Republic of the Philippines v. Sps. Dolores and
Abe Lasmarias; and Cooperative Bank of Lanao Del Norte
G.R. No. 206168
April 26, 2017
FACTS:
Respondents, spouses Dolores and Abe Lasmarias,
bought Lot No. 1991-A-l, Csd-12-000051 with an area of 4.8595 hectares
including a fishpond located at Raw-An Point, Baroy, Lanao del Norte from Aida
Solijon, who executed a Deed of Sale of Registered Land dated May 6, 1991
signed by her husband, Nicanor Aguilar, Jr. and notarized before a Notary
Public. The said lot was registered to Solijon by virtue of Free Patent,
applied for by Solijon in 1984 and granted in 1986. However, the sale was not
registered or annotated on the OCT nor was the title transferred in
respondents' names in order to avoid paying taxes. In 1997 to 1999,
respondents, through a Special Power of Attorney executed by Solijon executed a
Real Estate Mortgage on the disputed lot with the Cooperative Bank, however,
respondents failed to satisfy their obligation resulting to the foreclosure of
the mortgaged property. Accordingly, the respondents were given
five
(5)
years to
redeem the
property.
Sometime in 2011 a relocation survey was
conducted on the disputed lot and it was found that a portion of petitioner,
Raw-An Point Elementary School, partly encroached on the said lot.. Respondents
informed the school principal and they agreed to have another survey that
resulted to the same findings. Thus, respondents sent a letter to vacate dated July
26,2001 to
the petitioner,
but
to no avail.
On September 13, 2001, filed a complaint for
recovery of possession against the petitioner. Respondents presented sketch
plan and Certification dated October 30, 2001 stating that a portion of the
petitioner's structure is within lot. However, respondents admitted that they
knew that petitioner, through the then Department of Education Culture and
Sports (DECS), owns a lot in the same area donated to it by Necias Balatero
through a Deed of Donation executed on January 14, 1992, however, respondents
insisted that the lot donated is not the present school site but rather the lot
adjacent thereto. Respondents further claimed that Nicanor Aguilar, Sr.
previously donated a 1.179-hectare lot to the school, first in the early 1950s
or 1960s and second in the early 1990s, but upon seeing the sketch, respondents
saw that the present school site is also different from the one Nicanor
Aguilar, Sr. donated. While the Cooperative Bank intervened in the proceedings
of the case claiming that it is the present owner of the lot. It claimed good
faith and prayed that it will be the legitimate owner of the land and for petitioner
to
vacate the property.
Petitioner, on the other hand, insisted that the
school building has been in existence on the subject lot since 1950 as
supported by school records showing its operation as early as 1955. It,
however, conceded that the lot donated to them by Necias Balatero is adjacent
to the school but maintained that the donation was only in addition to the
present school site. Petitioner also admitted that it has no title on the
property where the school presently stands, but according to petitioner,
considering the length of the school's existence thereon, it would have been
improbable for another person to obtain title thereto, much less, a free
patent. Petitioner further averred that respondents' action has already
prescribed. It also argued that at the time Solijon applied for a Free Patent,
the lot was already occupied, thus, Solijon must have committed
fraud and misrepresentation when she applied for a Free Patent which requires
that the applicant must be in exclusive possession ·of the property. Such fraud
and misrepresentation, therefore, according to petitioner, is enough to nullify
the grant of patent
and
title
in Solijon's
name.
The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents.
Petitioner filed its appeal with the CA. However, the latter court affirmed the
RTC decision with modifications. Hence, the present petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner was able to
present clear and convincing evidence showing that the free patent over the
subject property was procured through fraud and misrepresentation.
HELD:
Yes. Petitioner was able to present clear and
convincing evidence showing that the free patent over the subject property was
procured through fraud and misrepresentation.
While the RTC and the CA in this case are
similar in their factual findings, there appears to be no substantial evidence
to prove that Solijon did not commit fraud or misrepresentation in her
application for free patent. It must be remembered that petitioner was not able
to prove the existence of fraud because the records of Solijon's patent
application were damaged by termites and could no longer be reproduced, as
testified to by the Officer-inCharge of the CENRO, Kolambugan, Lanao del Norte.
This, however, does not mean that no fraud actually exists. It only means that
"Solijon's free patent application was not presented before the RTC. Furthermore,
it is also erroneous to conclude that if Solijon's free patent was obtained
through fraud, it necessarily follows that Balatero' s free patent was,
likewise, obtained through fraud. Nothing in the records would show that the
parties presented Balatero' s free patent application or that any party alleged
that he committed fraud or misrepresentation by claiming that the land he
applied for was unoccupied. If at all, the fact that Balatero donated a:portion
of the land he applied for to the school could mean that he recognized the
existence of an occupant and a previously constructed school building on the
land, or that his application was made subject to the school's occupation of a
portion of the land he applied for. In addition, the RTC noted that petitioner
did not give Solijon a day in court either by filing a third-party complaint or
by including her as defendant-in-intervention. Yet, the RTC made a conclusion
against Balatero's free patent application although he was also not a party to the case.
Anent Solijon's free patent application, the
said application was in 1984 and was granted two years later, in 1986. The
uncontested facts, however, is that the school building had been in existence
since 1950 and the school had been in operation since 1955 as proven by the
school records submitted by petitioner to the RTC that go back
as early as 1955, clearly indicating that Solijon was not in exclusive
possession of Lot No. 1991-A-1 when he applied for the free patent in 1984.
Under paragraph 1, Section 44, Chapter VII of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended by Republic Act No. 782, the free patent applicant: (1) has to be a
natural born citizen of the Philippines who is not the owner of more than
twenty-four hectares; and (2) since 4 July 1945 or prior thereto, has continuously occupied and cultivated, whether
by himself or his predecessor-in-interest, a tract of or tracts of public
agricultural lands subject to disposition not exceeding 24 hectares. Moreover,
the application must be accompanied by a map and the technical description of
the land occupied, along with affidavits proving
his occupancy from
two disinterested persons residing in the municipality or barrio where the land may be located. The facts of the case showed
that the school's occupation of the contested portion of Lot No. 1991-A-l
preceded Solijon's free patent application in 1984 by 34 years. As such,
Solijon could not have continuously occupied and cultivated by herself or
through her predecessors-in-interests the contested 8,675 square meters of land
prior to her application for free patent because there is an existing school on
the area. To bolster the school's prior occupation of the subject land, the
relocation survey ordered by the RTC showed that no house of Solijon was found
within the
same
area.
In this case, the facts disclosed not only a reservation for a school site but an already existing
school building on the contested land. The school building was built on the
subject land 34 years prior to Solijon's free patent application and the school
had been in operation for 29 years also prior to Solijon's free patent
application. Thus, it is impossible for Solijon not to know of the existence of
the school prior to her free patent application. Solijon, therefore, could not
apply, and should not have been granted free patent over the portion of Lot No.
1991-A-1 that was already occupied by petitioner 34years prior to her free patent application.
Hence, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule45 is
hereby granted and the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and
set aside. Consequently, the Decision the Regional Trial Court is hereby
annulled, and the complaint is hereby dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment