10/10/21, 9:55 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

[No, 20387. October 19, 1923]

MANUEL ROA, as guardian and on behalf of the minors

Jesus and Jose Roa, ET AL., petitioners and appellees, vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, on behalf of the Government
of the Philippine Islands, ET AL., opponents and
appellants; PATRICIO LIÑAN and CATALINO NERI,
opponents and appellees.

1. JUDGMENT; VACATION JUDGE; TRANSFER OF

JUDGES; JURISDICTION.—A judge having been
transferred to another judicial district without having
decided a case he had tried, the vacation judge, acting by
designation of the Secretary of Justice in the district in
which the case is pending, has jurisdiction to decide it.

2. PUBLIC LANDS; GRANTS OF GOVERNMENT DURING

SPANISH REGIME; LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF.
—A grant of land by the Spanish Government in favor of a
private individual is couched in the following terms: "And
I order and direct said Mayor in his capacity as Under-
Deputy of Finance to advise the officers of justice present
and residing in said province to respect and comply with
this grant, without in any way violating its terms, and
without doing any injury to, or interfering with, the title
and direct ownership of said Vicente Roa over said land,
with the aforesaid ten reserve houses." Held: That
considering said grant with the benign criterion
characteristic of the laws then

863

VOL, 46, OCTOBER 19, 1923 863

Roa vs. Director of Lands

in force in the matter of granting land titles to the natives

of these Islands, and taking into account the possession
exercised over the land by the applicants, and before
them, by their predecessors in interest, either personally
or through their tenants and representatives, under claim
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c6a828e001c0f90ad000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/7
10/10/21, 9:55 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

of title, the applicants through such grant and effective

possession acquired absolute title to the land in dispute.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Misamis. Jaranilla, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Attorney-General Villa-Real for the Director of Lands.
Troadio Galicano for the other appellants.
J. A. Clarin for petitioners and appellees.
No appearance for opponents and appellees.

ROMUALDEZ, J.:

The Court of First Instance of Misamis adjudicated to the

applicants the lands described in the application, and
decreed the registration thereof in their name, with the
exclusion of those claimed in this case by Catalino Neri and
Patricio Liñan, overruling the oppositions presented by
Jorgia Asiñero and others, on the one hand, and by the
Government of the Philippine Islands represented by the
Director of Lands, on the other.
Jorgia Asiñero and her coöppositors, as well as the
Director of Lands, appealed from said judgment, and the f
ormer assign errors to the action of the lower court:

"1. In rendering judgment without jurisdiction;

"2. In admitting Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, I, R, X, AA, DD,
GG, and FF as evidence;
"3. In admitting oral evidence about the contents of the
document Exhibit C;
"4. In denying the motion for dismissal presented by
the opponent Government of the Islands, which was
adhered to by the opponent private individuals, now
appellants;
"5. In not finding and recognizing that the opponent
private individuals have been from time
immemorial in the

864

864 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Roa vs. Director of Lands

possession, as owners, of the respective portions

claimed by each of them, and in holding them to
have been mere tenants, and the applicants the

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c6a828e001c0f90ad000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/7
10/10/21, 9:55 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

true owners of the whole land covered by the

application;
"6. In finding and holding the applicants to have a
right to the title of the land sought to be registered;
"7. In adjudicating to the applicants the title to all the
lands covered by the application;
"8. In not holding the possession and ownership of the
lands to have prescribed in favor of the opponent
private individuals;
"9. In not denying the application."

The Director of Lands, in turn, alleges that the trial court

erred:

"1. In holding that the land, the registration of which is

applied for, has been originally owned by Vicente
Roa, original predecessor in interest of the
appellants.
"2. In holding that Vicente Roa's title was first a
concession only to have some cattle on the land in
question but at that time the Spanish Government
had decreed to the effect that those who had such
concession would become the owners of public
lands, such as was granted to Vicente Roa
mentioned herein.
"3. In not holding that the applicants failed to establish
the identity of the land, the registration of which is
applied for.
"4. In deciding and in adjudging and decreeing the
registration of the parcel of land in question in
favor of the applicants."

As to whether or not the Honorable Delfin Jaranilla, judge,

could render the decision appealed from, not being the
judge who had tried the case, and being then only a
vacation judge of the twenty-fifth (which includes the
Province of Misamis) and twenty-sixth judicial districts,
designated by the Secretary of Justice, we find that in
rendering the decision appealed from, he was clothed with
the necessary jurisdiction for the purpose. Under section 13

865

VOL. 46, OCTOBER 19, 1923 865

Roa vs. Director of Lands

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c6a828e001c0f90ad000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/7
10/10/21, 9:55 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

of Act No. 867, Judge Quirico Abeto, who took cognizance of

the case, could render judgment in this case even if he were
outside of the court of Misamis, provided he was within the
Philippine Islands. As before he could render his decision,
Judge Abeto was transferred to another group, and his
place was taken by the trial judge, the Honorable Delfin
Jaranilla, as Auxiliary Judge of the Seventh Group, we see
no reason why the aforesaid judge, who decided this case,
should be legally incapacitated to do so.
Said judge makes in the decision the following findings,
which we believe are sufficiently supported by the
evidence:
"The court after having taken into consideration all the
evidence presented in this case holds as established by
great preponderance of evidence, the following facts: That
the land applied for herein as described in technical
description in the map attached to the record in this case,
has been originally owned by Vicente Roa; that Vicente Roa
was succeeded by Bernardo Roa; that Bernardo Roa was
also succeeded by his son Pio Roa; that Pio Roa having
died, the applicants herein have inherited the land in
question; that Vicente Roa, the original owner of the said
land, acquired said land since 1836, and possessed same as
owner since then as well as his successors and up to the
present applicants herein; that his title was first a
concession only to have some cattle on said land, but at
that time the Spanish government had decreed to the effect
that those who had such concession would convert
themselves as owners of public land such as was granted to
Vicente Roa mentioned herein; that Vicente Roa by means
of his documents presented as exhibits in this case which
were obtained by him from the Spanish government
entitled him to the ownership of the land in question which
ownership was transmitted to his successors up to the
present applicants herein whose possession has been
continuous, publicly and as owners of same.
"The only opponents who, according to the opinion of
this court, have established their right to the portions of
866

866 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Roa vs. Director of Lands

the land applied for herein are Catalino Neri and Patricio
Liñan. Catalino Neri presented evidence to the effect that
he has had the possession of the land mentioned in his
opposition for so many years or since 1895 as is recited in
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c6a828e001c0f90ad000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/7
10/10/21, 9:55 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

the possessory information which he had obtained from his

predecessors Policarpia Emata marked Exhibit 11 in this
case; that since then he has been possessing the land in
question adversely, publicly and continuously, and so the
court believes that the possession of Catalino Neri
mentioned herein is enough to acquire by prescription the
title of the land mentioned in his opposition. On the other
hand, Patricio Liñan is one also of those opponents who
had established his right to the land claimed by him as,
since the year 1906, he had won the suit from Manuel
Corrales and Zosimo Roa as executors of the deceased Pio
Roa over the land in question. The decision of the Court of
First Instance of Cagayan, Misamis, with regard to the
parcel of the land claimed for by him in this case is
attached to the record of this case as one of the exhibits in
the case.
"The other claimants represented by Attorney Troadio
Galicano, Esq., claim that they have also been in the
possession of the lands for so many years, but the court
after examining the documents signed by them in favor of
the applicants herein and their predecessors as well as the
evidence presented by the applicants that the said
opponents were only mere tenants in their lands, that they
were paying rents to, and shared their product with, the
applicants herein and their predecessors, (the court) is
convinced that the applicants herein had proven their
ownership of the land in question."
One of the principal points raised in this case is whether
the grant under which the applicants claim title should be
held limited to a mere permit to have some cattle on the
land in question, or may now be considered to be a grant of
the title itself to said land.
Exhibits C and F, admitted as evidence, in the
admission of which no error was committed by the trial
court,

867

VOL. 46, OCTOBER 19, 1923 867

Roa vs. Director of Lands

shows that the applicants' predecessor in interest,. Vicente

Roa, had petitioned permission to have some cattle in the
sitio of Bugo of the town of Cagayan, Province of Misamis,
during the first half of the nineteenth century; that the
superintendent of all the branches of the Royal Finance of
these Islands granted said petition, upon the payment by
the applicant of the sum of P100 and 2 per cent thereon,
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c6a828e001c0f90ad000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/7
10/10/21, 9:55 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

which was the estimated value of the land, plus P70, 6

reales, 4 granos, and 4 quintos, which sums were paid by
said Vicente Roa; and that high official on December 4,
1838, decreed as follows:
"And I order and direct said Mayor in his capacity as
Under-Deputy of Finance to advise the officers of justice
present and residing in said province to respect and comply
with this grant, without in any way violating its terms and
without doing any injury to, or interfering with, the title
and direct ownership of said Vicente Roa over said land
with the aforesaid ten reserve houses."
Considering the terms of this grant and applying the
benign criterion, which is characteristic of the laws then in
force with regard to granting land titles to the natives of
these Islands, and taking into account the possession which
the applicants and their predecessors in interest have
exercised, as owners, either personally, or through their
tenants and representatives, over the land in question, we
hold that the applicants, through such grant and effective
possession, acquired title to the land in controversy.
The identity of the land is also discussed in the evidence.
While in the deed of grant said land is not described by its
bounds or area, yet the place where it is situated is
mentioned and it has been shown that Vicente Roa had a
house there. The evidence of the applicants establishes the
limits of the portion of land which the applicants and their
predecessors have been in possession of, which land
appears to be the one sought to be registered in this case,
with the exclusion of the portions adjudicated in the
judgment appealed from to Catalino Neri and Patricio
Liñan.

868

868 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia Mayoralgo vs. Jason

We find in the judgment appealed from no error

whatsoever sufficient for us to alter the same; wherefore it
is hereby affirmed in all its parts, with costs against the
opponents, with the exception of the Director of Lands. So
ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, and

Johns, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c6a828e001c0f90ad000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/7
10/10/21, 9:55 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 046

_____________

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c6a828e001c0f90ad000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/7