G.R. No. 164356 ; July 27, 2011
HEIRS OF MARGARITO PABAUS, namely, FELICIANA P. MASACOTE, MERLINDA P. CAILING, MAGUINDA P. ARCLETA, ADELAIDA PABAUS, RAUL MORGADO AND LEOPOLDO MORGADO, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF AMANDA YUTIAMCO, namely, JOSEFINA TAN, AND MOISES, VIRGINIA, ROGELIO, ERLINDA, ANA AND ERNESTO, all surnamed YUTIAMCO, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves three adjoining parcels of land in Barangay Cabayawa, Tubay, Agusan Del Norte. Lots 1 and 2 of Plan Psu-213148 were registered in the name of Amanda L. Yutiamco under OCT No. O-104 and TCT No. T-1428, respectively. Lot 2994, Pls-736, was registered in the name of Margarito Pabaus under OCT No. P-8649, issued pursuant to a Free Patent on March 12, 1974. The respondents (Heirs of Amanda Yutiamco) filed a Complaint for Cancellation of OCT No. P-8649, Recovery of Possession, and Damages against the petitioners (Heirs of Margarito Pabaus), alleging that the petitioners’ title overlapped and encroached upon their previously titled properties. The petitioners countered that it was the respondents who encroached upon their land. Upon order of the RTC, a relocation survey was conducted by a court-appointed commissioner and representatives from both parties. The Relocation Survey Report dated May 27, 1997, found that: (1) Lot 2 (TCT No. T-1428) of the respondents was inside the lot covered by the petitioners’ OCT No. P-8649; and (2) a portion of Lot 1 (OCT No. O-104) of the respondents, with an area of 15,675 square meters, was also inside the petitioners’ titled lot. The report concluded there was an overlapping of titles. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the petitioners’ title void and ordering them to vacate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment which declared OCT No. P-8649 of the petitioners void and ordered them to vacate the overlapping portions of the land.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals decision. The Court held that the Relocation Survey Report, which was prepared by a court-appointed commissioner with the participation and conformity of the parties’ representatives, clearly established that the land covered by the petitioners’ free patent title (OCT No. P-8649) overlapped the lands already covered by the respondents’ earlier issued titles (OCT No. O-104 and TCT No. T-1428). The Court emphasized that a free patent may only be issued for alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Since the overlapping portions were already privately owned by the respondents by virtue of their prior titles, these portions were no longer part of the public domain and could not have been validly granted via free patent to Margarito Pabaus. Consequently, OCT No. P-8649 was void with respect to the overlapping areas. The petitioners’ arguments attacking the validity of the respondents’ titles were deemed unmeritorious, as a Torrens title, once registered, cannot be defeated by adverse, open, and notorious possession and is entitled to all the attributes of property ownership. The petitioners, as successors-in-interest to the free patent grantee, could not acquire a better right than their predecessor, whose title was void ab initio over the overlapping portions.