Republic

of
the
Philippines
SUPREME
COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-13298
November 19, 1918
CORNELIO
RAMOS,
petitioner-appellant,
vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, objector-appellee.
Basilio
Aromin
for
appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Paredes for appellee.
MALCOLM, J.:
This is an appeal by the applicant and appellant from a
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, denying
the registration of the larger portion of parcel No. 1 (Exhibit A
of the petitioner), marked by the letters A, B, and C on the
plan, Exhibit 1, of the Government.
One Restituto Romero y Ponce apparently gained possession
of a considerable tract of land located in the municipality of
San Jose, Province of Nueva Ecija, in the year 1882. He took
advantage of the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, to obtain
a possessory information title to the land, registered as such
on February 8, 1896. Parcel No. 1, included within the limits of
the possessory information title of Restituto Romero, was sold
in February, 1907, to Cornelio Ramos, the instant petitioner,
and his wife Ambrosia Salamanca.
Ramos instituted appropriate proceedings to have his title
registered. Opposition was entered by the Director of Lands
on the ground that Ramos had not acquired a good title from
the Spanish government and by the Director of Forestry on
the ground that the first parcel was forest land. The trial court
agreed with the objectors and excluded parcel No. 1 from
registration. So much for the facts.
As to the law, the principal argument of the Solicitor-General
is based on the provisions of the Spanish Mortgage Law and of
the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, commonly known as
the Maura Law. The Solicitor-General would emphasize that for
land to come under the protective gis of the Maura Law, it
must have been shown that the land was cultivated for six
years previously, and that it was not land which pertained to
the "zonas forestales." As proof that the land was, even as
long ago as the years 1894 to 1896, forestal and not
agricultural in nature is the fact that there are yet found
thereon trees from 50 to 80 years of age.
We do not stop to decide this contention, although it might be
possible, following the doctrine laid down by the United States
Supreme Court with reference to Mexican and Spanish grantes
within the United States, where some recital is claimed to be
false, to say that the possessory information, apparently
having taken cognizance of the requisites for title, should not
now be disturbed. (Hancock vs. McKinney [1851], 7 Tex., 192;
Hornsby and Roland vs. United States [1869], 10 Wall., 224.) It
is sufficient, as will later appear, merely to notice that the
predecessor in interest to the petitioner at least held this tract
of land under color of title.
Subsection 6 of section 54, of Act No. 926, entitled The Public
Land Law, as amended by Act No. 1908, reads as follows:
6. All persons who by themselves or their predecessors and
interest have been in the open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation of agricultural public
lands, as defined by said Act of Congress of July first, nineteen
hundred and two, under a bona fide claim of ownership except
as against the Government, for a period of ten years next
preceding the twenty-sixth day of July, nineteen hundred and
four, except when prevented by war or force majeure, shall be
conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions
essential to a government grant and to have received the
same, and shall be entitled to a certificate of title to such land
under the provisions of this chapter.
There are two parts to the above quoted subsection which
must be discussed. The first relates to the open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of what,
for present purposes, can be conceded to be agricultural
public land, under a bona fide claim of ownership.
Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts
of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally
exercise over his own property. Relative to actuality of

possession, it is admitted that the petitioner has cultivated

only about one fourth of the entire tract. This is graphically
portrayed by Exhibit 1 of the Government, following:

The question at once arises: Is that actual occupancy of a part

of the land described in the instrument giving color of title
sufficient to give title to the entire tract of land?lawphil.net
The doctrine of constructive possession indicates the answer.
The general rule is that the possession and cultivation of a
portion of a tract under claim of ownership of all is a
constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the
adverse possession of another. (Barr vs. Gratz's Heirs [1819],
4 Wheat., 213; Ellicott vs. Pearl [1836], 10 Pet., 412; Smith vs.
Gale [1892], 144 U. S., 509.) Of course, there are a number of
qualifications to the rule, one particularly relating to the size
of the tract in controversy with reference to the portion
actually in possession of the claimant. It is here only
necessary to apply the general rule.
The claimant has color of title; he acted in good faith; and he
has had open, peaceable, and notorious possession of a
portion of the property, sufficient to apprise the community
and the world that the land was for his enjoyment. (See arts.
446, 448, Civil Code.) Possession in the eyes of the law does
not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square
meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession.
Ramos and his predecessor in interest fulfilled the
requirements of the law on the supposition that he premises
consisted of agricultural public land.
The second division of the law requires consideration of the
term "agricultural public land." The law affirms that the phrase
is denied by the Act of Congress of July 1st, 1902, known as
the Philippine bill. Turning to the Philippine Bill, we find in
sections 13 to 18 thereof that three classes of land are
mentioned. The first is variously denominated "public land" or
"public domain," the second "mineral land," and the third
"timber land." Section 18 of the Act of Congress comes
nearest to a precise definition, when it makes the
determination of whether the land is more valuable for
agricultural or for forest uses the test of its character.
Although these sections of the Philippine Bill have come
before the courts on numerous occasions, what was said in
the case of Jones vs. Insular Government ([1906], 6 Phil.,
122), is still true, namely: "The meaning of these sections is
not clear and it is difficult to give to them a construction that
will be entirely free from objection." In the case which gave

most serious consideration to the subject (Mapa vs. Insular

Government [1908], 10 Phil., 175), it was found that there
does exist in the Act of Congress a definition of the phrase
"agricultural public lands." It was said that the phrase
"agricultural public lands" as used in Act No. 926 means
"those public lands acquired from Spain which are not timber
or mineral lands."
The idea would appear to be to determine, by exclusion, if the
land is forestal or mineral in nature and, if not so found, to
consider it to be agricultural land. Here, again, Philippine law
is not very helpful. For instance, section 1820 of the
Administrative Code of 1917 provides: "For the purposes of
this chapter, 'public forest' includes, except as otherwise
specially indicated, all unreserved public land, including nipa
and mangrove swamps, and all forest reserves of whatever
character." This definition of "public forest," it will be noted, is
merely "for the purposes of this chapter." A little further on,
section 1827 provides: "Lands in public forests, not including
forest reserves, upon the certification of the Director of
Forestry that said lands are better adapted and more valuable
for agricultural than for forest purposes and not required by
the public interests to be kept under forest, shall be declared
by the Department Head to be agricultural lands." With
reference to the last section, there is no certification of the
Director of Forestry in the record, as to whether this land is
better adapted and more valuable for agricultural than for
forest purposes.
The lexicographers define "forest" as "a large tract of land
covered with a natural growth of trees and underbrush; a
large wood." The authorities say that he word "forest" has a
significant, not an insignificant meaning, and that it does not
embrace land only partly woodland. It is a tract of land
covered with trees, usually of considerable extent. (Higgins
vs. Long Island R. Co. [1908], 114 N. Y. Supp., 262; People vs.
Long Island R. Co. [1908], 110 N. Y. Supp., 512.)
The foresters say that no legal definition of "forest" is
practicable or useful. B. H. Baden-Powell, in his work on Forest
Law of India, states as follows:
Every definition of a forest that can be framed for legal
purposes will be found either to exclude some cases to which
the law ought to apply, or on the other hand, to include some
with which the law ought not to interfere. It may be
necessary, for example, to take under the law a tract of
perfectly barren land which at present has neither trees,
brushwood, nor grass on it, but which in the course f time it is
hoped will be "reboise;" but any definition wide enough to
take in all such lands, would also take in much that was not
wanted. On the other hand, the definition, if framed with
reference to tree-growth, might (and indeed would be almost
sure to) include a garden, shrubbery, orchard, or vineyard,
which it was not designed to deal with.
B. E. Fernow, in his work on the Economics of Forestry, states
as follows:
A forest in the sense in which we use the term, as an
economic factor, is by no means a mere collection of trees,
but an organic whole in which all parts, although apparently
heterogeneous, jumbled together by accident as it were and
apparently unrelated, bear a close relation to each other and
are as interdependent as any other beings and conditions in
nature.
The Director of Forestry of the Philippine Islands has said:
During the time of the passage of the Act of Congress of July
1, 1902, this question of forest and agricultural lands was
beginning to receive some attention and it is clearly shown in
section 18 of the above mentioned Act; it leaves to the Bureau
of Forestry the certification as to what lands are for
agricultural or forest uses. Although the Act states timber
lands, the Bureau has in its administration since the passage
of this act construed this term to mean forest lands in the
sense of what was necessary to protect, for the public good;
waste lands without a tree have been declared more suitable
for forestry in many instances in the past. The term 'timber' as
used in England and in the United States in the past has been
applied to wood suitable for construction purposes but with
the increase in civilization and the application of new methods
every plant producing wood has some useful purpose and the
term timber lands is generally though of as synonymous with

forest lands or lands producing wood, or able to produce

wood, if agricultural crops on the same land will not bring the
financial return that timber will or if the same land is needed
for protection purposes.
xxx
xxx
xxx
The laws in the United States recognize the necessity of
technical advice of duly appointed boards and leave it in the
hands of these boards to decide what lands are more valuable
for forestry purposes or for agricultural purposes.
In the Philippine Islands this policy is follows to as great an
extent as allowable under the law. In many cases, in the
opinion of the Bureau of Forestry, lands without a single tree
on them are considered as true forest land. For instance,
mountain sides which are too steep for cultivation under
ordinary practice and which, if cultivated, under ordinary
practice would destroy the big natural resource of the soil, by
washing, is considered by this bureau as forest land and in
time would be reforested. Of course, examples exist in the
Mountain Province where steep hillsides have been terraced
and intensive cultivation practiced but even then the
mountain people are very careful not to destroy forests or
other vegetative cover which they from experience have
found protect their water supply. Certain chiefs have lodged
protests with the Government against other tribes on the
opposite side of the mountain cultivated by them, in order to
prevent other tribes from cutting timber or destroy cover
guarding their source of water for irrigation.
Dr. M. S. Shaler, formerly Dean of the Lawrence Scientific
School, remarked that if mankind could not devise and
enforce ways dealing with the earth, which will preserve this
source of like "we must look forward to the time, remote it
may be, yet equally discernible, when out kin having wasted
its great inheritance will fade from the earth because of the
ruin it has accomplished."
The method employed by the bureau of Forestry in making
inspection of lands, in order to determine whether they are
more adapted for agricultural or forest purposes by a
technical and duly trained personnel on the different phases
of the conservation of natural resources, is based upon a
previously prepared set of questions in which the different
characters of the land under inspection are discussed, namely:
Slope of land: Level; moderate; steep; very steep.
Exposure: North; South; East; West.
Soil: Clay; sandy loam; sand; rocky; very rocky.
Character of soil cover: Cultivated, grass land, brush land,
brush land and timber mixed, dense forest.
If cultivated, state crops being grown and approximate
number of hectares under cultivation. (Indicate on sketch.)
For growth of what agricultural products is this land suitable?
State what portion of the tract is wooded, name of important
timber species and estimate of stand in cubic meters per
hectare, diameter and percentage of each species.
If the land is covered with timber, state whether there is
public land suitable for agriculture in vicinity, which is not
covered with timber.
Is this land more valuable for agricultural than for forest
purposes? (State reasons in full.)
Is this land included or adjoining any proposed or established
forest reserve or communal forest? Description and ownership
of improvements.
If the land is claimed under private ownership, give the name
of the claimant, his place of residence, and state briefly (if
necessary on a separate sheet) the grounds upon which he
bases his claim.
When the inspection is made on a parcel of public land which
has been applied for, the corresponding certificate is
forwarded to the Director of Lands; if it is made on a privately
claimed parcel for which the issuance of a title is requested
from the Court of Land Registration, and the inspection shows
the land to be more adapted for forest purposes, then the
Director of Forestry requests the Attorney-General to file an
opposition, sending him all data collected during the
inspection and offering him the forest officer as a witness.
It should be kept in mind that the lack of personnel of this
Bureau, the limited time intervening between the notice for
the trial on an expediente of land and the day of the trial, and

the difficulties in communications as well as the distance of

the land in question greatly hinder the handling of this work.
In the case of lands claimed as private property, the Director
of Forestry, by means of his delegate the examining officer,
submits before the court all evidence referring to the present
forest condition of the land, so that the court may compare
them with the alleged right by the claimant. Undoubtedly,
when the claimant presents a title issued by the proper
authority or evidence of his right to the land showing that he
complied with the requirements of the law, the forest
certificate does not affect him in the least as such land should
not be considered as a part of the public domain; but when
the alleged right is merely that of possession, then the public
or private character of the parcel is open to discussion and
this character should be established not simply on the alleged
right of the claimant but on the sylvical condition and soil
characteristics of the land, and by comparison between this
area, or different previously occupied areas, and those areas
which still preserve their primitive character.
Either way we look at this question we encounter difficulty.
Indubitably, there should be conservation of the natural
resources of the Philippines. The prodigality of the spendthrift
who squanders his substance for the pleasure of the fleeting
moment must be restrained for the less spectacular but surer
policy which protects Nature's wealth for future generations.
Such is the wise stand of our Government as represented by
the Director of Forestry who, with the Forester for the
Government of the United States, believes in "the control of
nature's powers by man for his own good." On the other hand,
the presumption should be, in lieu of contrary proof, that land
is agricultural in nature. One very apparent reason is that it is

for the good of the Philippine Islands to have the large public
domain come under private ownership. Such is the natural
attitude of the sagacious citizen.
If in this instance, we give judicial sanction to a private claim,
let it be noted that the Government, in the long run of cases,
has its remedy. Forest reserves of public land can be
established as provided by law. When the claim of the citizen
and the claim of the Government as to a particular piece of
property collide, if the Government desires to demonstrate
that the land is in reality a forest, the Director of Forestry
should submit to the court convincing proof that the land is
not more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes.
Great consideration, it may be stated, should, and
undoubtedly will be, paid by the courts to the opinion of the
technical expert who speaks with authority on forestry
matters. But a mere formal opposition on the part of the
Attorney-General for the Director of Forestry, unsupported by
satisfactory evidence will not stop the courts from giving title
to the claimant.
We hold that the petitioner and appellant has proved a title to
the entire tract of land for which he asked registration, under
the provisions of subsection 6, of section 54, of Act No. 926,
as amended by Act No. 1908, with reference to the Philippine
Bill and the Royal Decree of February 13, 1894, and his
possessory information.
Judgment is reversed and the lower court shall register in the
name of the applicant the entire tract in parcel No. 1, as
described in plan Exhibit A, without special finding as to costs.
So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Street and Fisher, JJ., concur.