G.R. No. 84831 - Abejaron vs. Nabasa

Petitioner Pacencio Abejaron, represented by his attorney-in-fact Alejandro Abejaron, filed a petition challenging ownership over a 118-square meter portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953 located in Silway, General Santos City.
Respondent Felix Nabasa claimed ownership over the entire Lot 1, Block 5, including the 118-square meter portion occupied by petitioner.

In 1945, petitioner Abejaron and his family began occupying the 118-square meter parcel with no prior survey of the land. They fenced the area and built a nipa house and a small store.
By 1949, petitioner constructed a two-storey house of 16 x 18 feet (87.78 sq. meters) made of round wood and nipa roofing on a portion of Lot 1 and adjoining Lot 2 (registered in the name of petitioner’s daughter).
In 1950, the small store was rebuilt after being destroyed. In 1951, petitioner planted five coconut trees on the disputed land, as well as banana and avocado trees, and installed a pitcher pump.
Throughout this period, Nabasa did not oppose or complain and petitioner only declared his house, not the disputed land, for taxation in multiple years.

Nabasa started residing on the remaining 57-square meter portion of Lot 1 beginning around 1955, building a house 4 meters away from petitioner’s house.
Nabasa allegedly applied for and obtained a free patent (No. XI-4-2877) and Original Certificate of Title No. P-4140 over the entire Lot 1 (175 sq. meters) on September 24, 1974 without petitioner’s consent or knowledge.
Petitioner protested Nabasa’s title before the Bureau of Lands but failed to attend hearings and the protest was dismissed. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and notice of adverse claim, but the administrative appeal was delayed and unresolved.

Petitioner filed an action for reconveyance with damages against Nabasa in 1982.
During trial, geodetic engineer Abner Lagsub testified that the disputed lot was 175 square meters subdivided into 118 and 57 square meter portions, occupied respectively by petitioner and Nabasa, separated by a hollow block fence.
Nabasa testified he resided in a 180-square meter public land since 1945 or possibly 1976, contested petitioner’s possession claims, and alleged petitioner forcibly encroached and transferred his house to the disputed area.
Neighbors’ testimonies were conflicting, with some indicating petitioner and Nabasa’s particular occupancy and fence lines as early as 1947 and 1949.
Trial court ruled in favor of petitioner declaring Nabasa’s title erroneous and ordering reconveyance of the 118-square meter portion to petitioner.
The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling no actual fraud was proven, the titles were valid, and Nabasa was the rightful owner. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging errors including failure to find fraud, incorrect findings on forcible entry and transfer of house, and disregard of petitioner’s possession rights.

Whether petitioner Abejaron proved actual fraud committed by respondent Nabasa in procuring the free patent and certificate of title over the disputed land.
Whether petitioner had acquired ownership of the disputed 118-square meter portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953 by open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended.
Whether petitioner Abejaron had legal standing to file an action for reconveyance without holding an existing title to the disputed land.