GR 175763; (April, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175763; April 11, 2012
HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO AND ARACELI TANYAG, Petitioners, vs. SALOME E. GABRIEL, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
The case involves two adjacent parcels of land in Taguig. Petitioners claimed ownership over Lot 1 (686 sqm) through a chain of title originating from a 1944 Affidavit of Sale by Benita Gabriel, eventually sold to their father in 1964. They claimed Lot 2 (147 sqm) via a 1968 deed of sale. Petitioners asserted possession, tax declarations, and introduced improvements. Respondents are the heirs of Jose Gabriel, in whose name Lot 1 was originally declared. In 1979, Jose Gabriel secured a tax declaration for Lot 1 but with an increased area of 1,763 sqm, which petitioners alleged fraudulently included Lot 2. Respondents subsequently obtained an Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. 1035) over the enlarged area in 1998 through a free patent application. Petitioners filed an action for declaration of nullity of the title, reconveyance, and damages.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners have a better right to the subject properties, warranting the nullification of OCT No. 1035 and reconveyance.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish a superior right to the properties. While they presented tax declarations and deeds of sale, these documents were insufficient to overcome the respondents’ Torrens title. OCT No. 1035, issued via a free patent, enjoys the presumption of validity. For the title to be nullified, the evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant, proving that the patentee committed actual fraud or had no right to the land. Petitioners’ evidence did not meet this high standard. Their claim of possession was also inadequate to establish acquisitive prescription. Possession must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted for the period required by law. The Court found petitioners’ possession was not exclusive and was contested, as evidenced by the overlapping tax declarations with mutual annotations referencing each other’s claims. This constituted a civil interruption of possession, negating the required continuity for acquisitive prescription. Consequently, the Torrens title in the respondents’ name must prevail.