This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-12-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Records do not disclose whether the Bureau of Lands approved Apa's sales application, and a sales patent and certificate of title issued in her name. In fact, respondents did not present any certificate of title in Apa's name. It is axiomatic that no one can transfer to another a right greater than that which one has; thus, the legal truism that the spring cannot rise higher than its source.[30] Therefore, what respondents acquired from Apa were merely her rights over the agricultural sales application over Lot No. 294 and not ownership or legal possession of the property itself. That respondents are not the lawful owners or possessors of Lot No. 294 and therefore could not have entered into a valid leasehold contract is bolstered by the fact that the sales application for Lot No. 294 filed by Encarnacion Tongson was eventually rejected by the Bureau of Lands in its Order dated December 29, 1982.[31] Although Encarnacion Tongson was ordered by the Bureau of Lands to file a lease application in lieu of her sales application, there is no showing in this case whether Tongson had indeed filed a lease application for Lot No. 294 nor that it was approved by the Bureau of Lands. It is noted that per record of this case, the Order dated December 29, 1982 of the Bureau of Lands, which was affirmed by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources in a Decision dated January 14, 1993, is still pending appeal before the Office of the President. The Court cites with approval the findings of the trial court on this matter, to wit:Besides, the fact that the plaintiffs have been in actual possession of their respective occupancies up to the present and are the actual tillers thereof and have free patent applications therefore which, along with the protest of Encarnacion Tongson, are still pending resolution by the Office of the President; and that Zacarias or Encarnacion Tongson has not shown in this case any clear, determinate and positive right against those of the plaintiffs, and has not even presented in this case a copy of her rejected sales application to uphold the validity of the Agricultural Leasehold Contracts in question would necessarily foreclose the free patent applications of the plaintiffs from the chances of approval and thus pre-empt the Office of the President which has the exclusive power to dispose and grant public lands to rightful claimants.[32] Hence, for purposes of this case and without prejudice to any resolution that the Office of the President may come up with regarding the appealed case before it, it cannot be said that respondents are the lawful owners, or, at the very least, legal possessors of the property, entitling them to enter into the agricultural leasehold contracts with petitioners. | |||||
|
2005-12-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Records do not disclose whether the Bureau of Lands approved Apa's sales application, and a sales patent and certificate of title issued in her name. In fact, respondents did not present any certificate of title in Apa's name. It is axiomatic that no one can transfer to another a right greater than that which one has; thus, the legal truism that the spring cannot rise higher than its source.[30] Therefore, what respondents acquired from Apa were merely her rights over the agricultural sales application over Lot No. 294 and not ownership or legal possession of the property itself. That respondents are not the lawful owners or possessors of Lot No. 294 and therefore could not have entered into a valid leasehold contract is bolstered by the fact that the sales application for Lot No. 294 filed by Encarnacion Tongson was eventually rejected by the Bureau of Lands in its Order dated December 29, 1982.[31] Although Encarnacion Tongson was ordered by the Bureau of Lands to file a lease application in lieu of her sales application, there is no showing in this case whether Tongson had indeed filed a lease application for Lot No. 294 nor that it was approved by the Bureau of Lands. It is noted that per record of this case, the Order dated December 29, 1982 of the Bureau of Lands, which was affirmed by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources in a Decision dated January 14, 1993, is still pending appeal before the Office of the President. The Court cites with approval the findings of the trial court on this matter, to wit:Besides, the fact that the plaintiffs have been in actual possession of their respective occupancies up to the present and are the actual tillers thereof and have free patent applications therefore which, along with the protest of Encarnacion Tongson, are still pending resolution by the Office of the President; and that Zacarias or Encarnacion Tongson has not shown in this case any clear, determinate and positive right against those of the plaintiffs, and has not even presented in this case a copy of her rejected sales application to uphold the validity of the Agricultural Leasehold Contracts in question would necessarily foreclose the free patent applications of the plaintiffs from the chances of approval and thus pre-empt the Office of the President which has the exclusive power to dispose and grant public lands to rightful claimants.[32] Hence, for purposes of this case and without prejudice to any resolution that the Office of the President may come up with regarding the appealed case before it, it cannot be said that respondents are the lawful owners, or, at the very least, legal possessors of the property, entitling them to enter into the agricultural leasehold contracts with petitioners. | |||||