Director of Lands vs IAC and Acme Plywood

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting:

Section 48 of the Public Land Act in !art !rovides:
S"C# 48# $he following described citi%ens of the Phili!!ines occu!ying lands of the !ublic domain or claiming to own any such lands or an
interest therein but whose titles have not been !erfected or com!leted may a!!ly to the Court of &irst Instance of the !rovince where the land is
located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor under the Land 'egistration Act to wit:
(a) ###
(b) $hose who by themselves or through their !redecessors in interest have been in o!en continuous e*clusive and notorious !ossession and
occu!ation of agricultural lands of the !ublic domain under a bona fide claim of ac+uisition of ownershi! for at least thirty years immediately
!receding the filing of the a!!lication for confirmation of title e*ce!t when !revented by war or force ma,eure# $hese shall be conclusively
!resumed to have !erformed are the conditions essential to a -overnment grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the !rovisions
of this cha!ter#
(c) ###
Article .I/ Section 00 of the 0123 Constitution in !art !rovides:
S"C# 00# #### 4o !rivate cor!oration or association may hold alienable lands of the !ublic domain e*ce!t by lease not to e*ceed one thousand
hectares in area5 nor may any citi%en hold such lands by lease in e*cess of five hundred hectares ####
It has to be conceded that literally statutory law and constitutional !rovision !revent a cor!oration from directly a!!lying to the Courts for the issuance of
6riginal Certificates of $itle to lands of the !ublic domain (7anila "lectric Com!any vs# Castro89artolome 004 SC'A 2115 'e!ublic vs# /illanueva 004
SC'A 82:5 'e!ublic vs# Court of A!!eals 001 SC'A 4415 Iglesia ni Cristo vs# ;on# <udge C&I of 4ueva "ci,a 9r# 0)# It is my o!inion that the literalism
should be adhered to in this case#
$he reasoning of the ma,ority can be restated in sim!le terms as follows:
(a) $he I4&I"LS can successfully file an a!!lication for a certificate of title over the land involved in the case#
(b) After the I4&I"LS secure a certificate of title they can sell the land to AC7"#
(c) As AC7" can eventually own the certificate of title it should be allowed to directly a!!ly to the Courts for the Certificate of $itle thus avoiding the
circuituous =literal= re+uirement that the I4&I"LS should first a!!ly to the courts for the titles and afterwards transfer the title to AC7"#
$he ma,ority o!inion in effect ado!ted the following e*cer!t from a dissent in Manila Electric Company vs. Castro-Bartolome (004 SC'A 211 8>3
?018>@)#
$o u!hold res!ondent ,udgeAs denial of 7eralcoAs a!!lication on the technicality that the Public Land Act allows only citi%ens of the Phili!!ines
who are natural !ersons to a!!ly for confirmation of their title would be im!ractical and would ,ust give rise to multi!licity of court actions#
Assuming that there was a technical error in not having filed the a!!lication for registration in the name of the Piguing s!ouses as the original
owners and vendors
still it is conceded that there is no prohibition against their sale of the land to the a!!licant 7eralco
and neither is there any !rohibition against the a!!lication being refiled with retroactive effect in the name of the original owners and vendors
(as such natural !ersons) with the end result of their a!!lication being granted because of their indis!utable ac+uisition of ownershi! by
o!eration of law and the conclusive !resum!tion therein !rovided in their favor#
It should not be necessary to go through all the rituals at the great cost of refiling of all such a!!lications in their names and adding to the overcrowded
court docBets when the Court can after all these years dis!ose of it here and now#= ("m!hasis su!!lied)
$he effect is that the ma,ority o!inion now nullifies the statutory !rovision that only citi%ens (natural !ersons) can a!!ly for certificates of title under
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act as well as the constitutional !rovision (Article .I/ Section 00) which !rohibits cor!orations from ac+uiring title to
lands of the !ublic domain# $hat inter!retation or construction ado!ted by the ma,ority cannot be ,ustified# =A construction ado!ted should not be such as
to nullify destroy or defeat the intention of the legislature= (4ew CorB State De!t# of Social Services v# Dublino ?DS$ 32 L# "d >d E88 13 S Ct >:F25
Dnited States v# Al!ers 338 DS E8F 14 L "d 4:2 2F S Ct 3:>5 cited in 23 Am <ur# >nd# !# 3:0)#
It has also been said that:
In the construction of statutes the courts start with the assum!tion that the legislature intended to enact an effective law and the legislature is
not to be !resumed to have done a vain thing in the enactment of a statute# ;ence it is a general !rinci!le that the courts should if reasonably
!ossible to do so inter!ret the statute or the !rovision being construed so as to give it efficient o!eration and effect as a whole# An
inter!retation should if !ossible be avoided under which the statute or !rovision being construed is defeated or as otherwise e*!ressed
nullified destroyed emasculated re!ealed e*!lained away or rendered insignificant meaningless ino!erative or nugatory# If a statute is fairly
susce!tible of two constructions one of which will give effect to the act while the other will defeat it the former construction is !referred# 6ne
!art of a statute may not be construed so as to render another !art nugatory or of no effect# 7oreover notwithstanding the general rule against
the enlargement of e*tension of a statute by construction the meaning of a statute may be e*tended beyond the !recise words used in the law
and words or !hrases may be altered or su!!lied where this is necessary to !revent a law from becoming a nullity# Gherever the !rovision of a
statute is general everything which is necessary to maBe such !rovision effectual is su!!lied by im!lication# (PliaBos vs# Illinois Li+uor Control
Com# 00 III >d 4:E 043 4">d 425 cited in 23 A7 <ur# >d !!# 4>>84>3)
$he statutory !rovision and the constitutional !rohibition e*!ress a !ublic !olicy# $he !ro!er course for the Court to taBe is to !romote in the fullest
manner the !olicy thus laid down and to avoid a construction which would alter or defeat that !olicy#