the judgment of the Court of Appeals subject of the petition for review on certiorari isAFFIRMEDin toto.Costs against the petitioner.ℒαwρhi৷
Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
Footnotes