In 1882, Restituto Romero gained possession of a considerable tract of land in the

municipality of San Jose, Province of Nueva Ecija. He later obtained a possessory

information title to the land thru a Royal Decree and registered the same in 1896. In
1907, Parcel No. 1, which was included within the limits of the possessory
information title of Restituto Romero, was sold to petitioner Cornelio Ramos and his
wife Ambrosia Salamanca.
Ramos instituted appropriate proceedings to have his title registered. However, it is
admitted that Ramos has cultivated only about one fourth of the entire tract. The
Director of Lands opposed Ramos registration on the ground that he had not
acquired a good title. The trial court then excluded parcel No. 1 from registration.
Ramos contends that his predecessor-in-interest, Restituto Romero, held the land
under color of title.
ISSUE: Is the actual occupancy of a part of the land described in the instrument
giving color of title sufficient to give title to the entire tract of land?
The doctrine of constructive possession indicates the answer. The general rule is
that the possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract under claim of ownership
of all is a constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the adverse
possession of another. Here, it is only necessary to apply the general rule. In this
case, Ramos has color of title; he acted in good faith; and he has had open,
peaceable, and notorious possession of a portion of the property, sufficient to
apprise the community and the world that the land was for his enjoyment.
Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on
every square meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession. Ramos
and his predecessor in interest fulfilled the requirements of the law on the
supposition that the premises consisted of agricultural public land.
When the claim of the citizen and the claim of the Government as to a particular
piece of property collide, if the Government desires to demonstrate that the land is
in reality a forest, the Director of Forestry should submit to the court convincing
proof that the land is not more valuable for agricultural than for forest purposes. A
mere formal opposition on the part of the Attorney-General for the Director of
Forestry, unsupported by satisfactory evidence will not stop the courts from
giving title to the Ramos.
Ramos has proved a title to the entire tract of land for which he asked registration.
Hence, the entire tract in Parcel No. 1 shall be registered in the name of the Ramos.