GR 246496; (November, 2021) (Digest)

G.R. No. 246496. November 15, 2021
FILOMENA LAZAGA, HEIRS OF MAMERTO AGABAS, NAMELY: NATIVIDAD AGABAS, ERNESTO AGABAS, HEIRS OF DOMINGA LUCENA, NAMELY: ARMANDO LUCENA, HELENITA LUCENA AND ALEXANDER LUCENA, FOR THEMSELVES AND ALSO AS HEIRS OF LORETA SAYDOQUEN, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES CORAZON ARCANO AND FELIAS ARCANO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case stemmed from a complaint for quieting of title and an action for reconveyance filed by petitioners against respondents. Petitioners claimed ownership of four parcels of unirrigated riceland in Suyo, Ilocos Sur, originally owned and possessed by their predecessor, Fidel Agabas, since 1945. Fidel leveled the land, erected a hut, and his family cultivated it. In 1960, the property was subdivided among Fidel’s children, with corresponding tax declarations issued in their names. In 2008, petitioners discovered that Samuel Subagan had fraudulently obtained a free patent over the subject property by falsely stating it was unclaimed and that he tilled it. The property was later transferred to Samuel’s daughter, respondent Corazon Arcano, via a Voluntary Land Transfer, resulting in the issuance of TCT No. VLT-197 in her name. Respondents filed an ejectment case against petitioners, which was dismissed, prompting petitioners to file the present complaint. Respondents claimed the property was originally owned by Corazon’s grandfather, Antonio Bistoyong, who merely allowed Fidel to temporarily cultivate a portion. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring their open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since 1945 and finding Samuel’s free patent application fraudulent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MCTC, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s reversal of the MCTC decision, which had granted petitioners’ action for reconveyance based on their acquisitive prescription of ownership and the fraudulent issuance of the free patent and certificate of title to respondents’ predecessor-in-interest.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA and RTC resolutions, and reinstated the MCTC decision. The Court held that petitioners had sufficiently proven their open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the disputed property in the concept of an owner since 1945, which constitutes acquisitive prescription. Their possession was not merely tolerated, as respondents failed to prove any overt act of permission. The Court found that Samuel Subagan’s free patent application contained false representations, as he claimed the land was unoccupied when petitioners and their predecessors were actually in possession. A certificate of title procured through fraud does not become indefeasible, and the property may be reconveyed to the rightful owner. The action for reconveyance prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title, which period had not lapsed when petitioners filed their complaint in 2014. The Court also ruled that the identity of the land was established, as respondents admitted petitioners’ claimed property was part of their titled property, and the boundaries in the tax declarations corresponded. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to reconveyance of the portions they respectively occupy.