G.R. No. 225426 , June 28, 2021
HEIRS OF JESUS P. MAGSAYSAY, NAMELY: VICENTE P. MAGSAYSAY, MARIO P. MAGSAYSAY, CESAR P. MAGSAYSAY, EXEQUIEL P. MAGSAYSAY, MARY ANN P. MAGSAYSAY, CECILLE P. MAGSAYSAY, JESSICA P. MAGSAYSAY, ENRICO P. MAGSAYSAY, AND GIL P. MAGSAYSAY, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. ZALDY AND ANNALIZA PEREZ, SPS. WILMER AND JOCELYN DOMINGO, SPS. EDUARDO AND GILDA ROSCA, SPS. FERNANDO AND GEMMA BACOLONGAN, JEFFREY M. DE LEON, MIGUEL TOLENTINO III, SPS. ANTONIO AND ABDULLA DECIO, SPS. FELIX AND ANNABEL ANGCOT, SPS. MANUEL, JR. AND ANNAMARIE NOVIO, SPS. ARSENIO JR. AND MA. LOURDES NAYLON, KRISTEN JOY ROSCA, MARK JASON ROSCA, SPS. BENJAMIN AND ANALYN CATADA, SPS. DANILO AND FLORDELIZA BULAN, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ZAMBALES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case originated from a complaint for reconveyance filed by petitioners, the Heirs of Jesus P. Magsaysay, against respondents who hold 15 separate Torrens titles covering a total area of 708,124 square meters identified as Cadastral Lot No. 1377, an orchard land in San Agustin, Castillejos, Zambales. The titles were issued pursuant to free patents obtained by respondents after administrative proceedings with the DENR.
Petitioners alleged that their predecessor-in-interest, Jesus P. Magsaysay, was in lawful possession of a parcel of land identified as Cadastral Lot No. 1177, a pasture land with an area of 800,000 square meters in Malaplap, Castillejos, Zambales, declared for taxation in his name since 1960. After his death, petitioners retained possession and declared the property for tax purposes, though early tax declarations did not specify a cadastral lot number. They instituted land registration proceedings, which were withdrawn/dismissed because the area was mistakenly described as Lot No. 1377. After a 1984 tax mapping, the property was identified as Cadastral Lot No. 1377, a pasture land of 800,000 square meters, and this description was reflected in subsequent tax declarations.
In 2003, petitioners filed a forcible entry case against respondents, which resulted in an order for respondents to vacate. Subsequently, respondents applied for and were granted administrative titling of Cadastral Lot No. 1377, an orchard land of 708,124 square meters. Petitioners then filed the instant complaint, alleging the titles were void due to falsification and fraud, as respondents were never in actual possession.
Respondents raised the affirmative defense that the matter was already adjudicated in DENR administrative proceedings (Claim/Conflict No. 204), which found they had a preferential right and ordered the cancellation of an advanced plan submitted by petitioners’ predecessor. This DENR Order was affirmed by the DENR Secretary and the Office of the President.
The RTC initially dismissed the complaint based on the DENR resolution but later granted reconsideration. After trial, the RTC declared respondents’ titles void and ordered reversion of the lands to the public domain, finding that Jesus Magsaysay was in actual possession since 1960. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, dismissing the complaint for reconveyance. The CA found petitioners failed to prove their claimed property (Cadastral Lot No. 1177/1377 of 800,000 sq. m., pasture) is the same as the property titled to respondents (Cadastral Lot No. 1377 of 708,124 sq. m., orchard), and that the DENR’s factual findings on possession and preference deserved respect.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court’s decision and dismissing the complaint for reconveyance.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that petitioners failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that the land they claim is identical to the land titled in respondents’ names. The properties differ in location (Malaplap vs. San Agustin), classification (pasture vs. orchard), area (800,000 sq. m. vs. 708,124 sq. m.), and technical descriptions as shown in the tax declarations and the DENR order. Reconveyance requires clear proof that the property conveyed is the same property claimed. Furthermore, the Court upheld the factual findings of the DENR, affirmed by the Office of the President, which found respondents had a preferential right over the subject land based on actual possession and occupation. The Torrens titles issued to respondents enjoy the presumption of validity, and petitioners did not overcome this presumption. The RTC’s order of reversion to the public domain was also erroneous, as such an action can only be initiated by the Solicitor General or the Office of the President.