2. DIRECTOR OF LANDS v.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ACME

PLYWOOD & VENEER Co. INC., ETC. 146 SCRA 509, December 29, 1986


NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an appeal by certiorari from the judgment of the
Intermediate Appellate Court affirming a decision of the Court of First Instance of Isabela,
which ordered the registration in favor of the respondents.

FACTS: The Director of Lands appealed the judgment of the Intermediate Appellate Court
which affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Isabela ordering the
registration in favor of Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. of five parcels of land measuring
481, 390 sqm., acquired from Mariano and Acer Infiel, members of the indigenous
Dumagat Tribe and owners of the lots-in-question from time immemorial, back before
Magellan discovered the Philippines, on October 29, 1962. This was accordingly only
registered on July 17, 1982 long after the aegis of the 1973 Constitution.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the conversion of the land in question is recognized.
2. Whether or not the provision barring private companies and associations from
purchasing public alienable lands in 1973 Constitution is applicable retroactively.

RULING:

1. Referring to the ruling in Meralco v. Castro-Bartolome, the land held by the Infiels
since time immemorial was effectively deemed as private land, by the operation of
the law, ipso jure. Thus, at the moment of the sale, ACME Plywood & Veneer Co.,
Inc., Etc. therefore, purchased private property. There being no ruling in the 1935
Constitution prohibiting this sale, this was held to be valid.
2. NO. Acme had already obtained vested rights under the 1935 Constitution when it
purchased the land from the Infiels. The provision in the 1973 Constitution
prohibiting the purchase of alienable public lands by private corporations or
associations cannot be retroactively applied.


DIPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error in the appealed
decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, the same is hereby affirmed, without costs in
this instance.























NOTES: This case neither enhanced nor diminished the Regalian Doctrine, because the subject matter has
already been a private land from time immemorial, thus recognizing ancestral land. The Regalian Doctrine
have not been applied in this case.