G.R. No. 163340; November 23, 2007
HERMENEGILDA DE LA CRUZ LOYOLA, Petitioner, vs. ANASTACIO MENDOZA, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Hermenegilda de la Cruz Loyola sought the annulment of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 213 issued to respondent Anastacio Mendoza by virtue of a free patent in 1984. Petitioner alleged that she and her predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, and exclusive possession of the subject land in Sta. Ana, Taguig since 1948. She claimed that her grandfather by affinity, Julio Pili, originally owned the land, and possession passed to her father, Francisco de la Cruz, in 1950. Petitioner asserted that the title was obtained through fraud, as neither Juana de la Cruz Vda. De Mendoza (who allegedly acquired the land from Francisco in 1976 without documentation) nor respondent had ever been in possession, and no notice of the free patent application was sent to the actual possessors.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring OCT No. 213 null and void due to fraud and recognizing petitioner’s ownership by acquisitive prescription. It ordered the issuance of a new title in her name. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, dismissing the complaint. The CA held that the petitioner failed to sufficiently prove her claim of ownership and the alleged fraud in the issuance of the free patent.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC decision and dismissing the complaint for annulment of title.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reinstated the RTC decision. The Court held that the petitioner successfully established her and her predecessors’ open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the land in the concept of an owner since 1948, which amounted to more than 30 years at the time the free patent was issued in 1984. This possession perfected her title by acquisitive prescription, rendering the land private property beyond the jurisdiction of the State to dispose of via a free patent. Consequently, the issuance of OCT No. 213 to the respondent, who was never in possession, was void.
The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a free patent can only cover alienable lands of the public domain. A land already acquired by a private person through prescription is no longer public land. The State cannot grant what it no longer owns. The fraud consisted in respondent’s application for a free patent over land that was already private, supported by the lack of notice to the actual possessors and the absence of any valid document transferring the land from petitioner’s predecessor to respondent’s predecessor. Therefore, the title, being void ab initio, was correctly annulled by the RTC. The Supreme Court found the RTC’s factual findings, affirmed by the DENR’s initial investigation, to be supported by evidence, contrary to the CA’s conclusion.