City of Baguio, ET AL. vs. PIO R. MARCOS, ET AL.G.R. No. L-261 !"#$ua$y 2%, 1&6&Sa'()"*, +.!ACTS,OnA-$i. 12, 1&12, theDirector of LandsintheCourt of First Instanceof Baguioi'stitut"/the reopening of cadastral proceedings (a land registration/ titlingproceeding) Civil Case No.. ! decision on Nov"0#"$ 11, 1&22 "as $"'/"$"/# the landinvolved (Baguio $o"nsite) "as a%ong those declared pu&lic lands.On 'ul( )*, +,, Belong Lutes petitioned cadastral court to reopen said civil case. -eclai%s that the land (Baguio $o"nsite) &e registered in his na%e upon the grounds that.) he and his predecessors have &een in continuous possession and cultivation of theland since .panish ti%es ).) his predecessors "ere illiterate Igorots, thus "ere not a&leto file their clai% to the land in /uestion.On the other hand, Francisco 0. 'oa/uin .r., Francisco 0. 'oa/uin, 'r. and $eresita '.Buchhol1, as tree far% lessees of the land in /uestion, opposed the reopening. $heircontentions are as follo"s2 1.2 T)" $"o-"'i'g -"titio' 3as fi."/ outsi/" t)" 4-y"a$-"$io/ -$ovi/"/ #y R.A. &11 ).) 3etition to reopen the case "as not pu&lished 4.) aslessees of the land, the( have a standing to appear in the reopening proceedings.ISS5E6S,.tatconissuehereis"hether thereopeningpetition"asfiledoutsidethe567(earperiod provided &( R.A.&11 7"'a(t"/ +u'" 2, 1&812. 'oa/uin8s group contests thatt)" tit." of t)" sai/ a(t is i' (o'f.i(t 3it) s"(tio' 1 of t)" sa0" a(t, thus invalidatingthe petition of Lutes to reopen the civil case.$itle of the act reads2!N !C$ $O !9$-O:I;< $-< FILIN0 IN $-< 3:O3