FLORES VS BAGAOISAN (G.R. No.
173365, April 15, 2010)
FACTS:
A 13,552-square meter portion of a parcel of land covered by Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-11880 is registered in the name of the Heirs of
Victor Flores, namely: Julio, Benito, Dolores, and Virginia, herein petitioners.
OCT No. P-11880 was issued pursuant to Homestead Patent No. 138892.
petitioners, together with their mother Luisa Viernes, executed a Deed of
Confirmation and Quitclaim 3 in favor of Vicente T. Lazo. Through this
document, petitioners agreed to "sell, cede, convey, grant, and transfer by way
of QUITCLAIM" the subject property to Lazo. Thereafter, respondent, Marciano
Bagaoisan, bought the subject property from Lazo, as evidenced by a Deed of
Absolute Sale. Viernes and petitioner Virginia Flores-Dalere executed a Palawag
A Nasapataan (Affidavit), attesting to the fact that they conveyed to Lazo the
subject property through the Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim. Affiants also
attested that Lazo and his predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of
the disputed portion since 1940 and that the same was mistakenly included in
the patent application of Victor Flores. Respondent Bagaoisan filed an action
for ownership, quieting of title, partition and damages against petitioners,
praying that he be declared as the true owner of the subject property and that
the entire property covered by OCT No. P-11880 be partitioned among them
avers that he was a tenant of Lazo and that he had been working on the
subject property since time immemorial also avers that subject property was
erroneously covered by OCT No. P- 11880 and that petitioners have previously
recognized such fact, when they executed an affidavit acknowledging the
erroneous inclusion of the property in their title. Petitioners stated that they
did not relinquish ownership or possession of the land to Lazo. Petitioners
claimed that they were misled into signing the same Deed of Confirmation and
Quitclaim in favor of Lazo, with Lazo taking advantage of their lack of
education. RTC: Bagaoisan is the owner. CA: upheld the validity of the Deed of
Confirmation and Quitclaim
ISSUES:
1. WON the Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim is valid.
2. WON respondent Bagaoisan’s title has become indefeasible.
RULING:
1. WON the Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim is valid.
No, the deed is void. It violates the five-year prohibitory period against
alienation of lands acquired through homestead patent as provided
under Section 118 of the Public Land Act. Sec. 118. Except in favor of
the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, lands
acquired under free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject
to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the
application and for a term of five years from and after the date of
issuance of the patent and grant, nor shall they become liable to the
satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period,
but the improvements or crops on the land may be mortgaged or pledged
to qualified persons, associations, or corporations. No alienation,
transfer, or conveyance of any homestead after five years and before
twenty five years after the issuance of title shall be valid without the
approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, which approval
shall not be denied except on constitutional and legal grounds. Deed of
Confirmation and Quitclaim did not merely "confirmed" petitioners’ non-
ownership of the subject property. The deed uses the words "sell," "cede,"
"convey," "grant," and "transfer." These words admit of no other
interpretation than that the subject property was indeed being
transferred to Lazo. Labeling the deed as a confirmation of non-
ownership or as a quitclaim of rights would actually make no difference,
as the effect would still be the alienation or conveyance of the property.
The act of conveyance would still fall within the ambit of the prohibition.
2. WON respondent Bagaoisan’s title has become indefeasible.
No, respondent failed to present sufficient evidence to surmount the
conclusiveness and indefeasibility of the certificate of title. Respondent
did not allege in his complaint or prove during the trial that fraud
attended the registration of the subject property in petitioners’ names.
There was no allegation as to how petitioners were able to secure title to
the property despite the alleged ownership of respondent’s predecessor.
respondent failed to prove that he has title to the subject property
Respondent merely established that he had been in possession of the
property and that he had been paying real property taxes thereon since
1977. He merely asserted that his predecessors-in-interest had been in
possession of the property since 1940 3. the execution of the Deed of
Confirmation and Quitclaim within the five-year prohibitory period also
makes the homestead patent susceptible to cancellation, and the subject
property being reverted to the public domain. It is the Solicitor General,
on behalf of the government, who is by law mandated to institute an
action for reversion
Republic of the Philippines v Alexander Lao (GR No. 150413, July 1, 2003)
FACTS:
Lao filed before the RTC of Tagaytay City application for registration of a
parcel of land. She allegedly acquired the land by purchase from the siblings
Raymundo Noguera and Ma. Victoria Valenzuela who inherited it from
Generosa Medina. The latter, in turn, inherited the land from her father, Jose
Medina, who acquired the same from Edilberto Perido by transfer. She prayed
that the land be registered in her name under Commonwealth Act 141 (Public
Land Act) based on her and her predecessor-in-interests’ open, public, actual,
continuous, exclusive, notorious and adverse possession and occupancy under
bona fide claim of ownership for more than thirty (30) years. She presented
witnesses and evidence constituting of deed of sale, survey plan, the technical
description of property and tax declarations in her and her predecessors’
names. The court approved the application. The petitioner represented by the
Solicitor General appealed the decision before the CA which re-affirmed the
lower court decision, hence this petition for review before the SC. The petitioner
contends that there is no sufficient evidence to warrant the issuance of the title
to the respondent as she fails to comply with the required periods and acts of
possession mandated by law and her failure to prove that the land is alienable
and disposable land of the public domain.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent sufficiently provided evidence that she
meets the qualifications required by law on the manner of possession
(continuous, adverse, notorious, etc..) and the period of time (30 years)
necessary to have a bonafide claim of ownership under C.A. 141?
Whether or not respondent was able to show that the land subject of her
application was disposable and alienable land of the public domain?
RULING:
The court held that Commonwealth Act 141 requires that before one can
register his title over a parcel of land, the applicant must show that he, by
himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, has been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a
bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier; in adverse
possession over the land for at least 30 years and the land subject of the
application is alienable and disposable land of the public domain. Petitioner
was right to contend that the respondent did not prove by incontrovertible
evidence that she possessed the property in the manner and time required by
law. She did not provide the exact period when her predecessors-in-interest
started occupying the property. No extrajudicial settlement of the property from
its previous owners was shown and she did not show any relationship between
the parties where she obtained her deed of sale. She further did not present
any certification from appropriate government agency to show that the property
is re-classified as disposable and alienable land of the public domain. It is
incumbent for an applicant of a land registration to provide these
incontrovertible evidences to support her claim for her application. In the
absence of these evidences, her application shall fail. Hence the petition was
granted and her application was denied.
