E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 13 of 18 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65663 determined by the date of the personal service. Their notice was a personal notice given by personal service. Only such notice could set the running of the six-month period against them. (Lagariza, Saba and Garcia vs. Commanding General, 22 Phil. 297, 302; Zarate vs. Director of Lands, 58 Phil. 156,159-160.) As already noted, the fact is that the notice in Case No. 211 was issued on July 22,1915. The clerk of court certified that 134 persons living upon or in visible possession of any part of the reservation were personally served with notice of the reservation. Section 3 of Act No. 627 provides that the certificate of the clerk of court is "conclusive proof of service". (Zarate case, pp. 158,162.) In the Zarate case, the applications for registration of lots within the Baguio Townsite Reservation were filed in 1930 and 1931 or more than eight years after the decision was rendered in 1922. The Zarate case is truly an exceptional case because the applicants were able to prove that in 1915 they were in visible occupation of their lots and the clerk of court did not serve personal notice upon them. The expediente of Case No. 211 was then still existing. The Zarate case cannot be a precedent at this late hour. The situation in the Zarate case has not been duplicated since 1933. Judge Fangonil seeks to apply the ruling therein to the instant eight cases. We find that his order is unwarranted or unreasonable. It would reopen Case No. 211. It would give way to baseless litigations intended to be foreclosed by that 1912 case. Private claimants to lands within the Baguio Townsite Reservation were given a chance to register their lands in Case No. 211. The provisions of Act No. 627, allowing them to do so, are in harmony with the 1909 epochal decision of Justice Holmes in Cariño vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449,41 Phil. 935. The two Igorots named Zarate and those who were allowed to register their lots in Case No. 211, like Mateo Cariño, the Igorot involved in the Cariño case, inherited their lands from their ancestors. They had possession of the lands since time immemorial. The Igorots were allowed to avail themselves of registration under Act No. 496. Here, the eight applicants do not base their applications under Act No. 496 on any purchase or grant from the State nor on possession since time immemorial. That is why Act No. 496 cannot apply to them. (See Manila Electric Company vs. CastroBartolome, L- 49623, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 799.) They are not "Igorot claimants" (See p. 35, Memo of Solicitor General). 4/23/2020, 8:53 AM