Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius - The express mention of one person, thing, or

consequence implies the exclusion of all others.

Republic of the Philippines vs Estenzo G.R. No. L-35512

February 29, 1988

Facts: The parties in this case contest the ownership of a parcel of land situated in
Barrio Valencia, Ormoc City. The petitioners, Republic of the Philippines and Director
of Lands, maintain that the land is public land by virtue of a 1940 cadastral court
decision. Private respondents Felipe Adolfo and Francisco Padilla, referred in this
case as Spouses, claim that the land belongs to them based on their purchase
thereof from the original claimant, Apolonia Parrilla, and its subsequent adjudication
in their favor by Judge of the court of 1st instance Numeriano Estenzo in 1972. The
Spouses filed a petition to "re-open the October 31, 1940 decision of the Cadastral
Court under Rep. Act No. 931, as amended by Rep. Act No. 2061 and further
amended by Rep. Act No. 6236" in 1972. The SPOUSES, claiming to be the owners of
Lot No. 8423 by virtue of having purchased the same in 1948, likewise allege that
due to the excusable negligence, accident or mistake of the previous claimant and
her counsel, the land was declared public land in 1940. The Spouses also argued
that the land has not been reserved, leased, alienated, or disposed by the
government. Spouses also claim that since 1940 they have been in possession of
the land and have declared the land for purposes of taxation. Spouses also
explained that they have not applied for homestead over the land under the Public
Land act of 1941. Despite the opposition of the Director of Lands respondent Judge
Estenzo granted the SPOUSES' petition on May 9, 1972. The Republic and the
Director of Lands now assail that decision by way of appeal by certiorari.The
petitioners' stance that the lower court is without jurisdiction to take cognizance of
the petition to re-open the cadastral proceedings is premised on their argument that
SPOUSES' petition is barred by the expiration of the period for re-opening of
cadastral proceedings under Rep. Act No. 931. RA 931 took effect in 1953 and only
provides a 5-year period for the reopening of cadastral proceedings or until 1958.
This was, however, extended until 31 DEC 1968 by RA 2061. Nonetheless, Judge
Estenzo has no jurisdiction to decide on the case in 1972 since the period allowable
by the pertinent laws has expired. Spouses, however, argue that their petition can
be taken as one for the confirmation of an imperfect title. Hence, even if Judge
Estenzo has no jurisdiction over the case under RA 931 and RA 2061, they can
reopen the cadastral proceedings by virtue of RA 6236 of 1971 which extended the
time limit for the filing of applications for free patents and for the judicial
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles until December 31, 1976.
Issue: WON cadastral cases are embraced by the provisions of RA 6236
Decision and Reason: No. SC explained that "A close look at SPOUSES' petition to
re-open the cadastral proceedings of 1940 would show that their cause of action is
premised on Rep. Act No. 931 and not on confirmation of imperfect title." In
discussing RA 6236 SC further noted that, "The law makes no reference to re-

opening of cadastral cases." As expressed by SC, "If Rep. Act 6236 had intended
that the extension it provided for applies also to reopening of cadastral cases, it
would have so provided in the same way that it provided the extension of time to
file applications for free patent and for judicial confirmation of imperfect or
incomplete title. " The 1972 decision of the respondent Judge Estenzo was SET
ASIDE .