Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 167720 : February 15, 2010] JEAN VILLANUEVA-ZUBIRI, PETITIONER, VS. SALUSTIANO GANADEN, REV. ALVARO CARINO, HEIRS OF SEGUNDO GARCIA REPRESENTED BY CONSOLACION GARCIA, AND PABLO GARCIA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 168248] JOSEFA VILLANUEVA, VALENTINO VILLANUEVA, EDWARD VILLANUEVA, LORENZO VILLANUEVA AND JEAN VILLANUEVA-ZUBIRI, IN SUBSTITUTION OF THE DECEASED FILOTEO VILLANUEVA,PETITIONERS, VS. SALUSTIANO GANADEN, REV. ALVARO CARINO, HEIRS OF SEGUNDO GARCIA REPRESENTED BY CONSOLACION GARCIA AND PABLO GARCIA, RESPONDENTS, :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 15 February 2010:

G.R. No. 167720: JEAN VILLANUEVA-ZUBIRI, Petitioner, -versus -SALUSTIANO GANADEN, REV. ALVARO CARINO, HEIRS OF SEGUNDO GARCIA represented by CONSOLACION GARCIA, and PABLO GARCIA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 168248: JOSEFA VILLANUEVA, VALENTINO VILLANUEVA, EDWARD VILLANUEVA, LORENZO VILLANUEVA and JEAN VILLANUEVA-ZUBIRI, in substitution of the deceased FILOTEO VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, - versus - SALUSTIANO GANADEN, REV. ALVARO CARINO, HEIRS OF SEGUNDO GARCIA represented by CONSOLACION GARCIA and PABLO GARCIA,Respondents,

G.R. Nos. 167720 and 168248 are petitions for review^[1] assailing the Decision^[2] promulgated on 28 September 2004 as well as the Resolution^[3] promulgated on 5 April 2005 of the Court of Appeals (appellate court) in CA-G.R. CV No. 76823. The appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners in G.R. No. 168248 Josefa Villanueva, Valentino Villanueva, Edward Villanueva, Lorenzo Villanueva and Jean Villanueva-Zubiri, as well as by petitioner-in-intervention in G.R. No. 167720 Jean Villanueva-Zubiri (collectively, petitioners) and affirmed the decision of Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of La Union (trial court) dated 15 August 2002. The trial court declared void the free patent and the certificate of title issued in the name of Filoteo Villanueva; ordered petitioners to surrender their transfer certificates of title (TCT) to the Register of Deeds for cancellation; and ordered petitioners to reconvey the land to Salustiano Ganaden, Rev. Alvaro Carino, Heirs of Segundo Garcia represented by Consolacion Garcia, and Pablo Garcia (collectively, respondents).

The appellate court narrated the facts as follows:

From the outset, We summarize the respective claims of the plaintiffs-appellees in this wise:

Plaintiff-appellee Salustiano Ganaden claims that he originally owns by inheritance the larger portion of the parcels of land covered by the free patent of Filoteo Villanueva;

Plaintiff-appellee Alvaro Carifio claims that he owns a portion of the parcels of land covered by Villanueva's free patent because he acquired from Salustiano Ganaden through an absolute sale a portion of those lands included in Villanueva's free patent; and

Plaintiffs-appellees Heirs of Eugenio Garcia claim that they own a portion of the lands covered by Villanueva's free patent because the free patent included the Northern portion of their property.

The relevant antecedents are as follows:

Parenthetically, a 2-parcel land located at IIi Norte, San Juan, La Union namely Lot 1, with an area of 6,073 square meters, and Lot 2, with an area of 3,658 square meters, is the subject of this case. Lots 1 and 2 of Psu 254446 are designated as such in the survey plan of Filoteo Villanueva. However, the aforesaid lots are identical with Lot Nos. 1112 and 1113, Psu 254446 of the San Juan Cadastre, Cad 739-D.

Lots 1 and 2, with a total area of 9,731 square meters, are registered in the name of Filoteo Villanueva while Lot Nos. 1112 and 1113 are claimed by plaintiffs-appellees Salustiano Ganaden and Alvaro Carino as absolute owners thereof. And, while Eugenio Garcia's lot, which is denominated as Lot No. 618 of the San Juan Cadastre, is not a portion of the two lots under Psu 254446 in the name of Filoteo Villanueva, the Northern portion of Garcia's land was included in Villanueva's free patent.

As culled from the records of the case, sometime in 1978, Filoteo Villanueva applied with the Bureau of Lands for a free patent over Lots I and 2 of Psu 254446 of San Juan, La Union.

Herein plaintiffs-appellees Consolacion Vda. De Garcia (representing Pablo Garcia, Juana Garcia de Alim, Felicitas Garcia de Acosta and Purisima Garcia Pabillionar) and Alvaro Carino filed with the Bureau of Lands sometime in 1979 their respective formal protest to Villanueva's free patent application (Records, Exhibit "9," "9-A," "9-B," pp. 10-12).

The Bureau of Lands conducted its investigation on Villanueva's free patent application and it granted the application on November 9, 1981 (Records, Exhibit "11" to "11-E," pp. 98-103). Consequently, Free Patent No. (1-8) 11107 was issued to Villanueva. On the basis of free patent, the Register of Deeds issued to Villanueva on February 27, 1984 Original Certificate of Title No. FP-10778 (Records, Exhibit "HH," p. 9).

On February 28, 1989, Spouses Villanueva sold in favor of their children namely Edward, Lorenzo, Valentino and Jean the two (2) parcels of land (Records, Exhibit "I," pp. 82-83). Thereafter, OCT No. FP-10778 was canceled and TCT No. 31646 was issued in their name (Records, Exhibit "8," p. 186).

The plaintiffs-appellees filed with the court a quo on February 20, 1989 a complaint against Villanueva and the Register of Deeds for the annulment of FP No. (1-8) 11107 with prayer for damages, which they amended on September 18, 1989. They dropped the Register of Deeds as a defendant in the complaint.

The plaintiffs-appellees contended that Villanueva's free patent and certificate of title over the two parcels of land were null and void because the Bureau of Lands had no jurisdiction over the patent application. They maintained that the subject parcels of land were already private lands and outside the authority of the Bureau of Lands to dispose through a patent to any applicant.

Villanueva, on the other hand, contended that since the plaintiffs-appellees participated in the administrative proceedings before the Bureau of Lands, they cannot anymore question the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands. He further averred that since one year had already lapsed from the date of registration of the lands with the Register of Deeds, the title covering the said lands already became indefeasible and incontrovertible.

On April 10, 1990, Valentino, Edward, Lorenzo and Jean Villanueva-Zubiri filed with the court a quo a Motion for Intervention (Records, pp. 68-69), which the court a quo granted on May 9, 1990 (Records, p. 77).

Subsequently, the pre-trial and trial on the merits of the case ensued.

During the trial, the plaintiffs-appellees presented Salustiano Ganaden, Aida Manuel, Engr. Flordelino Ignacio, and Pablo Garcia as their witnesses.

Salustiano Ganaden testified that the late Joaquin Ortega originally owned a larger portion of the land covered by Villanueva's free patent. Joaquin Ortega gave to his father Victor Ganaden the said land before the second world war for his father's faithful service to Ortega at the Tabacalera of San Fernando, La Union. Upon the death of his father, he succeeded him in the possession and ownership of the land. However, the record of the transfer from Ortega to his father was lost because his father's house was used as a hospital during the war. Since he owned the land, he declared the land in his name and paid for its taxes (Records, Exhibit "B-l," p. 6; "B-2," p. 7). Not only that, he testified that he possessed his land openly and publicly, and stressed that Filoteo Villanueva was not known in their municipality. He also informed the court a quo that he mortgaged his land with the Rural Bank of Bacnotan and the Rural Bank of San Juan, La Union for not less than 4 times.

In the proceedings before the Bureau of Lands in connection with his protest to Villanueva's free patent application, Salustiano Ganaden also testified that the subject land was already in the possession of his father Victor Ganaden prior to the second world war, the same having been given to his father by Joaquin Ortega. And upon the death of his father on December 19, 1965, he possessed the subject land without any person disturbing him in his possession (TSN, Hearing before the Bureau of Lands, April 11, 1980, pp. 62-64).

Correlatively, Aida Manuel testified that Salustiano Ganaden sold to Alvaro Cari�o, her ward, a portion of Ganaden's land on October 28, 1974 (Records, Exhibit "C," p. 11). Moreover, she testified that her ward bought from Salustiano Ganaden an additional 500-square meter parcel of land adjacent to the property her ward first bought from Ganaden, so that her ward's total claim on the property of Villanueva consisted of 2,030 square meters. While she averred that the properties which were owned and possessed by her ward Alvaro Cari�o were portions of Lot No. 1113 and Lot No. 1111 but not Lot No. 1112, she posited that Lot Nos. 1112 and 1113 were included in Villanueva's free patent so that the property of her ward Alvaro Cari�o falling within Lot No. 1113 was included in Villanueva's free patent and was titled in his name. Thus, she maintained that Villanueva's free patent encroached on the land of her ward Alvaro Cari�o.

In conjunction with the testimony of Aida Manuel, the evidence on record shows that Alvaro Cari�o himself testified before the Bureau of Lands concerning his protest over Villanueva's free patent application. He testified that he acquired from Salustiano Ganaden the 2 parcels of land by purchase as evidenced by his Deed of Sale. After buying from Salustiano Ganaden the 2 parcels of land, which were bounded on the North by Segundo Macainag and Jose Lewis; on the East by Salustiano Ganaden; on the West, by the Salvage Zone; and on the South by Margarita Abad, he took possession over the same, declared them in his name and introduced improvements thereon (TSN, Hearing before the Bureau of Lands, May 15, 1980, pp. 70-73).

Aida Manuel's testimony regarding the overlapping of Villanueva's free patent with that of Alvaro Carino's property was corroborated by Engr. Flordelino Ignacio, who testified that he was the geodetic engineer who surveyed the property of Jose Lewis. And, from the survey plan of Jose Lewis in relation to the cadastral plan of San Juan, La Union, a portion of the land of Alvaro Cari�o was indicated inside Lot No. 1111 and another portion was indicated inside Lot No. 1113.

Corollary to the claim of Salustiano Ganaden and Alvaro Cari�o, Pablo Garcia testified before the court a quo that prior to the outbreak of the second world war, his father Eugenio Garcia was already in possession of the parcel of land included in Villanueva's free patent and certificate of title. His father declared the said parcel of land in his name and paid for its taxes. Upon the death of his father Eugenio Garcia, his siblings built their houses thereon. Moreover, he declared that his father's land, while admittedly not a portion of Lots 1 and 2 under Psu 254446 in the name of Filoteo Villanueva, was included in Villanueva's free patent. He asserted that 2,982 square meters on the Northern portion of his father's land was encroached upon by Villanueva. And, he testified that his father's property was bounded on the North by Remedio Bengson; on the East by the Callejon, Sta. Rosa de Luna St.; on the West by the properties in question; and on the South by Margarita Abad (TSN, June 17, 1999, pp. 10-14).

On the other hand, the defendants-appellants presented Josefa Villanueva, widow of Filoteo as one of their witnesses.

Josefa Villanueva testified that Filoteo Villanueva acquired from Margarita Abad the subject properties. They were registered in her husband's name by reason of the free patent issued to him by the Bureau of Lands. However, the subject properties were bought from them by their children. Accordingly, OCT No. FP-10778, the certificate of title issued in her husband's name was canceled and TCT No. 31646 was issued in the name of their children.

The records disclose that the property bought by Filoteo Villanueva from Margarita Abad was described as a residential lot and an orchard with an approximate area of 1,890 square meters. It was bounded on the North by Feliza Abad de Hernandez; on the East by Orcammo Vocinal; on the West by Terreno de Municipio; and on the South by the Callejon (Records, Exhs. "AA-1," "AA-2," p. 36).

After the trial was concluded, the court a quo declared Free Patent No. (1-8) 11107 as well as OCT No. FP-10778 issued in the name of Filoteo Villanueva null and void.^[4]

In its Decision dated 15 August 2002, the trial court found that the original area of 1,890 square meters which petitioners bought from Margarita Abad was increased to 8,100 square meters. There was no evidence to show that petitioners made acquisitions other than that which came from Margarita Abad. Therefore, Josefa Villanueva's claim that the property they bought from Margarita Abad is the same property which they applied for Free Patent is absurd. Moreover, considering the filial relationship between Filoteo Villanueva and intervenors Valentino, Edward, and Lorenzo Villanueva, and Jean Villanueva-Zubiri, and the fact that the sale was executed after the present case was filed before the trial court, the intervenors cannot be considered as innocent third party purchasers.

The dispositive portion of the trial court's decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and intervenors:

1. Declaring Free Patent  No. (1-8) 11107 and the corresponding Certificate of Title No. 10778 issued in the name of defendant Filoteo Villanueva and all titles derived therefrom as null and void;
   
   
2. Ordering the intervenors to surrender their owners duplicate Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. T-31646) to the Register of Deeds of La Union for cancellation; and
   
   
3. Ordering the defendants and intervenors to reconvey the land owned by the plaintiffs.
   

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.^[5]

Petitioners appealed from the judgment of the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision and further stated that there is no reason to reverse the findings of the trial court.

The dispositive portion of the appellate court's decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Decision dated August 15, 200^[2] of the Regional Trial Court of La Union, Branch 26 in Civil Case No. 4211 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.^[6]

The appellate court resolved to deny petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.^[7]

In G.R. No. 167720, petitioner Jean Villanueva-Zubiri assigned the following errors:

1. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the erroneous ruling of the trial court directing the intervenors, an innocent purchaser [sic] for value, to reconvey the subject property to the respondents.
   
   
2. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the ruling of the trial court that the subject land, prior to the issuance of.free patent, was already a private land. There is absolutely nothing to support such conclusion.
   
   
3. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming [the] trial court's ruling that the subject free patent is null and void.^[8]
   

In G.R. No. 168248, petitioners raised the following issues:

1. Whether or not the decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals disregarding the "law of the case" is in accord with the law and applicable decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court;
   
   
2. Whether or not the decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals ignoring the factual findings of the Bureau of Lands and substituting the same with its own judgment is in accord with the law and the applicable decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court;
   
   
3. Whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeals is devoid of any support from the records and its findings of fact are grossly erroneous;
   
   
4. Whether or not, based on the uncontradicted evidence, the Court of Appeals is correct in applying the legal presumption that the subject property ceased to be public and has become a private land.
   
   
5. Whether or not the Court of Appeals, based on uncontradicted evidence on Record, gravely erred in ordering reconveyance in favor of respondents.^[9]
   

The petition has no merit. Petitioners failed to show that the appellate court arbitrarily made factual findings and disregarded the evidence on record.

We have no reason to disturb the factual findings of the lower courts that the subject parcels of land are already private lands owned by respondents. Being private lands, these are not part of the disposable lands of the State. The lower courts found that Victor Ganaden, father of respondent Salustiano Ganaden, possessed the larger portion of the land covered by Filoteo Villanueva's free patent in the concept of an owner even before the outbreak of World War II. Upon inheritance of the subject lands, Salustiano performed acts of ownership: introduced improvements, paid taxes, and even mortgaged the property with the rural banks. Respondents Garcias also possessed their lands in the concept of an owner before World War II. They also introduced improvements and paid taxes for their land. While it is true that by themselves tax receipts and declarations of ownership for taxation purposes are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they become  strong  evidence  of ownership  acquired by  prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property.^[10] Inasmuch as the subject lands are private property, the Director of Lands had no jurisdiction to issue a free patent application to Filoteo Villanueva.

Petitioners Edward, Lorenzo, and Valentino Villanueva and Jean Villanueva-Zubiri are purchasers in bad faith. They acquired the subject lands from their father Filoteo Villanueva after 20 February 1989, the date of filing of the civil case for annulment of free patent. And as observed by the trial court, even without the Deed of Sale, petitioners Edward, Lorenzo, and Valentino Villanueva and Jean Villanueva-Zubiri have an interest in the property as they are compulsory heirs and will succeed their parents in the ownership of the property.^[11]

Finally, the rule on the incontrovertibility of a certificate of title upon the expiration of one year after the entry of the decree does not apply when the ground for cancellation is the nullity of the patent and the certificate of title issued pursuant to the void patent. Reconveyance, then, is a proper remedy as petitioners knew that the respondents owned and possessed the subject lands. Moreover, the rule on incontrovertibility applies in favor of innocent purchasers, which petitioners are clearly not.

The rule on the incontrovertibility of a certificate of title upon the expiration of one year, after the entry of the decree, pursuant to the provisions of the Land Registration Act, does not apply where an action for the cancellation of a patent and a certificate of title issued pursuant thereto is instituted on the ground that they are null and void because the Bureau of Lands had no jurisdiction to issue them at all, the land in question having been withdrawn from the public domain prior to the subsequent award of the patent and the grant of a certificate of title to another person. Such an action is different from a review of the decree of title on the account of fraud.

Although a period of one year has already expired from the time a certificate of title was issued pursuant to a public grant, said title does not become incontrovertible but is null and void if the property covered thereby is originally of private ownership, and an action to annul the same does not prescribe. Moreover, since herein petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute, an action to quiet title is imprescriptible. Their action for reconveyance which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to property in one's possession is imprescriptible. Their undisturbed possession for a number of years gave them a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to determine the nature of the adverse claims of a third party and the effect on her title.^[12]

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision promulgated on 28 September 2004 as well as the Resolution promulgated on 5 April 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 76823.

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 15^th day of February, 2010.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

^[2] Rollo (G.R. No. 167720), pp. 48-67; Rollo (G.R. No. 168248), pp. 60-79.   Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Perlita J. Tria Tirano,concurring.

^[3] Id. at 69; id. at 91. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C.   Reyes, Jr. with Associate justices Ruben T. Reyes and Perlita J. Tria Tirona, concurring.

^[4] Id. at 49-56; id. at 61-68.

^[5] Id. at 45-46; id. at 88-89.

^[6] Id. at 66-67; id. at 78-79.

^[7] Id. at 69; id. at 91.

^[8] Rollo (G.R. No. 167720), pp. 19-20.

^[9] Rollo (G.R. No. 168248), pp. 20-21.

^[10] Tabuena v. Court of Appeals, 274 Phil. 51, 58 (1991).

^[11] Rollo (G.R. No. 168248), p. 88.

^[12] Agne v. Director of Lands, G.R. Nos. 40399 and 72255, 6 February 1990, 181 SCRA 793, 803-804.