Case Digest (G.R. No. 84831)
Facts:
The case involves Pacencio Abejaron, represented by his attorney-in-fact Alejandro Abejaron, as the petitioner against Felix Nabasa and the Court of Appeals as respondents. The dispute centers around a 118-square meter portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953 located in Silway, General Santos City. The conflict has persisted for over twenty years, stemming from events that began in 1945 when Abejaron and his family started occupying the land, which was not yet surveyed at that time. They constructed a family home and a small store, later improving the house to a two-storey structure in 1949. Over the years, Abejaron made various improvements to the property, including planting coconut, banana, and avocado trees, and installing a pitcher pump. Throughout this period, Nabasa, who began residing on the remaining portion of Lot 1 in 1955, did not contest Abejaron's occupancy.
In 1974, Nabasa applied for a title to the entire Lot 1, Block 5, including the portion occupied by Ab...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 84831)
Facts:
Occupancy and Improvements: Petitioner Pacencio Abejaron claimed possession of a 118-square meter portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953 in Silway, General Santos City, since 1945. He built a nipa house, a small store, and fenced the area. In 1949, he expanded the house into a two-story structure and built a new store in 1950. He also planted coconut, banana, and avocado trees and installed a pitcher pump. Abejaron did not declare the land for taxation, believing it was public property.
Respondent's Claim: Respondent Felix Nabasa claimed possession of a 180-square meter lot since 1945, but his testimony was inconsistent, as he also stated he began occupying the land in 1976. Nabasa filed for and obtained a free patent over Lot 1, including the 118-square meter portion occupied by Abejaron, in 1974.
Legal Proceedings: Abejaron’s son, Alejandro, filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands against Nabasa’s title, but it was dismissed for non-appearance. Abejaron subsequently filed an action for reconveyance in 1982, seeking the return of the 118-square meter portion.
Survey Evidence: A geodetic engineer, Abner Lagsub, testified that in 1971, he conducted a survey where both Abejaron and Nabasa were present, and each occupied their respective portions of Lot 1.
Issue:
- Whether Abejaron had acquired title to the 118-square meter portion through open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession for at least 30 years under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 1942.
- Whether Abejaron proved fraud on Nabasa’s part in securing the title to the disputed land.
- Whether Abejaron had legal standing to file an action for reconveyance.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied Abejaron’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that Abejaron failed to prove:
Possession and Occupation: Abejaron did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he had occupied the specific 118-square meter portion of Lot 1 since January 24, 1947, as required by Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act. The improvements he introduced and the testimonies of his neighbors did not conclusively prove continuous possession of the disputed area.
Fraud: The Court found no clear and convincing evidence of fraud on Nabasa’s part in securing the title to Lot 1. Abejaron’s allegations of misrepresentation were not substantiated.
Legal Standing: The Court ruled that Abejaron, not being the owner of the land, lacked legal standing to file an action for reconveyance. Only the government, represented by the Solicitor General, could file such an action to reclaim public land.
Ratio:
Grant of Title by Operation of Law: Under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended, a person who has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of agricultural public land for at least 30 years is deemed to have acquired title by operation of law. However, the claimant must prove such possession conclusively.
Burden of Proof: In actions for reconveyance, the claimant bears the burden of proving both their title to the property and the alleged fraud by the respondent. Abejaron failed to meet this burden.
Legal Standing: Only the owner of the property or the government can file an action for reconveyance. Since Abejaron did not establish ownership or a vested right to the land, he lacked the standing to sue.
Government’s Role: The Court emphasized that the cancellation of a title issued under a free patent is a matter between the government and the grantee. The proper party to initiate such an action is the Solicitor General on behalf of the government.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that Abejaron failed to prove his entitlement to the disputed land under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act or to establish fraud on Nabasa’s part. The Court also held that Abejaron lacked legal standing to file an action for reconveyance, as only the government could challenge the title issued to Nabasa.