Universidad De Manila

COLLEGE OF LAW
A.J. Villegas St. Mehan Gardens, Ermita, Manila

Curugan, Esperidion G. January 28, 2019

(Student) (Date)

Director, LMB vs. Court of Appeals and Carino

ISSUE

Whether or not Lot No. 6 surveyed as

Psu-108952 situated in Barangay Sala,
Cabuyao, Laguna, is a public land and under
the administrative supervision and power of
disposition of the Bureau of Lands
Management?
RULE
• Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act)
• CA No. 141 (Public Land Act)
• RA 1942 (Act amending subsection (b) of CA No. 141)
• RA 3872 (Act amending sections 44, 48, and 120 of CA 141)
• PD 1073 (Extending the period of filing applications for free
patent)
• Republic v. Vera
• Director of Lands v. Agustin
• Republic v. Marcos
• Republic v. Lee
• Javellana v. Court of Appeals
• Republic v. Court of Appeals
• Director of Lands v. Santiago
• Republic v. Sayo
• Lee Hong v. David
• Director of Lands v. Datu
 ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND ARGUMENTS
Director, LMB (petitioner)
vs.
Court of Appeals and Aquilino L. Carino (respondents)

In 1975, Carino filed a petition docketed as LRC No. 467-B with the Court of First
Instance (CFI), Branch 1, Laguna for the registration of Lot No. 6 plan Psu-108952 in favor
of the former.

In 1990, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laguna granted the petition of Carino.
The Director, LMB went to the Court of Appeals (CA) and opposed the RTC’s decision. The
CA case is docketed as CA-G.R. No. 29218.

In 1993, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Undaunted, the Director, LMB went up to the Supreme Court and filed a Petition
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the
Decision of the CA.
 ARGUMENTS
Director of Lands Management Bureau
1. Carino has not submitted proof of
his fee simple title or proof of
possession in the manner and for
the length of time required by law
to justify confirmation of imperfect
title.
2. Carino has not overthrown the
presumption that the land is a
portion of the public domain
belonging to the Republic of the
Philippines.
Aquilino L. Carino
1. Subject land was originally owned by his
mother who died in 1911. He has been the
administrator of the land after the death
of their father in 1934. He and his brother
Severino Carino became co-owners by
virtue of extra-judicial partition in 1949.
Carino became the sole owner of the land
by virtue of another extra-judicial
settlement in 1963.
2. Carino has been in continuous, open
and exclusive possession of the land who
acquired the same thru his deceased
mother, Teresa Lauchangco, as
mentioned on the Extra-judicial partition
dated July 26, 1963.
 CONCLUSION
Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands belong to the State. Unless
alienated in accordance with law, it retains its basic rights over the same
as dominus. The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Purisima, said
that, the private respondent, Aquilino L. Carino, having failed to come
forward with muniments of title to reinforce his petition for registration
under the Land Registration Act, and to present convincing and positive
proof of his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of Lot No.
6 en concepto de dueno for at least 30 years immediately preceding the
filing of his petition, the Court is of the opinion, and so finds, that subject
Lot No. 6 surveyed under Psu-108952, forms part of the public domain not
registrable in the name of private respondent.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. No. 29218,
affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court is set aside, and Lot No. 6
is declared a public land, under the administrative supervision and power
of disposition of the Bureau of Lands Management.