Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 261 views

    Republic v. CA and Arquillo

    Uploaded by

    Jhoel Villafuerte
    This case involved two applications for land registration of parcels in Ilocos Norte. The Director of Lands opposed the applications, alleging the land was part of a forest reserve. The trial court approved registration. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, noting the Bureau of Forestry failed to appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that estoppel does not apply against the government. While the Bureau's failure to appeal did not bar the case, the petition was ultimately denied since the evidence did not clearly establish the parcels were within the forest reserve, and the applicants showed possession since before the reserve was established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic v. CA and Arquillo

    Uploaded by

    Jhoel Villafuerte
    261 views1 page
    This case involved two applications for land registration of parcels in Ilocos Norte. The Director of Lands opposed the applications, alleging the land was part of a forest reserve. The trial court approved registration. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, noting the Bureau of Forestry failed to appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that estoppel does not apply against the government. While the Bureau's failure to appeal did not bar the case, the petition was ultimately denied since the evidence did not clearly establish the parcels were within the forest reserve, and the applicants showed possession since before the reserve was established.

    Original Description:

    LTD

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved two applications for land registration of parcels in Ilocos Norte. The Director of Lands opposed the applications, alleging the land was part of a forest reserve. The trial court approved registration. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, noting the Bureau of Forestry failed to appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that estoppel does not apply against the government. While the Bureau's failure to appeal did not bar the case, the petition was ultimately denied since the evidence did not clearly establish the parcels were within the forest reserve, and the applicants showed possession since before the reserve was established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    261 views1 page

    Republic v. CA and Arquillo

    Uploaded by

    Jhoel Villafuerte
    This case involved two applications for land registration of parcels in Ilocos Norte. The Director of Lands opposed the applications, alleging the land was part of a forest reserve. The trial court approved registration. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, noting the Bureau of Forestry failed to appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that estoppel does not apply against the government. While the Bureau's failure to appeal did not bar the case, the petition was ultimately denied since the evidence did not clearly establish the parcels were within the forest reserve, and the applicants showed possession since before the reserve was established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, (represented by the Director of Lands and Director

    of Forest Development), petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE ARQUILLO,


    PASTOR VALDEZ, NICOLAS MANAYAN, GERMAN MANAYAN, ROMAN
    MANAYAN, SANTIAGO MANAYAN, CLEMENTE MANAYAN, SALVACION D.
    ARQUILLO AND COSME DAGUIO, respondents.

    G.R. Nos. L-62572-73 February 15, 1990


    FACTS: The appeal stemmed from two (2) applications for original registration of two (2) different
    parcels of land situated in the barrio of Umnas, Municipality of Vintar, Province of Ilocos Norte. In both
    applications, the Director of Lands filed oppositions alleging that neither the applicants nor their
    predecessors-in-interest possess sufficient title; that neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-
    interest can avail of the provisions of Section 48 of the Public Land Act, it appearing that the application
    was filed after December 31, 1968; and that the parcels applied for are portions of the public domain
    belonging to the Republic of the Philippines on the ground that certain portions thereof were within the
    Northern Ilocos Norte Forest Reserve declared as such by Executive Proclamation No. 338, dated
    October 24, 1938. On the other hand, The Bureau of Lands claimed that said land was intended as a
    Group Settlement Subdivision known as Gss366 for award to certain applicants before 1968.

    RTC of Ilocos Norte rendered a decision ordering the registration of the parcels of land applied
    for in favor of herein appellants-private respondents.

    On appeal, respondent Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming the trial court's decision. It
    was pointed out in the appellate court's decision that oppositor Bureau of Forestry failed to file
    and perfect its appeal from the trial court's decision of November 20, 1973, hence, the decision in
    LRC No. 125 has become final and executory insofar as it is concerned.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the trial court in LRC No. 125 is already final and
    executory in view of petitioner counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal.

    RULING: NO. The failure of petitioner Bureau of Forestry to file a notice of appeal with the trial
    court which rendered a new decision in LRC No. 125 is not fatal. It has been the consistent
    pronouncement of this Court that estoppel does not lie against the Republic or its
    government.
    In Luciano vs. Estrella, the Court pronounced that 'it is a well known and settled rule in our
    jurisdiction that the Republic, or its government is usually not estopped by mistake or error on
    the part of its officials or agents.’
    Nevertheless, the decision of CA as to the merits of the case was affirmed, and the petition was
    denied. Petitioner's allegation that the parcels sought to be registered are within the Northern
    Ilocos Norte Forest Reserve declared under Presidential Proclamation No. 338 has not been
    clearly established. The party, whether plaintiff or defendants, who asserts the affirmative of the
    issue has the burden of presenting at the trial such amount of evidence required by law to obtain
    a favorable judgment. The herein petitioner relies much on the report and testimony of Forest
    Warden Pedro Barreras to prove that some portions of the parcel sought to be registered are
    within the Northern Ilocos Norte Forest Reserve. On the other hand, there is sufficient evidence
    on record which shows that the parcel of land applied for is alienable and disposable and has
    been in the possession of the applicants and their predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial
    while the alleged Presidential Proclamation No. 338 was issued only on October 24, 1938.

    JHOEL DC. VILLAFUERTE


    Juris Doctor
    Adamson University
    Land Titles and Deeds

    You might also like