Valdez v. Lands

BUTTE, J.:

This is a land registration case which involves the title to a vast tract of unenclosed agricultural land, some twenty kilometers long by twelve and one-half kilometers wide, located at the southern tip of the island of Masbate. In their original application for registration of this land, filed on May 19, 1931, the applicant Benito Valdez et al., claimed 28,006.5959 hectares. On the day of the hearing they moved that the lot No. 5, covered by patent (Spanish titulo)No. 12, be eliminated from their application, leaving 26,227.1941 hectares claimed.

We shall refer to this elimination of lot No. 5 later in this decision. An association known as Muñoz y Cia. in the early eighties operated a cattle ranch (ganaderia) near Cataiñgan in the municipality of Palanas on the island of Masbate.

They grazed several thousand head of cattle on the public domain which was covered with cogon grass and forests. After the enactment of the Royal Decrees (Decretos Reales) of June 25, 1880, and January 19, 1883, which made possible the purchase of public lands, the company undertook to acquire title to the public lands which constituted their hacienda. Between the years 1883 and 1886 (see Table A,post) twenty-two individuals applied for the purchase of twenty-two tracks of said public lands.

After the sales were consummated the land patents (Spanish titulos) were transferred by the purchasers to Muñoz and Company. Three of these titulos were registered in the name of Mauro Prieto in 1926 and are not involved, here. It is from the remaining nineteen titulos that the present applicants for registration deraign their title.

The total area sold by the Spanish government and purchased by the grantees in these nineteen titulos is 2,225.9194 hectares. The applicants assert that these patents contain errors in the description of the land and that all of them are grossly wrong as to the area. They assert that the correct area should be 28,006.5959 hectares, an error of 25,780.6765 hectares.

The basic question of this case, therefore, is whether or not by the said nineteen titulos the Spanish government sold to the several grantees named therein an aggregate of 28,006.5959 hectares which the applicants, as their successors in title, now claim. The petition for registration alleges, first, absolute ownership by title from the Spanish government and, in the alternative, continuous and exclusive possession and occupation since July 26, 1894, from which a grant is presumed under section 45 (b) of the Public Law (Act No. 2874). The petition was opposed by the Director of Lands who claims that all of said lands are public lands by the Director Forestry who claims that a large portion thereof is public forest lands and by nine hundred ninety-three private oppositors, settlers and homestead applicants, who deny the alleged title and possession of the applicants.

To establish their claim of title, the applicants introduced in evidence the original nineteen titulos above referred to(Exhibit D-1 to D-19) with the subsequent transfers thereof by the grantees to Muñoz and Company endorsed on the back. Further to substantiate their claims and more particularly to prove the alleged errors in all of the nineteen titulos , the applicants have put in evidence a topographical map made in 1885 by surveyor Felipe Diaz (Exhibit C and a sketch prepared in 1932 by surveyor C.N. Francisco (Exhibit K).

As these two exhibits constitute the very foundation of the applicants' case, it is proper to consider them carefully. EXHIBIT C. - This exhibit, presented by the applicants, is a topographical map of the cattle ranch of Muñoz y Cia. , prepared by a qualified Spanish surveyor, Felipe Diaz, and dated "Salamanca, November 24, 1885."

It is an unofficial map because it was not made or approved by any authority of the Spanish government. It was made for Jose Muñoz who kept it in his house in a frame. It was always in the possession of Muñoz and Company until this concern went into receivership when it was delivered to the receiver.

From him it passed to the hands of Prieto & Co. of which the applicants are the principal owners. Exhibit C bears on its face the following certificate: Limites : N. Montes de Uson y Palanas, Tetas de Cataiñgan, Camino de Palanas a Cataiñgan, Rio Labangui y Disoria de aguas entre la Enseñada de Catañgian y Mar del Estrecho. E Bosque de Punta Matayon, Puerto de Cataiñgan, y Bosques de Mentac, Limbujan y Alegria.

S. Manglares del Mar de la Contracosta y tereno solicitado al Estado por D. Juan Acuesta. O Rio Nainday. Estension : Determinada por los anteriores linderos: 2,090 hectareas.

The map is drawn on the lineal scale of 1:50,000. The map shows no fences, enclosures or other improvements except one casa del encargado de la ganaderia near the poblacion of Cataiñgan and one toril in the sitio of Bairan. The precise location and extent of the toril is not shown.

The map shows no bearings true or declinations, no points, angles or monuments and is not accompanied by any surveyor's notes. That Muñoz and Company allowed their cattle to roam and graze over the wide expanse of unenclosed land shown on Exhibit C when it was made, is a reasonable inference from the testimony of witnesses presented by the applicants. But that Exhibit C is a document proving title and binding on the Government is a wholly different matter.

It is not based on the nineteen patents (titulos) which Muñoz y Cia. acquired, for they are neither shown nor mentioned. Indeed, at least eight of these titulos were not in existence when Exhibit C was made.

It is at most a pictorial representation of Muñoz y Cia's claim of ownership. It is not the land shown on Exhibit C which is the subject matter of this registration proceeding. The applicants have no one single land patent (titulo) from the Spanish government coinciding with Exhibit C. They offer instead nineteen individual titulos.

They claim that these titulos which embrace a total area of 2,225 hectares, are each and every one of them wrong; that they should show a total area of 32,113 hectares (see Exhibit K). With this inflated area, the nineteen titulos , it is alleged, would cover the area of Exhibit C, as corrected by surveyor Francisco. But, in order that the nineteen titulos should coincide with Exhibit C, the applicants have undertaken to prove that not only are all the titulos wrong but that surveyor Diaz's certificate as to the area of Exhibit C is also wrong.

Diaz certifies that area to be 2,090 hectares, which approximates the total area shown on the face of the nineteen titulos. Surveyor Francisco testified in substance that the Spanish surveyors were guilty of many inaccuracies in their work, and that the on Exhibit C should state the area to be not 2,090 hectares but 20,900 hectares. He explains this as follows: En la mayor parte de las veces, por la derivacion de la escala, el agrimensor confunde el numero de metros que debe apreciarse en la eacala y de ahi resulta la diferencia en la extension.

A lo mejor, el agrimengor levanta el plano al 1 por 50,000 para luego apreciar la superficie del plano bajo la escala de 1 por 5,000 ... pero la superficie (consignada en la reseña del mismo) se computobajo la eacala de 1 por 5,000.

Si se computara la superficie del terreno a la escala de 1 por 50,000, la extension no seria 2,090 hectareas como consta en el plano Exhibit C, sino 20,900 hectareas. (Pag. 112, deposicion, Exhibit JJ.) Francisco's hypothesis will not bear analysis and does great injustice to surveyor Diaz.

The fallacy of his deduction is plain even to a layman. Two times two equals four but twenty times twenty is not equal to forty but to 400. So, in this instance, if, on the scale of 1: 5,000, the area, which is the product of the length multiplied by the width, is 2,090 hectares, the area on the scale of 1: 50,000 i.e.

ten times the length and ten times the width, would not be 20,900 but 209,000 hectares. It is incredible that the Spanish surveyors en la mayor parte de las veces would commit such an egregious blunder of simple arithmetic. 1 In his deposition, page 106, Francisco testified as follows: P. ¿Segun entiendo de usted, corrigiendo los erres decomputacion del terreno objeto del plano Exhibit C, arrojaria una extension de unos 40,000 hectareas?

- R. Si, señor. and on page 112 of the same deposition, Francisco testified as follows: P. ¿Teniendo usted la verdadera extension de esos dados puede usted darnos la verdadera extension que puede arrojar el plano del Sr. Diaz? - R. Mas de 52,000 hectareas.

P. Ahora los solicitantes pretenden el registro de un terreno de 24.000 hectareas menos de la verdadera extension de ese terreno, segun el plano del Sr. Diaz, computado correctamente . . .

- R. Si, señor. From the foregoing, it will be noted that Francisco gives to Exhibit C three irreconcilable areas: 20,900 hectares, 40,000 hectares, and 52,000 hectares. The first is 7,106 hectares less, the second is 11,994 hectares more and the third is 23,994 hectares more than the area the applicants swore they own (28,006 hectares).

It is by such loose and inexpert testimony of surveyor Francisco that the applicants attempt to impeach their own Exhibit C. The trial court accepted Francisco's sketch, Exhibit K, without question or reserve and held that the nineteen titulos issued by the Spanish government are all wrong. Indeed, the applicants' claim of title to this vast tract of the public lands rests upon a foundation of errors - i. e.

upon proof of a series of errors in the very titles upon which their claim rests. The area of Exhibit C is inflated ten times and then each of the nineteen titulos must be inflated to correspond. How Francisco accomplishes this inflation will appear from an examination of his sketch, Exhibit K. EXHIBIT K. - This exhibit is not a technical survey or plan in any sense.

The certificate of Exhibit K speaks for it itself. It is as follows: Plano de los terrenos situados en Cataiñgan, Masbate, propiedad de los Sres. Don Benito Valdez, Don, Benito Legarda y de la Paz y otros, levantado por Ceferino Cacnio's mapagrimen sor, y anotado por C.N. Francisco, agrimensor.

Manila, abril 5, 1932. Under the guise of "annotations", Francisco has produced a sketch that makes irreconcilable changes in Cacnio's map, Exhibit I of the applicants, as may be seen at a glance by comparing the two. Exhibit K was prepared long after this suit was filed and it appears that it was made to elucidate the applicants' theory that all of the nineteen Spanish titulos , which are the origin of their title, are wrong in that, instead of showing a total area of 2,226 hectares, they should show the total area which Francisco gives to them on Exhibit K, namely, 32,113 hectares.

Exhibit K is in itself no evidence of title. It varies materially from the sketches of the equally qualified surveyors Cacnio (Exhibit I), Almonte (Exhibit 46) and Aguinaldo (Exhibits 1, 3 and 4). But it does serve as a graphic presentation of the applicants' theory and as such, it merits careful examination.

I There is no sufficient warrant for the many alterations which surveyor Francisco made of the boundaries in the nineteen titulos , with the double object of making them fit together into one block (after the manner of a jig-saw puzzle) and of inflating their area so as to coincide with Francisco's corrected area of Exhibit C. It is significant that the supposed errors which he discovers in the titulos always result in an enormous increase in the area. To illustrate Francisco's methods, we will examine a few instances. By Titulo No. 9 the Spanish government, on May 31, 1833, sold to Honorio Maria Ysidro 168 hectares, 11 ares and 20 centiares.

The description in the titulo recites:un terreno baldio realengo, enclavado en el Sitio Nadauisan ... siendo sus limites, al norte, terrenos medios a D. Manuel Conejero; at este, sur y oeste, cogonales del Estado. Francisco places the land conveyed in Titulo No. 9 adjacent to Titulo No. 5 in a different sitio , some ten kilometers distant from Nadauisan.

He changes the east south boundaries of Titulo No. 9 to read as follows:Al este, terrenos medios a Anacleto Solano; al sur, terrenos medidos a Nicolas Aceneta; Al oeste, cogonales del Estado. As to the eastern boundary, the Spanish surveyors were clearly right and Francisco is clearly wrong because, so far as this record shows, Anacleto Solano acquired no land until three years after Titulo No. 9 was prepared and issued. For the western boundary of Titulo No. 9, cogonales del Estado , Francisco draws an arbitrary straight line, without the slightest evidence to support it, which enables him to make incursion upon the public domain for any decision desired.

But these alleged errors which Francisco finds in Titulo No. 9 compel him to find an error in the description given in Titulo No. 5 which recites: al este, terrenos medidos a Don Juan Alvarez. Francisco says this is wrong, that Titulo No. 5 should read: al este, terrenos medidos a Anacleto Solano. Solano did not acquire any land till three years after Titulo No. 5 was prepared and issued.

These alleged errors in Titulo No. 5 compel Francisco to alter the description given in Titulo No. 15 which recites: Al oeste, cogonales del Estado so as to read: al oeste, terrenos medidos a Honorio Maria Ysidro y Nicolas Aceneta and to alter the south and east boundaries given in Titulo No. 15 which recites:al sur y este, Rio Nauco so as to read,al sur y este, Rio Danagas. The Rio Danagas is six kilometers from Rio Nauco. With these alterations, Francisco locates Titulo No. 15 in the sitio of Alegria.

But that makes it impossible for Titulo No. 15 to have Titulos Nos. 5 and 9 as a western boundary because Titulos Nos. 5 and 9 recite that the lands therein sold by the Spanish government are in the sitio s of Bacacay and Nadauisan respectively which are more than ten kilometers from the sitio of Alegria. To take another example, Titulo No. 12. In their original petition for registration, the applicants swore that they had title to lot No. 5 shown on plan G-4 attached to their petition.

This plan was prepared by surveyor Cacnio, on May 17, 1919, and approved by the Director of Lands on March 25, 1920. Cacnio testified on behalf of the applicants that when he surveyed lot No. 5 he carried with him Exhibit C. He testified that he knew all of the lands of the applicants and the locations of all the nineteen titulos ; that lot No. 5 (plan G-4) is covered by Titulo No. 12, as shown on his plan, applicants' Exhibit I. Plan G-4 and Exhibit I both show that lot No. 5 lies in the sitio Guion (as is recited in the titulo) which is several kilometers outside the area shown on Exhibit K. Francisco ignores this evidence and locates Titulo No. 12 inside the area shown on Exhibit K. Nor can we reconcile the placing of Titulo No.

12 within Exhibit K with the fact that the applicants themselves, on the opening of the trial below, moved in open court that lot No. 5 (plan G-4) be eliminated from their petition for registration, stating that they had already sold said land and would leave the vendees to obtain registration of the title (t.s.n. Nava, page 4). But that is not all.

To suit his purpose, Francisco had to alter radically the description of the land as given in Titulo No. 12. The titulo recites that the land is located in sitio Guion. Francisco puts it in an entirely different sitio.

The titulo conveys 73 hectares 50 ares siendo suslimites al norte, bosque del Estado; al sur, manglar Guion; al oeste, Rio Manajao y al este, Rio Matubinao. Francisco says that these boundaries are wrong except the northern. He says that the western boundary could not be the River Manajao because this river lies east of the River Matubinao; and that which recited in the titulo to be River Matubinao, is likewise wrong and said river, he assumes, must be the western boundary of Titulo No 12.

But he assumes some river must be eastern boundary, and finding no other east of the Matubinao River except River Daraga, he arbitrarily alters the titulo so as to make the Daraga River the eastern boundary of Titulo No. 12 (naturally resulting in an enormous extension of the area). But the assumption from which Francisco starts is wrong. The Spanish surveyors were right in placing the River Matubinao east of the River Manajao and Francisco is wrong in assuming the contrary.

(See map of Masbate, Bureau of Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1932.) But thus rewriting Titulo No. 12, Francisco is enabled to inflate the area of the land sold by the Spanish government from 63.5 hectares to 1,650 hectares as shown on his Exhibit K. In all of the foregoing titulos and several more, Francisco has left one boundary open and undefined for arbitrary inflation of the area, i. e. one side bounded by terrenos del Estado.

To complete the inclosure of each of such titulos he arbitrarily draws as straight line taking in as much of the public domain as suits his purpose. This enables him to inflate the area of Titulo No. 4 from 144 hectares to 1,200 hectares; Titulo No. 5 from 191 hectares to 1,180 hectares; Titulo No. 6 from 164 hectares to 1,249 hectares; Titulo No. 7 from 130 hectares to 922 hectares; Titulo No. 9 from 168 hectares to 1,240 hectares; Titulo No. 10 from 146 hectares to 930 hectares; Titulo No. 15 from 70 hectares to 739 hectares, and so on. Francisco's alterations in Titulo No. 8 are illuminating.

This titulo , dated July 10, 1885, describes the land sold to Jose M. Ceballos, as follows:al norte, este y sur, cogonales del Estado y al oeste el Rio Domorog in the sitio Bairan. For the north and east boundaries, Francisco would substitute the following:terrenos del Estado "ocupados ahora"(1932) por los Señores Fermin Santiago, Sabino Alvarado, Melquiades Ariban y otros. (See his deposition, page 94.) This is too absurd to require comment.

For the southern boundary instead of cogonales del estado Francisco substitutes terreno de Jose Muñoz, hijo, Titulo No. 2. But that cannot be correct because Titulo No. 2 recites:at norte et Rio Dumurog y al este terreno denunciado por D. Jose M. Ceballos. Titulo No. 8 names the River Domorog as its western boundary.

Francisco says this is wrong because the sitio Bairan lies west of the Domorog River. His own sketch, Exhibit K, shows that Bairan lies southeast (not west) of that part of the Domorog River which touches Titulo No. 8. Having discovered this supposed error, he assumes he must find some other river for the western boundary of Titulo No. 8.

It did not suit his purpose to take the Bagacay River, the first one to the west. He crosses that and arbitrarily substitutes the Daraga River as the western boundary of Titulo No.

8, some three kilometers distant from the River Domorog named in the titulo. With these alterations, Francisco inflates the area of Titulo No. 8 from 180 hectares to 1,714 hectares; and he would have this court find that the Spanish government intended to sell 1,714 hectares of the public lands for the paltry sum of P198, in the face of the Royal Decree of February 4, 1862, fixing the tipo minimo de cincuenta centimos de peso por cada quiñon de terreno baldio y realengo que se adjudique for Estado. Titulo No. 2 conveyers to Jose Muñoz 158 hectares 67 ares 36 centiares described as follows: Al norte el Rio Domorog, al este terreno denunciado por D. Jose M. Ceballos, al sur terrenos baldios realengos y oeste el Monte Nadaingan ...

enclavado en el sitio denomunado Tetas de Cataiñgan o Bairan. Trenching upon the terrenos baldios realengos lying to the south Francisco, instead of confining the land to the one sitio named in the titulo , extends the area of Titulo No. 2 so as to embrace eight sitio s, Bairan, Caburutan, Catambuan, Matungao, Matagantang, Carabasa, Bagacay and Caindian, arbitrarily inflating the area from 158 hectares to 4,922 hectares. It is unnecessary to burden this opinion with the exposition of similar liberties which Francisco took with all the remaining titulos in order to inflate their areas.

Suffice it solemn public documents should succeed in a court of justice in securing to the applicants some 24,000 hectares of the public lands for which neither they nor their predecessors have paid one single centavo. II There is another fundamental reason for rejecting Francisco's vast inflations. Under the Spanish laws, in force in the Philippines, by which these nineteen titulos were acquired, public lands were sold exclusively by the unit of measure (hectare, quiñon) and not in the mass, the area being the essence of the contract.

Article 1469 of the Spanish Civil Code provides as follows: If a sale of real property should be made with a statement of its area, at a certain price for each unit of measure or number, the vendor shall be obliged to deliver to the vendee, if the latter should require it, all that which has been specified in the contract; but should this not be possible, the vendee may choose between a proportional reduction in the price or the rescission of the contract, provided that in the latter case the deficiency be not less than one-tenth of the stated area of the properly. Article 1470 is as follows: If in the case mentioned in the next preceding article the area of the realty should be greater than that specified in the contract, the vendee shall be obliged to pay the price of the excess if the greater area should not exceed one-twentieth of that specified in the contract; but should it be more than one-twentieth, the vendee may choose between paying the greater value of the property or withdrawing from the contract.

That the principle or rule of construction enacted in these articles of the Civil Code was followed and applied by the Spanish government in the sale of public lands is asserted by Manresa and was recognized by this court in the case of Barretto vs. Director of Lands(G.R. No. 29717, promulgated December 29, 1928 2 ). In that case this court construed a Spanish titulo conveying a tract of land in the Province of Zambales to Barretto. The titulo described the land by natural boundaries as follows:baldios y realengos unos terrenos situados en la Provincia de Zambales, jurisdiccion del Pueblo de Cabangan, Sitio de Balintagac, lindando al sur, con el monte del Carmen; al norte, el Rio Anonang; al este, el rincon de Balintagac y oeste el montede Tictic.

The area was stated in the titulo to be two hundred quiñones and the price four reales per quiñon. This court, speaking through Justice Romualdez, construed said titulo in the following language: Dado que, excepto el rio Anonang al lado norte, los demas linderos consigna dos en este titulo no son puntos olineas especificas por no constar claramente ni en tal documento ni en las pruebas aportadas donde empiezan determinadamente el monte del Carmen, el rincon de Balintagaco el monte de Tictic, y teniendo en cuenta que la venta efectuada por el Gobierno español a favor de D. Antonio Lorenzo Barretto causante del aqui solicitante, no fue a cuerpocierto toda vez que los linderos son inciertos sino de 200 quifiones a razon de cuatro reales cada quiñon, es decir, a un tanto por unidad de medida, entendemos acertada la alegacion de los abogados del apelante de que la verdadera intencion del Estado como vendedor y del referido D. Antonio Lorenzo Barretto como comprador fue trasferir aeste 200 quiñones de terreno en aquel sitio de Balintagac extendiendose desde el rio Anonang hacia el sur, este y oeste.

Y tal intencion del Estado de celebrar la venta, noa cuerpo cierto, sino a un tanto por unidad de medida y que, antaes del 7 de abril de 1869, todavia daba lugar a incertdumbres en casos dudosos, quedo desde dicha fecha definitivanmente reconocida por la orden del Poder Ejecutivo, a la cusl se refiere Manresa en el parrafo que transcribimosa conticuation: "Desde esta fecha de 7 de abril de 1869 es, por lo tanto, indudable que las ventas de bienes del Estado no se hacena a cuerpo cierto sino a razon de un tanto por unidad de medidao numero. Por otra parte, las sentencias del Tribunal Supremo de 5 de mayo de 1870 y de febrero de 1877, y el Real decreto sentencia de 20 de marzo de 1885, coinciden en afirmar que la doctrina de los cuerpos ciertos no pueden tener aplicacion a las ventas de bienes del Estado, sea cual fuere su fecha. (10 Manresa, Comentarios al Codigo Civil Español, pag.

164, edicion de 1908.)" This principle that the Spanish government never sold public lands in the Philippines in the mass (cuerpos cietos) but only by units of measurement, that is to say, at a fixed price per hectare or per quiñon, was again clearly asserted in the Royal Decree of November 27, 1880, in force when in the Royal Decree of November 27, 1880, in force when the nineteen titulos here involved were issued, published in the Graceta de Manila, No. 65, of March 6, 1881, which states in part. Acreditado por los mismos titulos que presents Ramirez, que lo que verdaderamente adquirio del Estado o mejorsus causantes D. Mariano Albea y D. Felix Guianzo, sereduce solo a 2438 hectareas, poco mis o menos, es evidente que la pretension de que se le reconozca como legitimo poseedor de 16,000, a pretexto de lo que adjudicado ha de entenderse como cuerpo cierto, ni se apoya en disposicion alguna positiva, ni en doctrina, ni principios atendibles bajo ningun concepto, pues la teoria de cuerpos cierto, desechada ya en la Peninsula absolutamente, segun se declareen varias disposiciones del Gobierno, no ha regidonunca en Filipinas, ni aun cuando hubiera estado en vigor, seriaaplicable a este caso dados los terminos en que se hicieronlas respectivas adjudicaciones.

Otro tanto puede decirse delas demas pretensiones formuladas por el recurrente Ramirez, invocando los principios de equidad porque esta no puede ser decisiva cuando se perjudican los intereses de una de las partes; y es notorio que aqui se perjudicari annotablemente los del Estado, tolerando una unsurpacio tanconsiderable o recibiendo como precio muchisimo menos delque realmente tienen los terrenos que al mismo Estadopertenecen. The same principle by which decisive effect is given to the area stated in the titulo , is recognized and enacted inthe Decree of June 22, 1882 (before any of the nineteen titulos here involved was issued) relating to the sales of public lands in the Philippines appraised at more than P200 Paragraph 3 of this deeree is as follows: Si se entablase reclamacion sobre exceso o falta decabida del terreno subastado y del expediente resultase que dicha falta o exceso iguala a la quinta parte de la expresada en el anuncio, sera nula la venta; quedando en caso contrario, firme y subsistente y sin derecho a indemnizacion la Hacienda ni el comprador.

Again, in the Royal Decree of January 19, 1883, in force when the nineteen titulos here involved were issued, which regulated the sale of public lands in the Philippine Islands, the conclusiveness of the area is recognized. Article 27 of said decree is as follows: El error tolerable en las mediciones de baldios realengos sera el de cinco por ciento de la cabida total. Cuando exceda de dicha cantidad y no pase del quince por ciento, el mismo poseedor del terreno tendera derecho a la composicion de la parte sobrante por el precio de la tasacion que corresponda mayor del quince por ciento se sacara a subasta con obligacio por parte del rematante de indemnizar al poseedor elimportante de las majoras se hara por un perito nombrador porcada pater y por un tercero nombrado por la Administracionen caso de discordia.

Cuando el error de la medicion exceda del quince por ciento, se intruira expediente para exigir a los peritos la responsabilidad que corresponda. In two recent decisions of this court (Rosado vs. Director of Lands, 58 Phil., 833, and Martinez vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. 37303, January 19, 1934 [54 Phil., 908] ), both involving public lands in the Province of Masbate, this court lands by the Spanish government and refused to sanction the inflation of the area beyond that shown in the titulos. In the former case, the titulo described the land as follows: Al norte y oeste, terrenos del Estado; al este, playa, y al sur, bosque y terrenos del Estado.

The titulo stated the area to be 144 hectares, 89 ares and 76 centiares. The applicant claimed that the titulo was wrong as to the area which, it was alleged, should be 966 hectares, 30 area and 95 centiares. In the latter case of Martinez against the Director of Lands, the titulo described the land as bounded on the north by the Boracay River and public land; on the east, by the sea; on the south, by the Bangad River and public land; and on the west public cogon land, containing an area of 80 hectares, 71 ares and 30 centiares.

The applicant claimed that the titulo was wrong and that the area should be 866 hectares, 54 ares and 17 centiares. In both of these recent cases this court approved the following doctrine: It is doubtless true that when a deed describes a tract of land by definite and ascertainble boundaries, an additional statement as to the area included is of secondary importance, because it is presumed that the parties to the deed contracted with reference to the land specifically delimited in the description. But this rule, has no application in the present case for two reasons: First, because the land is not specifically delimited by definite and ascertainable boundaries; and, second, because the record shows, as above set out, that the Spanish government and Alejandro Danao contracted with reference to a definite area, because the minimum acceptable bid was based on an area of 144 hectares, 89 ares and 70 centiares.

In the Martinez case, after stating the rule as quoted above, the court said: In the case before us the price was estimated on the basis of two pesos per hectare and the price paid for 80 hectares, 71 ares and 30 centiares amounted to only P161. This does not show a right to the 866 hectares and a fraction claimed by the appellant. Under the Royal Decree of October 28, 1869, the decisions of the Intendencia General de Hacienda adjudicating titles to public lands were required to be published in the Gaceta de Manila of which we take judicial notice.

(Director of Lands vs. Absolo, 46 Phil., 282, 307.) From these decisions as well as from the recitals in the nineteen titulos themselves, which are the origin of the claimants' title in the case before us, it appears that each of the nineteen tracts was sold, both the Government and the purchaser contracted specifically with reference to the area stated in the titulos. For each title the Government was paid by the hectare for the number of hectares indicated in the title and no more. Any area granted to these applicants in excess of the percentage of permissible error would be a pure gift without consideration whatever to the State.

The following table is a graphic representation of the facts relating to each of the nineteen titles, as shown by the decisions of the Intendencia and the titulos themselves, as compared with the pretensions of the applicants as shown by their Exhibit K: TABLE A Purchaser Title number and date Hectares in title Price fixed price per hectares Amount paid government Hectares shown on Exhibit K Hectares not paid for Domingo Gonzales 1 May 31, 1883 131.9125 P1.40 P184.68 1,242.20 1,110.2875 Jose Muñoz Hijo 2 May 31, 1883 158.6736 1.20 190.40 4,922.50 4,763.8264 Jose Maria Ceballos 3 Aug. 20, 1883 129.9576 1.30 168.94 3,136.75 3,006.7924 Juan Alvares 4 May 31, 1883 144.6710 1.36 196.94 1,200.00 1,055.3290 Nicolas Aceneta 5 Jan. 31, 1884 191.6849 1.03 197.43 1,180.00 988.3151 Manuel Conejero 6 Aug.

20, 1883 164.8881 1.20 197.87 1,249.20 1,084.3119 Hipolito Lanuza 7 May 31, 1883 130.1600 1.40 182.22 922.00 791.8400 Jose Maria Ceballos 8 July 10, 1885 180.7400 1.10 198.81 1,714.02 1,533.2800 Honorio Maria Ysidro 9 July 31, 1883 168.1120 1.15 193.33 1,240.88 1,072.7680 Do 10 July 10, 1885 146.2800 1.20 175.53 930.00 783.7200 Jose Verdote 11 July 10, 1885 133.9837 1.25 167.48 2,657.00 2,523.6163 Pio Balana 12 Feb. 9, 1886 63.5000 1.95 123.82 1,650.00 1,586.5000 Yldelfonso Torralba 13 Feb. 9, 1886 76.2000 1.95 148.59 1,250.00 1,173.8000 Do 14 Feb.

9, 1886 101.5000 1.90 192.00 4,000.00 3,898.5000 Anacleto Solano 15 Aug. 13, 1886 70.6000 2.00 141.20 810.00 789.4000 Do 16 Aug. 13, 1886 66.0060 3.00 199.80 149.31 83.3040 Manuel Conejero 17 Aug.

13, 1886 74.5000 2.00 149.00 3,210.00 3,135.5000 Florentino Marvella 18 Aug. 13, 1886 46.6000 3.00 189.80 269.00 222.4000 Nicolas Losentales 19 Aug. 13, 1886 45.9500 3.00 137.85 379.75 333.8000 Total