GR 95815; (March, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95815 March 10, 1999
SERVANDO MANGAHAS, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES SIMEON and LEONORA CAYME, respondents.
FACTS
The spouses Severo and Caridad Rodil possessed an agricultural land since 1955. On February 1, 1971, they sold the land to the spouses Simeon and Leonora Cayme for P7,000.00, with petitioner Servando Mangahas acting as the intermediary who offered the sale and received the payment. The Caymes subsequently obtained a Free Patent and an Original Certificate of Title for the land in 1975. Mangahas, however, remained in possession, claiming he had purchased the same land earlier from the Rodils in 1969 under a “Kasulatan ng Pagtanggap ng Salapi.” He argued his possession, tacked to that of the Rodils, constituted acquisitive prescription, making the land private property and rendering the Free Patent void.
The Caymes filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession in 1985. The Regional Trial Court ruled in their favor, declaring them the absolute owners and ordering Mangahas to vacate. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Mangahas elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) Whether Mangahas acquired ownership of the land by acquisitive prescription, thereby converting it into private property and nullifying the Free Patent; and (2) Whether respondent Leonora Cayme committed fraud in securing the Free Patent.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. On the first issue, the Court held that acquisitive prescription did not run in favor of Mangahas. For land of the public domain, possession, no matter how long, cannot ripen into private ownership unless the possessor has a legal right to a grant from the government. The Rodils’ possession, which Mangahas sought to tack, was merely that of a free patent applicant; it was not in the concept of an owner. Consequently, the land remained part of the public domain until the issuance of the Free Patent to the Caymes in 1975. Mangahas’s subsequent possession was merely tolerated by the true owners, the Caymes, and was therefore not in the concept of an owner (en concepto de dueño) necessary for acquisitive prescription.
On the second issue, the Court found no evidence of fraud. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which deemed respondent Leonora Cayme credible and straightforward, are binding. Fraud is never presumed and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, which Mangahas failed to do. The issuance of the Free Patent and Torrens Title to the Caymes vested them with a valid and indefeasible title to the land.