G.R. No. 151440 ; June 17, 2003
HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO SANTIAGO, represented by ANGELITA S. CASTRO, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF MARIANO E. SANTIAGO, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over a 574-square-meter parcel of land in Bulacan, originally owned by spouses Vicente Santiago and Magdalena Sanchez. Petitioners, heirs of Simplicio Santiago, filed an accion publiciana against Mariano Santiago, claiming ownership based on an Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. P-10878) derived from a free patent granted to Simplicio. They alleged that Mariano constructed a house on a portion of the lot in 1983. Respondents, heirs of Mariano, countered that the land was private property, subdivided into three lots. They claimed ownership over Lot 2344-A by purchase from Simplicio in 1972 and over Lot 2344-C by inheritance from their grandmother, Marta Santiago, who had possessed it since time immemorial. They asserted that Simplicio fraudulently included these lots in his free patent application.
The trial court ruled for the petitioners, declaring them owners under the Torrens title and ordering Mariano to vacate, holding that his defense was a collateral attack on the title. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, declaring the free patent and title null and void, recognizing respondents’ ownership over the 225-square-meter portion (Lots 2344-A and 2344-C), and confirming petitioners’ ownership only over the remaining 349 square meters (Lot 2344-B).

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) whether the free patent and certificate of title issued to Simplicio Santiago are valid; and (2) whether respondents’ claim over Lots 2344-C and 2344-A is supported by evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that a free patent issued over private land is null and void ab initio, as the Public Land Act applies only to disposable lands of the public domain. The land in question was established as private property through the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of respondents’ predecessors-in-interest, particularly Marta Santiago, since the 1920s. This possession, corroborated by witness testimonies, converted the land into private property beyond the scope of public land laws.
Consequently, the free patent and the resulting OCT issued to Simplicio produced no legal effect. The Court emphasized that the indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not apply when the patent itself is void, as the registration of a void patent does not validate it. The defense of nullity is not a collateral attack but a direct challenge to the patent’s validity, which is permissible. The evidence, including a deed of sale for Lot 2344-A and testimonial proof of long-standing possession of Lot 2344-C, substantiated respondents’ ownership claims. Thus, petitioners’ title was correctly declared void with respect to the portions rightfully belonging to respondents.