Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35595)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Leonardo Amper and his wife Leonisa C. Amper against several respondents, including the Hon. Presiding Judge of Branch III of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Deputy Sheriff Ismael Wahiman, the Register of Deeds of Gingoog City, and private respondent Ignacio Naduma. The events leading to this case began when Naduma filed a complaint in Civil Case No. 2454 against the Amper couple and their son Cocoy Amper for recovery of possession and damages concerning a parcel of land in Samay, Gingoog City, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-4815. Naduma claimed ownership of the land, asserting that he and his predecessors had been in continuous and peaceful possession since 1940. He alleged that the Amper family unlawfully entered the southern portion of the land, harvested crops, and altered boundary markers.
During the trial, the court appointed a geodetic engineer to determine the boundaries of the disputed land, which resu...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35595)
Facts:
Ownership and Possession Claims:
- Ignacio Naduma (private respondent) claimed ownership of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (O.C.T.) No. P-4815, situated in Samay, Gingoog City. He alleged that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in continuous, public, adverse, and peaceful possession of the land since 1940.
- Naduma accused the petitioners, Leonardo Amper and his wife Leonisa C. Amper, of unlawfully entering the southern portion of the land in 1962, harvesting crops, removing boundary markers, and enclosing the area with a wire fence.
Defense of the Petitioners:
- The Ampers claimed that the disputed portion belonged to them and their predecessors-in-interest, who had occupied it openly, adversely, and continuously since before World War II.
- They argued that Naduma’s free patent and certificate of title were null and void due to lack of jurisdiction, improper publication, and erroneous land description.
Trial Court Proceedings:
- The Ampers were initially declared in default for failing to appear at the pre-trial, but the order was later reconsidered.
- A geodetic engineer was commissioned to relocate the boundaries, and the report confirmed that the disputed 1,315.99 square meters were within Naduma’s property.
- The trial court ruled in favor of Naduma, ordering the Ampers to vacate the disputed area, pay actual damages of P7,200.00, and attorney’s fees of P400.00.
Appeal and Execution:
- The Ampers appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal. The decision became final and executory.
- For failure to pay the damages, the trial court issued a writ of execution, leading to the levy and sale of the Ampers’ properties at public auction.
Properties Levied:
- Four parcels of land owned by the Ampers were levied, including lands covered by O.C.T. Nos. P-5306 and P-5307, issued in 1965 under the Homestead Law.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Application of Section 118, Public Land Act:
- Section 118 prohibits the alienation or encumbrance of homesteads within five years from the issuance of the patent. However, the auction sale occurred more than seven years after the issuance of the titles (July 26, 1965, to October 3, 1972), making the prohibition inapplicable.
- The Court clarified that the five-year period starts from the date of the patent’s issuance, not from the date of the debt’s incurrence.
Family Home Exemption:
- The petitioners failed to prove that the land under Tax Declaration No. 13638 was their family home. The Civil Code requires the extrajudicial creation of a family home through a public instrument recorded in the Registry of Property, which the petitioners did not do.
- Additionally, the petitioners resided on a different property, not on the land claimed as a family home.
Equities of the Case:
- The Court noted that the petitioners had unlawfully entered Naduma’s property, harvested crops, and caused damage from 1962 until the dispute was settled in 1971. The public auction was a valid means of satisfying the judgment debt.