ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 115779. October 23, 2000]

SPS. FONTANILLA & GUMBAN, et al. vs. CA & LIZA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 23 2000.

G.R. No. 115779 (Spouses Bernardo Fontanilla and Editha Gumban vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Francisco Liza.)

For review on certiorari is the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 14, 1994, in CA-OR CV No. 31486, and its resolution dated June 7, 1994, denying the motion for reconsideration.

The antecedent facts of this case are as follows:

In his complaint for annulment of title and reconveyance before the Regional Trial Court of Mambusao, Capiz, Branch 20, private respondent averred that he is the absolute owner of a parcel of land, Lot 2201, covered by OCT No. F-2480 situated at Duran, Dumalag, Capiz, which he acquired from Juan Feller on December 24, 1958, per deed of sale ratified before the notary public and registered in the Register of Deeds of Capiz on. December 29, 1958. He added that he possessed said property adversely, continuously, peacefully, publicly, openly and without interruption by anybody, in a concept of owner since 1958. Said parcel is tilled and tenanted by his son Balmude Liza. In a forcible entry case filed on January 12, 1977 at the Municipal Court of Dumalag, Capiz, he was made a party defendant. On March 12, 1977, upon verification with the Register of Deeds of Capiz, he found out that subject property was already covered by original certificate of title No. F-2480 in the name of Bernardo Fontanilla and his wife, Editha Gumban, as of January 11, 1974. He averred that petitioners acted with fraud, deceit and malicious machination in causing the certificate of title over the subject property to be issued in their names. According to him, the subject property was never in the possession of the petitioners. Original certificate of title No. F-2480 is null and void from the beginning, accordingly. He added that Bernardo Fontanilla has knowledge of the possession of private respondent and his predecessor-in-interest because Bernardo is a member of the Sirilan Surveying Team that surveyed said parcel of land.

On the other hand, petitioners asserted that they are the true and lawful owners of the land in question having purchased it from Igmedio Gumban on January 2, 1966. They claimed that the said property was previously acquired by Igmedio Gumban from Juan Feller by virtue of a deed of sale executed prior to World War II. According to petitioners, they were in actual possession of the property since buying it from Igmedio Gumban. They added that they applied for and were granted free patent over the land and they were issued original certificate of title No. F-2480 on January 11, 1974. They stated that tax declarations in their names and of their predecessor-in-interest from 1945 to 1977 were presented as proof of ownership over the parcel. They denied that Balmude Liza is their tenant and added that Bernardo Fontanilla is not a member of the Sirilan Surveying Office.

After hearing, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners who were declared the absolute owner of the parcel of land in question. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court. The appellate court held that the original certificate of title issued to petitioners is null and void. It declared that fraud was employed in causing the issuance of the said title in petitioners' names. Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition.

Petitioners now contend that the appellate court grossly erred in holding that Original Certificate of Title No. F-2480 null and void, and in declaring private respondent as the absolute owner of Lot 2201.

Admittedly, the main issue raised herein by petitioners involves a question of fact. However, petitioners contend that the conclusion made by the Court of Appeals is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures and its judgment is based on gross 'misappreciation' of facts, ¹ Rollo , p. 13.hence, this Court should review the appellate court's findings of fact.

A close examination of the findings of the appellate court, however, negates petitioners' claim. The appellate court's conclusion is based on evidence presented by the parties and in accord with law and jurisprudence. As the Court of Appeals noted, it is uncontroverted that Juan Feller previously owned the land in question. Private respondent acquired the lot from Juan Feller in 1958. Private respondent's subsequent open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the property was borne out by the testimonies of three witnesses. Two of these witnesses are long-time residents of the barangay where the lot is situated. They corroborated the claim of private respondent that he has owned, possessed and worked on the land since acquiring it in 1958.

Moreover, the original certificate of title issued to petitioners pursuant to the free patent is in contradiction to petitioner Bernardo Fontanilla' s own assertion that he bought the land from Igmedio Gumban, who in turn, had acquired it from Juan Feller. Note that Juan Feller is also the original owner of the land, as admitted by private respondent. By acknowledging the previous ownership of other private persons before him, petitioners admit that the land was also private, removing it therefore from the scope of the Public Land Act. It must be stressed that private ownership of land is not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same land because the Public Land Act applies only to lands of the public domain. The Director of Lands has no authority to grant to another a free patent for land which has ceased to be public land and has passed to private ownership, and a title so issued is null and void. ² Garcia vs. Dinero, 80 Phil 474, 476 (1948).

Further, even assuming that Lot 2201 is not part of the land bought by private respondent from Juan Feller, this would still indicate that private respondent is the owner of Lot 2202 which is contiguous to the land in question. For it is not contested by petitioners that Lot 2201 is bounded on the North by Lot 2202 owned by private respondent. This fact entitles contiguous land owners, like private respondent, to a notice of hearing for original registration proceedings when petitioners applied therefor. But there is no showing here that such notice was served upon private respondent, yet petitioners allegedly succeeded in registering their claim upon Lot 2201 and procuring original certificate of title No. F-2480 for the said lot. Clearly, as found by the appellate court, there was fraud or trickery employed in order to effect the issuance.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court�����������

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE