ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 123586.� December 13, 2004]
SPS. MORANDARTE vs. CA
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 13 2004.
G. R. No. 123586 (SPOUSES BEDER MORANDARTE and MARINA FEBRERA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and SPOUSES VIRGINIO B. LACAYA and NENITA LACAYA.)
R E S O L U T I O N
Before us is petitioners' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of our decision dated August 12, 2004 in the above-entitled case, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is partly GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated August 23, 1995, in CA G.R. No. 36258 is REVERSED insofar only as it affirmed the nullity of Free Patent No. (1X-8) 785 and Original Certificate of Title No. P-21972, in the name of petitioner Beder Morandarte. In its stead, petitioners Spouses Beder Morandarte and Marina Febrera are directed to reconvey to the respondent Republic of the Philippines within thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision the 12,162-square meter portion traversed by the Miputak River and the 13,339-square meter portion covered by the fishpond lease agreement of the Lacaya spouses. No pronouncement as to costs. [1] cralaw
Petitioners particularly take exception from the Court's decree to reconvey the 13,339-square meter portion covered by the fishpond lease agreement of the private respondents Lacaya spouses. Petitioners submit that said portion was actually released for disposition only in 1972 and there is no evidence that said portion was also traversed by the natural course of the Miputak River. They argue that the testimony of petitioner Beder Morandarte that it was segregated because private respondent Lacaya constructed fishpond dikes around it and so it remained private property and did not become property of the public domain, since at the time, petitioners were already in possession of said portion covered by the application for Free Patent also in 1972, is corroborated by private respondent Lacaya in his Comment to the petition.
We are not persuaded.
We held in our decision that the assailed property has been subject of a fishpond lease agreement since 1948, thus:
The records reveal that as early as 1948, 4.6784 hectares of the public land have been leased for fishpond purposes. Aguido S. Realiza was the initial grantee of a fishpond lease agreement. Amor A. Realiza, Aguido's son, acquired his fishpond permit on May 29, 1953. Amor A. Realiza transferred his fishpond rights to Felipe B. Lacaya on May 14, 1956. By 1960, the public land leased for fishpond purposes had increased to 5.0335 hectares. Felipe B. Lacaya transferred his fishpond rights to Virgilio B. Lacaya on October 25, 1977, Thus, the fishpond rights have been in existence since 1948, prior to the 1972 free patent application of Morandarte. [2] cralaw
Petitioners' claim that the disputed land was already private property and their possession has already ripened into ownership at the time of the filing of the application for free patent in 1972 is untenable. The land in question became alienable or disposable property of the State only in 1972. Thus, we declared in our decision:
The Morandarte spouses cannot seek refuge in their claim that Antonio A. Morandarte, their predecessor-in-interest, was already the owner of that portion of Lot 1038 when the fishpond application of Aguido S, Realiza was approved in 1948 because Lot 1038 was still part of the public domain then. It was only in 1972, through Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1257, which was approved August 14, 1972, when Lot 1038 was declared alienable or disposable property of the State.
It is a settled rule that unless a public land is shown to have been reclassified as alienable or actually alienated by the State to a private person, that piece of land remains part of the public domain. Hence, Antonio A. Morandarte's occupation thereof, however long, cannot ripen into private ownership. [3] cralaw
Consequently, petitioners' occupation of the disputed property in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title.
WHEREFORE, the instant motion for partial reconsideration is DENIED, with finality, for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Decision, dated August 12, 2004, pp. 18-19.
[2] cralaw Id. , pp. 14-15.
[3] cralaw Id. , pp. 16-17.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
