ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 146498.February 7, 2001]

HEIRS OF ECHAGUE vs. MAGALLANES et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 7 2001.

G.R. No. 146498(Heirs of Getulia Echague, represented by Alfredo Echague vs. Dominador Magllanes and Jose Magallanes.)

On October 1 and November 11, 1993, respectively, respondents Dominador Magallanes and Jose Magallanes filed before the Office of the Regional Executive Director, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region IV-B, separate applications for free patent over contiguous but separate lots located in Barangay 4, Coron, Palawan. The applications were opposed by Alfredo Echague, maternal uncle of respondents. DENR Regional Executive Director for Region IV-B, Antonio Principe, dismissed the opposition and gave due course to respondents' application. The Secretary of the DENR reversed the ruling but, on appeal, the Office of the President set aside the decision of the DENR Secretary and reinstated that of Regional Executive Director Principe. Alfredo Echague, on behalf of the heirs of Getulia Echague, the alleged rightful claimants of the lots, elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal.

This is a petition for review on certiorari. It is contended that petitioners, as heirs of Getulia Echague who had allegedly claimed ownership over the lots since 1948, are the rightful claimants thereof.

The petition has no merit.

Pursuant to �44 of C.A. No. 141, as amended, any natural-born citizen of the Philippines, who is not already the owner of more than 24 hectares, and who, since July 4 , 1945 or prior thereto, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of agricultural public lands subject to disposition, or who has paid the real estate tax thereon, while the same has not been occupied by any other person, is entitled to have a free patent issued to him for such tract or tracts of land. In the case at bar, it is not disputed that in 1945, respondents' mother, Dolores Echague Magallanes, sister of petitioner Alfredo Echague, claimed ownership over the lots in question and declared it for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 2126. After she died, respondents continued to occupy and cultivate said land and introduced improvements thereon.

Respondents are thus entitled to the issuance of a free patent.

Petitioners question the genuineness of Tax Declaration No. 2126 on the ground that it is not accompanied by a tax receipt showing payment of the taxes. They contend that it is not signed by the municipal assessor of Coron and that it could not have been issued in 1945 since, on account of the war, the municipal government of Coron was not in operation at that time.

The contention has no merit. It appears that petitioners are raising this issue for the first time in this appeal and have not even attached to their petition a copy of the tax declaration in question. Be that as it may, under �44 of C.A. No. 141, an imperfect title over agricultural public lands may be acquired either by payment of real tax thereon or through continuous possession and cultivation thereof since July 4, 1945 or earlier, in the case at bar, it is undisputed that respondents, by themselves and through their predecessor-in-interest, have been in continuous possession of the lots in question since 1945. Petitioners' claim to the lots is rendered nugatory by their admission that their predecessor-in-interest, Getulia Echague, declared the lots in question for taxation purposes only in 1948 and by the fact that they have never been in possession thereof.

Petitioners' continued reliance on the letter executed by them on September 12, 1962 purportedly authorizing Dolores Echague Magallanes to administer the lots in question on their behalf is unavailing, not only because the letter was not signed by Dolores Echague Magallanes but also because, as found by the Office of the President, it pertains to another parcel of land (lot 24) covered by an original certificate of title (O.C.T. No. 281).

Anent the allegation that respondents obtained titles to the lots in question during the pendency of the proceedings in this case, suffice it to say that such fact has no bearing on the question at bar. In any case, the disposition of this case is without prejudice to any administrative or criminal liability that may be imposed on the individuals responsible for the premature issuance of the alleged titles.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE