SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. L-56077. February 28, 1985.] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES PRUDENCIO MAXINO and TARCIANA MORALES, PEDRO SPOUSES PRUDENCIO MAXINO and TARCIANA MORALES, PEDRO GONZALES, ROGELIO AQUINO, Minor represented by his father, GONZALES, ROGELIO AQUINO, Minor represented by his father, Manuel Aquino, and ALEJANDRO, SOCORRO, MERCEDES, CONCHITA, Manuel Aquino, and ALEJANDRO, SOCORRO, MERCEDES, CONCHITA, REMEDIOS and FLORA, all surnamed CONSOLACION REMEDIOS and FLORA, all surnamed CONSOLACION, respondents. The Solicitor General for petitioner. Silvestre Loveria, Jr. for spouses Prudencio Maxino & Tarciana Morales. SYLLABUS SYLLABUS 1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL; SOLICITOR GENERAL; PERIOD TO APPEAL SHOULD BE COUNTED FROM RECEIPT OF NOTICE BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL. — We hold that the reglementary thirty-day period for appeal should be reckoned from the time the Solicitor General's OCce was apprised of the 1970 order of denial and not from the time the special counsel or the Escal was served with that order. These representatives of the Solicitor General had no power to decide whether an appeal should be made. They should have referred the matter to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General's OCce should be served with the Enal order disposing of the petition and should not be bound by the service on his surrogates, the special counsel and the Escal (Republic vs. Polo, L-49247, March 13, 1979, 89 SCRA 33; Republic vs. Mendoza, L-49891, October 31, 1983, 125 SCRA 539). 2. ID.; ID.; RECORD ON APPEAL; INTEREST OF JUSTICE WARRANTS WAIVER OF RULES ON PERFECTION OF APPEAL; GOVERNMENT NOT ESTOPPED BY MISTAKES OF AGENTS. — The fact that after the record on appeal was Eled on time, the Solicitor General's OCce was late in Eling the amendments to it is of no moment. In exceptional cases, like the instant case, the interest of justice may warrant waiver of the rules (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, L-31303-04, May 31, 1978, 83 SCRA 453). Where it is contended that the registration is void allegedly because public forestal land was registered and the State sought to declare the decision void, the Government should not be estopped by the mistakes or errors of its agents (Gov't. of the U.S. vs. Judge of 1st Inst. of Pampanga, 50 Phil. 975, 980). 3. CIVIL LAW; LAND REGISTRATION; GRATUITOUS ADJUSTMENT OR COMPOSITION TITLE CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF THE IDENTITY OF LAND WHERE AREA STATED THEREIN IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ACTUAL AREA. — The basis of the claim of the Maxinos is a Spanish tide, Exhibit G, a gratuitous composition title or adjustment title issued on July 30, 1888 to Prudencio Tesalona pursuant to the Royal Decree of December 26, 1884 for 29 hectares of pasture land (pasto de animales) allegedly bounded by the Yamay and Campalacio Creeks. The Maxinos contend that the Tesalona's gratuitous adjustment or composition title (as distinguished from an onerous adjustment title) should prevail in determining the identity of the disputed land. This assertion is untenable in the light of the notorious discrepancy between the area of 29 hectares stated in the title and the 970 hectares now claimed as the real area (885 hectares for Lot 1 and 84 hectares for Lot 2 which is not involved in this case). CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com