G.R. No. L-23265. January 28, 1980.
MOISES HERICO, petitioner, vs. CIPRIANO DAR and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Moises Herico sought the cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. P-506 issued to respondent Cipriano Dar pursuant to a free patent. Herico claimed ownership through a chain of possession originating in 1914, when the Andaya brothers began occupying and clearing the land. In 1938, Isidoro Andaya assigned his rights to Herico, who thereafter possessed, cultivated, and declared the land for taxation. Herico alleged that Dar was his tenant on the land from 1949, a fact supported by Dar’s own signed admission. Despite this tenancy, Dar, without Herico’s knowledge, filed a free patent application which was approved, leading to the issuance of the title in his name in 1956.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision in favor of Herico and dismissed his complaint. The appellate court based its ruling on the approval of Dar’s patent application by land authorities and the subsequent Torrens title, without addressing the critical issue of the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. It concluded that Dar committed no fraud in securing the patent.

ISSUE

Whether the land had ceased to be part of the public domain and was thus no longer disposable by free patent at the time of Dar’s application, and whether fraud attended the issuance of the title.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the doctrine of acquisitive prescription under the Public Land Act. The Court found that Herico and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the agricultural land under a bona fide claim of ownership since 1914—well over thirty years before Dar’s application in 1955. Under Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 1942, such possession for at least thirty years conclusively presumes a grant from the government. By operation of law, the possessor acquires a vested right to a government grant, and the land is segregated from the public domain. The title vests without the need for immediate issuance of a certificate.
Consequently, the land was no longer public when Dar applied. The Director of Lands had no authority to dispose of it via free patent. Furthermore, Dar’s application was tainted by fraud, as he was Herico’s tenant and filed the application surreptitiously while in possession under that relationship. His Torrens title, originating from a void patent, was therefore null and void. The Court ordered the cancellation of Dar’s title and declared Herico entitled to judicial confirmation or administrative legalization of his imperfect title.