G.R. No. 206168 . April 26, 2017.
Republic of the Philippines, represented by Raw-An Point Elementary School, Petitioner, v. Spouses Dolores and Abe Lasmarias; and Cooperative Bank of Lanao del Norte, represented by the Branch Manager, Laarni Zalsos, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Spouses Lasmarias purchased a parcel of land from Aida Solijon, who held a free patent title (OCT No. P-8720) over it. The sale was not registered. The spouses later mortgaged the property to Cooperative Bank of Lanao del Norte, which foreclosed and acquired the lot. A relocation survey revealed that a portion of the Raw-An Point Elementary School, represented by the Republic, encroached on the titled lot. The school had been operating on the site since at least 1955. The respondents demanded that the school vacate the encroached area and filed a complaint for recovery of possession.
The school admitted it had no title to the land it occupied but argued its long-standing possession since the 1950s. It contended that Solijon’s free patent application, filed in 1984, was fraudulent because the land was already occupied by the school at that time, violating the requirement that a free patent applicant must be in exclusive possession. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the school to vacate. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the grant of the free patent and corresponding certificate of title to Solijon is valid despite the school’s prior possession of a portion of the land.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and ruled in favor of the Republic. The Court held that a free patent may be annulled if procured through fraud or misrepresentation. Under the Public Land Act, an applicant for a free patent must have continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and cultivation of the land. The school’s proven possession since 1950, which was 34 years prior to Solijon’s 1984 application, demonstrated that Solijon could not have met the legal requirement of exclusive possession. This constituted a fatal flaw in her application.
The Court emphasized that a certificate of title originating from a free patent is void if the patent itself was issued based on a false statement or omission of fact. The school’s long-standing occupation was a matter of public knowledge and should have been disclosed. Consequently, Solijon’s title was void ab initio as to the encroached portion. Since the respondents and the bank derived their rights from Solijon, their claim over the disputed area must fail. The action for recovery of possession was therefore dismissed.