Oh Cho Vs Director Of Lands G 3lk1v

Oh Cho vs Director of Lands G.R. No. 48321, August 31, 1946 Oh Cho vs Director of Lands G.R. No. 48321, August 31, 1946 FACTS: Oh Cho, a Chinese citizen, purchased from the Lagdameos a parcel of land in Tayabas, which they openly, continuously and adversely possessed since 1880. On January 17, 1940, Oh Cho applied for registration of this land. The Solicitor General opposed on the ground that Oh Cho lacked title to said land and also because he was an alien. ISSUEs: Whether or not Oh Cho had title Whether or not Oh Cho is entitled to a decree of registration

HELD: Oh Cho failed to show that he has title to the lot, which may be confirmed under the Land Registration Act. All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in interest since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest. The applicant does not come under the exception, for the earliest possession of the lot by his first predecessor in interest began in 1880. Under the Public Land Act, Oh Cho is not entitled to a decree of registration of the lot, because he is an alien disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain. Oh Cho's predecessors in interest would have been entitled toa decree of registration had they applied for the same. The application for the registration of the land was a condition precedent, which was not complied with by the Lagmeos. Hence, the most they had was mere possessory right, not title. This possessory right was what was transferred to Oh Cho, but since the latter is an alien, the possessory right could never ripen to ownership by prescription. As an alien, Oh Cho is disqualified from acquiring title over public land by prescription.

Land Titles And Deeds Case Digest: Director Of Lands V. IAC (1986) G.R. No. 73002 December 29, 1986

FACTS: 

Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., a corp. represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario, acquired from Mariano and Acer Infiel, of the Dumagat tribe 5 parcels of land 

possession of the Infiels over the landdates back before the Philippines was discovered by Magellan



land sought to be ed is a private land pursuant to RA 3872 granting absolute ownership to of the non-Christian Tribes on land occupied by them or their ancestral lands, whether with the alienable or disposable public land or within the public domain



Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., has introduced more than P45M worth of improvements



ownership and possession of the land sought to be ed was duly recognized by the government when the Municipal Officials of Maconacon, Isabela 



donated part of the land as the townsite of Maconacon Isabela

IAC affirmed CFI: in favor of

ISSUES: 1. W/N the land is already a private land - YES 2. W/N the constitutional prohibition against their acquisition by private corporations or associations applies- NO HELD: IAC affirmed Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc 1. YES 

already acquired, by operation of law not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that a certificate of title should be issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an application therefore is sufficient 



it had already ceased to be of the public domain and had become private property, at least by presumption

The application for confirmation is mere formality, the lack of which does not affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said patent.



The effect of the proof, wherever made, was not to confer title, but simply to establish it, as already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier law

2. NO 

If it is accepted-as it must be-that the land was already private land to which the Infiels had a legally sufficient and transferable title on October 29, 1962 when Acme acquired it from said owners, it must also be conceded that Acme had a perfect right to make such acquisition



The only limitation then extant was that corporations could not acquire, hold or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024 hectares