Case Digest (G.R. No. 211947)
Facts:
The case involves a legal dispute between the Heirs of Cayetano Cascayan, represented by La Paz Martinez (Petitioners), and the Spouses Oliver and Evelyn Gumallaoi, along with the Municipal Engineer of Bangui, Ilocos Norte (Respondents). The matter was initiated before the Regional Trial Court, Bangui, Ilocos Norte, and later progressed to the Supreme Court under G.R. No. 211947. On September 10, 2007, the Cascayan Heirs filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession, Demolition, and Damages against the Spouses Gumallaoi, asserting that they were co-owners of Lot No. 20028, due to a free patent application leading to the issuance of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-78399 covering a cornland parcel of 1,083 square meters. The Spouses Gumallaoi had purchased an adjacent Lot No. 20029, upon which they allegedly constructed a residential house that encroached on Lot No. 20028, ignoring notifications from the Cascayan heirs about the encroachment. A Building Permit applicationCase Digest (G.R. No. 211947)
Facts:
- Ownership Claims and Free Patent Application
- The heirs of Cayetano Cascayan (petitioners) filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession, Demolition, and Damages against the Spouses Gumallaoi (respondents) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bangui, Ilocos Norte.
- The petitioners claimed co-ownership of Lot No. 20028, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-78399, obtained through a free patent application.
- The Spouses Gumallaoi owned the adjacent Lot No. 20029, where they built a residential house. The petitioners alleged that the house encroached on Lot No. 20028 after renovations.
- Encroachment Allegations
- The petitioners claimed that the Spouses Gumallaoi ignored notifications about the encroachment and further expanded their house onto Lot No. 20028 after obtaining a building permit in 2001.
- They sought the demolition of the encroaching portion of the house and damages.
- Respondents' Counterclaim
- The Spouses Gumallaoi countered that they were the true owners of both Lot Nos. 20029 and 20028.
- They alleged that the petitioners secured the free patent for Lot No. 20028 through fraud, supported by affidavits from the same affiants who later retracted their statements.
- Survey and Evidence
- Engr. Gregorio Malacas conducted a survey and confirmed that the Spouses Gumallaoi's house was partly built on Lot No. 20028.
- The RTC ruled in favor of the Spouses Gumallaoi, finding that the petitioners failed to prove possession of Lot No. 20028 and that the free patent was obtained fraudulently.
- Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, ruling that the petitioners' title to Lot No. 20028 was invalid due to fraud in the free patent application.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioners' free patent and OCT No. P-78399 were obtained through fraud.
- Whether the Spouses Gumallaoi are the rightful owners of Lot No. 20028.
- Whether the counterclaim filed by the Spouses Gumallaoi constitutes a direct attack on the petitioners' title.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of OCT No. P-78399, declared the Spouses Gumallaoi as the rightful owners of Lot No. 20028, and denied the petitioners' claims for recovery of possession and damages. The Court emphasized that fraud in obtaining a free patent invalidates the resulting title and that a counterclaim can serve as a direct attack on a title's validity.