Scribd
Upload
512 views2 pages

Mapa v. Insular Government - Digest

The petitioner registered 16 hectares of land in Iloilo that had been in his family's possession for over 20 years and used as fish ponds, nipa lands, and salt deposits. The government claimed the land was not agricultural. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that "agricultural public lands" in the relevant law referred to non-mineral or timber lands acquired from Spain, which this land qualified as. The government appealed, disputing whether the land was properly considered agricultural.

Uploaded by

Michael Lagundi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
512 views2 pages

Mapa v. Insular Government - Digest

The petitioner registered 16 hectares of land in Iloilo that had been in his family's possession for over 20 years and used as fish ponds, nipa lands, and salt deposits. The government claimed the land was not agricultural. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that "agricultural public lands" in the relevant law referred to non-mineral or timber lands acquired from Spain, which this land qualified as. The government appealed, disputing whether the land was properly considered agricultural.

Uploaded by

Michael Lagundi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

L-3793 February 19, 1908

CIRILO MAPA, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE INSULAR


GOVERNMENT, respondent-appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta for appellant.


Basilio R. Mapa for appellee.

WILLARD, J.:

FACTS:

The petitioner registered a tract of land of about 16 hectares in extent,


situated in Iloilo.

From the evidence adduced, it appears that the land in question is


lowland, and has been interruptedly, for more than 20 years in the possession
of the petitioner and ancestors as owners and the same has been used during
the same period, and up to the present as fish ponds, nipa lands and salt
deposits. The witnesses declare the land as far from the sea, the town of
Molo being between the sea and the said land.

The claim of the Attorney General seems to be that no lands can be


called agricultural lands unless they are such by their nature. He claims that it
is not an agricultural land and, therefore, cannot be disposed of nor can be
allowed for homestead.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the petitioner and the government


has appealed.

A motion for new trial was made and denied in the court below.

The decision of the Court was based upon Act No. 926, Sec. 54,
par. 6, which provides that, “All persons who by themselves All persons
who by themselves or their predecessors in 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 taking effect of this act, 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.

ISSUE:
W/N the land in controversy is agricultural land within the meaning of
Act. No. 926?

HELD:
Yes.

The phrase “agricultural public lands” defined by the Act of Congress of


July 1, 1902, which phrase is also to be found in several section of the Public
Land Act No. 926, means those public lands acquired from Spain, which are
neither mineral nor timber lands.

You might also like