G.R. No. L-12097; July 26, 1918
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF LIPA, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE MUNICIPALITY OF TAAL, objector-appellant, THE MUNICIPALITY OF SANTO TOMAS and THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, objectors-appellees.

FACTS:
This is a land registration case under the Land Registration Act. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa appealed the denial of registration for two parcels of land. The Municipality of Taal appealed the grant of registration for another parcel.

1. Parcel 74: A 544-square-meter tract in Santo Tomas, Batangas, located between the church atrium’s front wall and the public highway, known as “Plaza Malvar.” The church claimed ownership, while the Municipality of Santo Tomas opposed, asserting it was a public plaza. The trial court found the land was outside the church’s enclosing walls and noted that in a prior registration (1912), the church itself had described Plaza Malvar as a boundary, admitting it was a public square. Alleged acts of ownership by the church (e.g., prohibiting the tying of animals) were deemed insufficient to establish title.

2. Parcel 71, Lot 9: A tract in Rosario, Batangas. The Director of Forestry opposed the registration of 71 hectares within this parcel, claiming it was public forest land. The trial court excluded these 71 hectares, finding the area uncultivated and containing trees of importance, characteristic of forest land.

3. Costs Issue: The trial court applied the higher costs mandated by Act No. 2556 to this pending proceeding, and the petitioner challenged this as an ex post facto law, an impairment of contract, and a deprivation of property without due process.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the petitioner presented sufficient evidence to establish ownership in fee simple over Parcel 74 (Plaza Malvar) and the 71-hectare forested portion of Parcel 71, Lot 9, for registration under the Torrens system.
2. Whether applying the increased costs under Act No. 2556 to a pending registration proceeding is valid.

RULING:
1. On the Merits of Registration:
For Parcel 74: The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s denial of registration. The petitioner’s evidence of alleged acts of dominion was wholly insufficient to prove ownership. The land’s location outside the church walls, its use as a public space, and the church’s own prior admission in its 1912 registration that it was a plaza controlled by the municipality militated against its claim.
For Parcel 71, Lot 9 (Forest Land): The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the exclusion of the 71 hectares. The evidence showed no grant from the Government and no proof of possession that would warrant a decree of title. The Court emphasized that for Torrens registration, the applicant bears the burden of showing absolute ownership in fee simple by positive and absolute proof, even in the absence of opposition.

2. On the Costs Issue: The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s order applying Act No. 2556 . The law is not an ex post facto law, as such laws relate only to penal and criminal matters, not civil proceedings affecting private rights. There was no contractual obligation by the Government to maintain a specific cost tariff. The petitioner voluntarily pursued registration and could have withdrawn if the new costs were deemed too high. The Legislature has the power to amend the law, including its provisions on costs.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed with regard to Parcel 71, Lot 9 (forest portion), and as to Parcel 74. The order of April 1, 1916, regarding costs is affirmed. No costs were allowed on this appeal.