YABUT VS. ALCANTARA

YABUT, petitioner VS.  ALCANTARA, respondent

G. R. NO. 200349.

March 6, 2017

FACTS:

Romeo Alcantara filed a Complaint of Reconveyance claiming that he is the true owner of parcel of agricultural- residential land located in Balangasan, Pagadian City, known as Lots 6509-C and 6509-D, Pls- 119 (now Lots 8780 and 8781, CAD-11910, respectively) with a combined area of 2.5 hectares more or less. He claimed that he owns it since the time he bought the said lot in 1960 from Pantaleon Suazola. It was said that Tiburcio Ballesteros purportedly employed fraud to have the said property. Ballesteros then sold the lots to his daughter, Fe B. Yabut. Ballesteros, applied for a Sales Application (SA 10279) covering a total land area of 46.2930 hectares with the Bureau of Lands as far back December 9, 1927. On July 31, 1928, Barbara Andoy filed a Sales Application (SA 10960) over a portion of the same land area applied by Ballesteros. On April 10, 1930, the Assistant Director of Lands issued a Decision in the case S.A No. 10279, Tiburcio Ballesteros, Applicant and Contestant, versus S.A . No. 10960, Barbara Andoy, Applicant and Respondent, the case was in favor for Ballesteros due to Andoy’s entry was not made in good faith. In July 1931, SA 10279 was parceled into Lot Nos. 5862, 5863, 6576, 6586, 7098 and 6509.

Andoy’s heirs laid out their claims on portions of SA 10279: Faustino Andoy Jamisola on Lot No. 6509, Faustina Jamisola de Calivo on Lot No. 6576, and Olivia Jamisola de Libutan on Lot Nos. 6586 and 7098. Bacause of this, Ballesteros was forced to file a case of forcible entry against Jamisola siblings in 1938 before the local Municipal Justice of Peace. This was later elevated to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. Unfortunately, Ballesteros was imprisoned for three (3) years at the Capas, Tarlac concentration camp. During his absence on August 20, 1946, Andoy’s son Faustino Andoy Jamisola, sold the said lot covered an area of six (6) hectares to Pantaleon Suazola identified as Lot No. 6509-A.

When Ballesteros returned to Pagadian in 1946 he learned about the sale between the Faustino and Suazola. He then recognized the said sale in an affidavit, despite the covered property being part of sa 10279 due to deference to Suazola’s son, who was his compadre. On September 3, 1952, Suazola filed Free Patent Application No. V9352 (FPA No. V8352) over what he identified as Lot No. 4111, which turned out to be whole 11.5 hectares of Lot No. 6509.Thus, Ballesteros filed a Letter Protest to the Director of Lands against Suazola’s FPA No. V8352. On August 11,1953, the Director of Lands ruled the rejection of Andoy’s sales application and recognize Ballesteros instead. The Jamisola siblings then appealed to the Secretary of Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR). In line with the landless policy Ballesteros then filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the Jamisolas were not landless and they owned several tracts of land. Through to the new evidence presented, the sales application of Ballesteros should be further given due course. The Jamisola siblings filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of First Instance (CFI) but the same was dismissed. They elevated the case to the Supreme Court Which was docketed as G. R No. L-17466.

On August 12 and September 12,1960, Alcantara bought Lot Nos. 6509-C and 6509-D from Suazola’s heirs and applied for a Free Patent Lot No. 6509-C on October 15, 1960 and another over Lot No. 6509-Don April 25,1962.

On September 18,1965, the Supreme Court, in G.R. No. L-17466 upheld the CFI’S dismissal of the petition filed by Jamisola Siblings as well as September 3, 1955 ORDER of the DANR granting the MR of Ballesteros.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not there is legal basis to support the reconveyance of the properties in question in favor of the Alcantaras.

2. Whether or not the CFI erred when it held that the Director of Lands and DANR had not acted with grave abuse of discretion in rejecting Suazola’s free patent application.

RULING:

1. No, the respondents miserably failed to prove that they are the actual owners of the parcel of land that they are claiming. They failed to present adequate evidence pointing to any legal and valid source of a right over said lots.

2. No, because the respondents failed to show that they, in fact the real owner of the Lots. It now becomes clear that before the registration of title over the subject properties in the name of Ballesteros, the same had been public land as such, could have been possibly owned by any private person with a judicially confirmed title over the same. To reiterate, Alcantara merely filed free patent applications, which were, unfortunately, never granted.

It is settled that in an action for reconveyance, the free patent and the certificate of title are respected as incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the title to the property, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the defendant’s name. All that is needed to be alleged in the complaint are these two (2) crucial facts, namely, (1) that the plaintiff was the owner of the land, and (2) that the defendant had illegally dispossessed him of the same. Therefore, the claimant/complainant has the burden to of proving ownership over the registered land. Considering the overwhelming amount of evidence which include final decisions of no less than Court itself, recognizing the standing claims of Ballesteros over Lots 6509-C and –D, the RTC and the CA undeniably committed a reversible error when they ruled that respondents were able to overcome the burden of proof required of them. The Supreme Court, in G.R. No. L-17466, upheld the cfi’s dismissal of the petition filed by Jamisola siblings as well as the September 3, 1955 Order of the DANR granting the MR to Ballesteros. But still the Jamisolas refuse to vacate the said property.

The Courts, thus ORDERS the Alcantaras, their successors-in-interest, relatives, representatives, tenants, or anybody acting in their behalf to vacate the premises and finally place petitioners in peaceful and exclusive possession of the same; and the respondents to pay cost of the suit.