doctrine goes as far back as United States v. Reyes , a 1908 decision. It is necessary then before such a repeal is deemed to exist, that it be shown that the statutes or statutory provisions deal with the same subject matter and that the latter be inconsistent with the former. There must be a showing of repugnancy clear and convincing in character. The language used in the latter statute must be such as to render it irreconcilable with what had been formerly enacted. An inconsistency that falls short of that standard does not suffice. What is needed is a manifest indication of the legislative purpose to repeal. 18 In herein case, Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act and the provisions of RA No. 6940 do not even address the same subject matter. In the Public Land Act, the ways by which the State may dispose of agricultural lands is enumerated, to wit — SEC. 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be disposed of only as follows— 1.1.For homestead settlement; 2.2.By sale; 3.3.By lease; and 4.4.By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles: 1.a.By judicial legalization; _______________ 18 Villegas v. Subido , G.R. No. L-31711, 30 September 1971, 41 SCRA 190, 196-197. 196 196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Del Rosario-Igtiben vs. Republic 1.b.By administrative legalization (free patent). Each mode of disposition is appropriately covered by separate chapters of the Public Land Act since the specific requirements and application procedure differ for every mode. More particularly, the confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles may be done two ways, either by: (a) administrative legalization or free patents under Chapter VII of the Public Land Act; or (b) judicial legalization or judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles under Chapter VIII of the same Act. Having filed their application before the courts, petitioners have pursued a judicial legalization or judicial confirmation of their title to the Subject Property. Petitioners primarily base their arguments on the amendment by RA No. 6940 of Section 44 of the Public Land Act, to read as follows— SEC. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is not the owner of more than twelve (12) hectares and who, for at least thirty (30) years prior to the effectivity of this amendatory Act, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest a tract or tracts of agricultural public land subject to disposition, who shall have paid the real estate tax thereon while the same has not been occupied by any person shall be entitled, under the provisions of this Chapter, to have a free patent issued to him for such tract or tracts of such land not to exceed twelve (12) hectares. While the above-quoted provision does provide for a 30- year period of occupation and cultivation of the land, Section 44 of the Public Land Act applies to free patents, and not to judicial confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title to which Section 48(b) applies.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 31 pages?
- Fall '19
- Supreme Court of the United States, Land Registration Act 2002