GR 171762; (June, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171762 , June 5, 2009
LYNN MAAGAD and the DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Petitioners, vs. JUANITO MAAGAD, Respondent.
FACTS
The disputed property is Lot No. 6297, part of the estate of Proceso Maagad. Upon his death (1963/1965), he was survived by his children Amadeo, Adelo (father of petitioner Lynn), Loreto, and respondent Juanito. On June 20, 1972, the heirs executed an Extrajudicial Partition, allotting Lot 6297 to Adelo and Lot No. 6270 to Juanito. Respondent Juanito claimed this was a mistake, asserting he had possessed Lot 6297 since before his father’s death, it was given to him upon his marriage in 1952, he paid realty taxes for it, and Adelo had recognized his ownership. To rectify the error, Juanito and Adelo’s children (including petitioner Lynn) executed a Memorandum of Exchange on January 29, 1990, stating there was a mistake in the partition and agreeing to exchange the lots. However, due to an erroneous assignment of the parties in the Memorandum, the mistake was repeated, again allotting Lot 6297 to Adelo’s heirs. Unbeknownst to Juanito, Lynn applied for and was granted a free patent over Lot 6297 on August 4, 1993, leading to the issuance of OCT No. P-3614 in the name of the Heirs of Adelo Maagad. Juanito filed a Complaint for Annulment of Title and/or Reconveyance. The RTC granted Lynn’s demurrer to evidence and dismissed the case, applying the parol evidence rule. The CA reversed the RTC, declaring Juanito the rightful owner and nullifying OCT No. P-3614.
ISSUE
1. Whether Juanito Maagad has a superior right over Lot 6297.
2. Whether OCT No. P-3614, issued pursuant to the free patent application, should be declared null and void.
3. Whether the title can be reconveyed to respondent.
RULING
1. Yes, Juanito Maagad has a superior right over Lot 6297. The Supreme Court found that a mutual mistake of fact existed in the Extrajudicial Partition, which mistakenly allotted Lot 6297 to Adelo instead of Juanito. This mistake is an exception to the parol evidence rule. The execution of the Memorandum of Exchange, intended to correct the error, clearly demonstrated the parties’ recognition of the mistake and their intent to rectify it, even though the Memorandum itself contained a repeat error. Juanito’s long-standing possession, tax payments, and the parties’ conduct established his pre-existing right.
2. Yes, OCT No. P-3614 is declared null and void. The free patent and consequent title were obtained by Lynn Maagad while representing that the land was part of the public domain and that his family was its occupant and claimant. However, the land was privately owned, forming part of the estate of Proceso Maagad, and was already the subject of the Extrajudicial Partition. The application contained a false statement or concealment of facts (that the land was public and that there were no other claimants), which is a ground for nullity under the Public Land Act. Juanito, as the true owner, was a legal occupant whose right was superior.
3. Yes, reconveyance is proper. Since OCT No. P-3614 was issued based on a void free patent, it conveyed no title. The land never ceased to be private property. Reconveyance is the remedy to correct the wrongful registration and vest title in the name of the true owner, Juanito Maagad.