G.R. No. 200539 , August 02, 2023.
HEIRS OF KUKUNGAN TIMBAO, REPRESENTED BY MUSA TIMBAO, HALIMA TIMBAO ANDANG, FATIMA TIMBAO ISMAEL, OMAR TIMBAO, AND ZUBAINA TIMBAO ATOG, PETITIONERS, VS. OSCAR D. ENOJADO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners, Muslim-Filipinos and members of the National Cultural Communities, filed a complaint for recovery of ownership, possession, and damages against respondent Oscar D. Enojado before the RTC of General Santos City. They claimed their deceased father, Kukungan Timbao, was the owner and occupant of a 5.25-hectare agricultural land. During the Ilaga-Blackshirt conflicts in the 1970s, the family was forced to vacate. After Timbao’s death, Felix Enojado took possession. When petitioners sought to return, they were informed the land was registered in respondent’s name under OCT No. P-2887. Petitioners argued the title was void because respondent was a minor when he applied for a free patent in 1974, the land was ancestral, and the issuance violated P.D. No. 152. Respondent countered that the action had prescribed, the title was indefeasible, and that Timbao had validly sold the property to respondent’s mother, Rosario Enojado, who later waived her rights in respondent’s favor. The RTC dismissed the complaint, ruling the sale and waiver were proven and the action had prescribed due to the indefeasibility of the Torrens title. Petitioners appealed to the CA. The CA dismissed the appeal for failure to file the required Appellant’s Brief. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, claiming they filed the brief by registered mail, evidenced by Registry Receipt No. 1000 and an Affidavit of Service. The CA denied the motion, finding no brief on file and faulting petitioners for not ensuring receipt or submitting a copy. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CA and assailing the validity of the free patent.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the Appellant’s Brief.
2. Whether the free patent and title issued to respondent are void.

RULING

The petition is partly meritorious.
1. The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege requiring strict compliance with rules. Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court authorizes the CA to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief. Section 12, Rule 13 requires proof of filing by registered mail through the registry receipt and an affidavit of the person who mailed it, containing a full statement of the date and place of deposit, prepaid postage, and instructions to return if undelivered. Petitioners failed to prove filing. While they submitted Registry Receipt No. 1000, the attached affidavit pertained to service of the brief on respondent, not its filing with the CA. This did not comply with Section 12. The loss of the pleading, if any, by the post office does not excuse non-compliance, as parties must ensure receipt by the court. The CA’s dismissal was a proper exercise of discretion, not correctible by certiorari.
2. The Supreme Court addressed the substantive issue to resolve the controversy finally. The Court ruled that the free patent and title issued to respondent are void. Under Section 44 of the Public Land Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 141 ), a free patent applicant must be a natural-born citizen of lawful age who has continuously occupied and cultivated the land for at least 30 years. Respondent was a minor at the time of application in 1974, thus legally disqualified. A void patent may be assailed at any time, and the indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not apply when the patent itself is void. Furthermore, the land, being ancestral and claimed by indigenous cultural communities, could be subject to recognition under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act ( R.A. No. 8371 ). However, the Court did not make a definitive ruling on the ancestral land claim, as it required further evidence and proper assertion in the appropriate forum. The RTC’s dismissal was reversed on the ground of the void patent, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on the issue of ownership.