G.R. No. 84831 ; June 20, 2001
PACENCIO ABEJARON, as represented by his Attorney-in-Fact, ALEJANDRO ABEJARON, petitioner, vs. FELIX NABASA and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pacencio Abejaron claims to be the actual and lawful possessor of a 118-square meter portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953 in General Santos City. He and his family began occupying the land in 1945, fencing it and building a family home with a store. In 1949, they improved the house into a two-storey structure, which, along with a store built in 1950 and five coconut trees planted in 1951, remains on the disputed portion. Petitioner declared only his house, not the land, for taxation, believing the land was public. Respondent Felix Nabasa began residing on the remaining 57-square meter portion of the same lot in 1955. A 1971 survey conducted for a neighborhood association showed both parties occupying their respective portions. Without petitioner’s knowledge, Nabasa applied for and was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-4140 via Free Patent on September 24, 1974, covering the entire Lot 1, including petitioner’s 118-square meter portion. Petitioner’s son filed an administrative protest with the Bureau of Lands, which was dismissed for failure to attend hearings. Petitioner then filed an action for reconveyance with damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring him the owner by acquisitive prescription and ordering reconveyance. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, declaring Nabasa the owner, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether petitioner Abejaron has acquired ownership over the 118-square meter portion of Lot 1 through acquisitive prescription, and if so, whether he is entitled to reconveyance despite respondent Nabasa’s issuance of a free patent and original certificate of title.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioner could not have acquired the land by acquisitive prescription because the disputed portion was part of the public domain until the issuance of Nabasa’s free patent in 1974. Acquisitive prescription does not run against lands of the public domain. Only after the land is patented and registered does it cease to be public land and become private property, at which point prescription may begin to run. Since Nabasa’s title was issued in 1974 and the complaint for reconveyance was filed in 1982, the period was insufficient to complete ordinary acquisitive prescription (10 years). Furthermore, the Court found that petitioner failed to prove that Nabasa committed fraud in securing the title. Nabasa’s act of including the entire lot in his application, despite petitioner’s possession of a portion, was not fraudulent because both were occupying the land under a bona fide claim of ownership, and Nabasa had no duty to exclude the portion possessed by petitioner. The title, having been issued under the Torrens system, became indefeasible one year after its issuance. The proper remedy for petitioner, if he had a claim, was to file a judicial action for reconveyance within one year from the issuance of the title, which he did not do. The action for reconveyance filed in 1982 was based on an implied trust, but such a trust must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, which petitioner failed to provide. Therefore, respondent Nabasa remains the rightful owner as per his certificate of title.