G.R. No. L-15743; July 26, 1960
OMBE (Bagoba), plaintiff-appellant, vs. VICENTE DIGA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiff Ombe (Bagoba), an illiterate member of the Bagobo tribe, filed a verified petition on June 2, 1956, with the Court of First Instance of Davao, praying for the cancellation of the words “married to Vicente Diga” in Original Certificate of Title No. P-1108 (covering a 121,761-square meter land in Baracatan, Sta. Cruz, Davao) and the insertion of her true status as “single.” While this petition was pending, defendant Vicente Diga allegedly gathered crops from the land, excluding the plaintiff. Consequently, on July 28, 1956, plaintiff filed a separate action for injunction. The court issued a writ of preliminary injunction on July 31, 1956, upon plaintiff’s posting of a bond. Defendant, in his answer, claimed that plaintiff had lived with him as his common-law wife since 1946, that he had taken care of the land and supported plaintiff and her children, and he counterclaimed for P2,000.00 in expenses and prayed for one-half of the property. The parties submitted a Stipulation of Facts on February 6, 1957. It was stipulated that plaintiff had occupied, possessed, and cultivated the land since 1928 (and even earlier through her predecessor), under claim of ownership, and had consistently declared it for taxation. She filed a Free Patent Application before the Pacific War, which was lost, and renewed it after the war (F-V-4426). A free patent was issued on August 2, 1951, and the certificate of title on October 1, 1951. Plaintiff and defendant were married according to Bagobo rites on November 26, 1947, but there was no legal marriage as certified by the Local Civil Registrar. Defendant had planted 250 coconut trees on the land. The parties waived their rights to present evidence on damages and improvements. The lower court, applying Articles 144 and 485 of the New Civil Code (governing property of unions without marriage), held that the title was acquired during cohabitation and declared the property co-owned equally. It dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and canceled the preliminary injunction. Plaintiff appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and declaring the land in question as owned in common by plaintiff and defendant.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that plaintiff Ombe was the sole owner of the land. Based on the Stipulation of Facts, plaintiff had complied with all conditions prerequisite to obtaining a free patent title long before her void marriage to defendant in 1947. These conditions were: her occupation, possession, and cultivation of the land under claim of ownership, publicly, openly, and continuously since 1928 (and earlier); and her filing of a Free Patent Application before the war. Citing Naval vs. Junsay, the Court ruled that a perfect or complete title is acquired the instant all statutory conditions are fully complied with, not merely upon the issuance of the patent. Plaintiff had fully complied with these conditions prior to 1947. The subsequent issuance of the free patent (1951) and certificate of title (1951) merely confirmed her pre-existing ownership. The defendant’s subsequent labor and improvements on the land (planting coconut trees) did not make him a co-owner, as plaintiff’s title had already vested before their union. The waiver in the stipulation precluded any adjudication on improvements. The Court ordered the Register of Deeds of Davao to cancel the words “married to Vicente Diga” in Original Certificate of Title No. P-1108 and to insert the word “single” to indicate plaintiff’s true status. No costs were awarded.