Digested

Submitted by: Submitted by

Views: 10

Words: 2385

Pages: 10

Category: Business and Industry

Date Submitted: 10/29/2015 09:59 PM

Report This Essay

G.R. No. L-35778 January 27, 1983

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, and The DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioners, vs. HON. ABRAHAM P. VERA, Judge, CFI, Bataan, Branch I, and LUISITO MARTINEZ, respondents.

G.R. No. L-35779 January 27, l983

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, and THE DIRECTOR OF LAND, petitioners, vs. HON. ABRAHAM P. VERA, Judge, CFI, Bataan, Branch I, and THELMA TANALEGA, respondents.

FACTS:

G.R. No. L-35778:

Respondent Luisito Martinez filed an application for registration of title of one (1) parcel of land, with an area of 323,093 square meters, more or less. However, the Republic of the Philippines filed an opposition to the application stating that the parcel of land applied for is a portion of the public domain belonging to the Republic, not subject to private appropriation. That said land was a subject of cadastral proceeding and that land was assigned as Lot No. 626, Mariveles Cadastre.

Respondent contends that he inherited the land from his parents and in his possession since 1938.

G.R. No. L-35779:

Respondent Thelma Tanalega filed an application for registration of two (2) parcels of land, containing an area of 443,297 square meters, more or less, and 378,506 square meters, more or less which described and Identified as portions of Lot 626, Mariveles Cadastre, covered by Plans (LRC) SWO-13430 and (LRC) SWO-13431. Respondent Thelma alleged that, said land was sold to her by Elisa Llamas who allegedly possessed the land since 1935.

The Court of First Instance confirmed the titles to subject parcels of land and adjudicated them in favor of applicants Luisito Martinez and Thelma Tanalega.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not said parcels of land which are portions of Lot No. 626, Mariveles Cadastre are alienable and disposable land of public domains?

2. Whether or not the alleged possession of the applicants through their predecessors-in-interest is sufficient to sustain their claim for prescription?

RULING:

1. The land subject matter of the...