On the 8th day of November, 1909, the  plaintiffs presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration, for  the registration under  the Torrens system, of, the two following parcels of land:

"First parcel - A tract of land exclusively used as a rain- water reservoir for the irrigation of the petitioners' properties that were recently registered, which tract is situated in the sitio of Pinaglamuan, comprised within the barrio of San Jose of the municipality of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija.  It has an  area  of  95,118 square  meters and is bounded, on the north, by the  lands of Basilisa Talen and  Simplicio Mata; on  the east, by those of Damaso Velasco, Pioquinto Ortiz Luis, Calixto Ortiz Luis and Tomas Ortiz Liiis; on the south, by  that of Tomas Ortiz Luis, and on the west, by  those of Simplicio Ortiz Luiz,  Elias  Monsaya, Simplicio Ortiz Luis, Castor Custodio, Victoriano Juan, Braulio Rico and Fernando de Leon.

"Second parcel - A tract of land exclusively used as a rain water  reservoir  for the irrigation  of  the petitioners' properties that were recently registered.   It has an area of 50,968 square meters and is bounded on the southeast by the property of Jose Ortiz Luis.   This tract of land is situated in the sitio named Bancal, comprised within the  barrio of San Jose, municipality of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija."

The petition was set down for hearing in the municipality of San Isidro, Province of Nueva  Ecija, on the 15th  of March,  1910.  On  that day  the petitioners  appeared and presented their proof relating to their right to have the said parcels of land registered in accordance with their petition. No opposition  was presented.

After hearing the evidence, the Hon. J. A. Ostrand, found that the plaintiffs  were entitled to have the said parcels of land registered and so ordered and decreed.

On the same day (the 15th of March, 1910)  and  after the above hearing and decree, the presidente of the municipality of Cabiao appeared and presented his  opposition to the registration of the said  first  parcel of land,  alleging that the said parcel (the first)  belonged to the municipality  of Cabiao, and asked that the order decreeing the registration of the said first parcel be vacated and that, a new trial  be ordered.

After hearing the opposition of the said presidente, Judge Ostrand on the 22d day of March, 1910, ordered a  new trial which took place on the 25th day of April, 1910.

On the 26th day of April, 1910, Ignacio  Villamor, Attorney-General for the  Philippine  Islands,  presented an opposition on the partkof the Insular Government against the registration of the first parcel of land mentioned in the petition of the petitioners, upon the ground that the said parcel of  land belonged to the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands.

On the 6th day of May, 1910, after hearing the  evidence of the petitioners and oppositors, Judge Ostrand  rendered the following decree:

"It appears from the evidence that the land sought to be registered, is an estero, the water from which is utilized by the petitioners, together with other persons, for the irrigation of the lands bordering on  the said  estero, and that, therefore, the petitioners have neither  the ownership nor the exclusive  possession of the said  estero, but, at the most,  solely the right to the  use of a part of the water therefrom, for the irrigation of their lands.  In the opinion of the court, such a right, in itself alone, is not registerable under .the Land Registration Act."

From this decree the petitioners appealed and made the following assignments of  error:

"II. The court erred in finding in his judgment that the petitioners did not have the  ownership, or  the  absolute possession, of  the first tract sought to  be registered, that is, of the tract known by the name of 'Pinaglamuan.'

"III. The court erred  in finding, in  the judgment, that the petitioners are entitled to use only a part  of the water from the  'Pinaglamuan' tract.

"IV. The court erred in not decreeing in his judgment that the second tract specified in the application be  registered in the property registry in the name of the petitioners.

"V.  And, lastly, the court erred in rendering judgment upon the matter of this appeal, by not having given proper weight therein to the evidence presented and taken during the hearing on the application."

Reading the  judgment or decree of the lower court above quoted, it is  not clear whether or not  it  was intended to deny the  registration  of  both parcels of land.  Judge Ostrand said: "Resulta de las pruebas que los terrenos cuya inscripcidn se pretende, es un estero,"  As far as the record shows  the two parcels of land are in  no way connected. There was no opposition  presented by any one relating to the registration of the second parcel of land and  there was no proof  adduced during the second trial relating to  the rights  of  either the plaintiffs or defendants to the said second  parcel of land.

Upon an examination  of the record, we find nothing that justifies the denial of the registration of the second parcel of land  in favor  of  the petitioners.  The registration of the second  parcel  of  land is, therefore, hereby  admitted and directed.   If it was intended by the decree of the lower court to deny the registration of the second parcel of land in favor of the plaintiffs, that part of said decree is hereby revoked and it is  hereby directed that a  decree be entered directing the registration of the said second parcel of land in favor of the petitioners.

With reference  to the first parcel of land, the evidence, in our  judgment,  clearly shows that the  plaintiffs are not entitled to the  registration of the same under the Torrens system.  The evidence shows that the municipality of Cabiao had  for many  years, controlled the right  of  fishing upon the  said parcel of  land, the  same being variously called an  estero or  laguna.  The evidence also discloses that other persons had made use of the estero for various purposes, such as draining their land or using  the water from said  estero during the dry season for the irrigation of their land.  Upon the whole, the evidence shows clearly that the plaintiffs are not the sole  and  exclusive owners of the said first parcel of land.

We expressly waive  a  discussion of  the  right  of the alleged  owners of land,  such as that described in the first parcel,  to  have the same registered under the Torrens system.   It is sufficient for the present to deny the registration of  said first parcel  of land  upon the ground that the plaintiffs are not  the sole owners  thereof.

Without  a more  detailed  discussion  of the respective assignments of error, we are of  the opinion and so decide that the judgment of the lower court denying the registration of  the first parcel  of land  should  be and  is hereby affirmed.   Therefore let  a judgment be entered directing -

(a) That the judgment of the lower court denying the registration of  the first  parcel of .land be affirmed; and

(b)  Let a judgment be entered directing that the second parcel of land be  registered in  the name of the plaintiffs. Without any  finding as to costs;  it is  so  ordered.

Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.