GR L 23769; (April, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23769; April 29, 1968
REGINA ANTONIO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PELAGIO BARROGA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiffs-appellants Regina Antonio and others, children of the deceased Jorge Antonio, filed an action for annulment of Free Patent No. 26383 and Original Certificate of Title No. 2799 issued in the names of defendants-appellees Pelagio and Marcelo Barroga. The complaint alleged that the land in Barrio Nancamaliran, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, was the private, absolute property of their father, Jorge Antonio. The defendants applied for a free patent over the land, falsely alleging it was public land, and subsequently obtained the patent and title. The Barrogas later mortgaged and/or sold the property to defendants Francisca Bautista and Inocencio Salvador. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription, which was initially denied. In their answer, the Barrogas claimed ownership through their predecessor, Eusebio Rellera, evidenced by Titulo Real No. 12479 issued in 1894, and that they purchased the land from Rellera’s heirs. Appellants filed an amended complaint to implead the Director of Lands. The Director of Lands moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it stated no cause of action and that any cause of action was already barred. The lower court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether the complaint states a cause of action for the annulment of the free patent and certificate of title, considering the defendants’ admission in their answer that their predecessor-in-interest held a Titulo Real and that the land was private property.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a cause of action. The Court found no merit in appellants’ contention that the Barrogas’ admission regarding the Titulo Real and private ownership rendered the free patent and title void. The Court ruled that it was Barroga’s privilege to choose not to rely on the claim of private ownership based on the Titulo Real, which was not an indefeasible title and required proof of possession under the Royal Decree of June 25, 1880. By applying for a free patent, Barroga impliedly admitted the invalidity or insufficiency of the Titulo Real and treated the land as part of the public domain. His successful acquisition of a free patent, later converted into an original certificate of title and partially transferred to another, was valid. The Court agreed with the trial court that the complaint was filed many years after the free patent and certificate of title had become final and indefeasible; therefore, the facts alleged did not constitute a cause of action.