Facts:
Petitioner
Pantaleon de la Pena claimed a
preferential right to acquire ownership over a
three-fourths (3/4)-hectare portion of
Lot No. 5714-C, and imputed
fraud and misrepresentation to private respondent
Herotido Tan in securing
Free Patent No. (XI-6) 1326 and
OCT No. P-7923 over the same. The dispute arose from earlier homestead and conflicting land claims involving
Ciriaco Reducto and
Potenciano Nazaret in Sulongvale, Sulop, Davao del Norte (formerly Padada, Tanwalang, Davao). Reducto occupied a
twenty-four (24)-hectare parcel for which he filed
Homestead Application No. 192495 (E-100806); Nazaret likewise applied for the same
Lot No. 5714, leading the Bureau of Lands to docket a land conflict as
B. L. Conflict No. 57 (N). Before the conflict was resolved, on
21 July 1946, Reducto executed a
Deed of Relinquishment transferring his
possessory rights over
six (6) hectares (later increased to
eight (8)) of Lot 5714 to petitioner. Petitioner thereafter entered his appearance in the administrative case for the transferred portion while it remained included in the homestead applications of Reducto and Nazaret. The Director of Lands later directed petitioner to apply for the portion himself within sixty (60) days after its survey or else he would
lose his preferential right; however, petitioner did not file the required application. Meanwhile, on
7 March 1950, Reducto transferred rights over another
eleven and one-half (11 1/2)-hectare portion to
Michael Doble, who sold his rights in
1956 to
Ricardo Tan, who is the father of private respondent. On
24 and 25 August 1970, a survey was conducted and a subdivision plan approved by the Bureau of Lands designated petitioner’s acquired portion as
Lot No. 5714-D and the portion bought by Ricardo Tan as
Lot No. 5714-C. The survey revealed that petitioner’s actual occupied land was
larger by three-fourths (3/4) of a hectare than what he had bought and paid for in
1946, while the area ceded to Doble (later acquired by Tan) was
very much smaller than what Doble had bought. Although the disputed
3/4-hectare portion was part of the area acquired by Doble, petitioner cultivated it without objection from Doble. When Ricardo Tan acquired the lot on
2 March 1956, he built a fence to reclaim the portion, but petitioner kept destroying it, which resulted in a boundary dispute that continued even after Ricardo Tan transferred his rights over
Lot 5714-C to private respondent on
5 May 1975 via an
Affidavit of Relinquishment. In efforts to settle the conflict, the parties agreed to a relocation survey but failed to agree on a common surveyor; petitioner’s surveyor conducted a survey on
18 April 1977, while private respondent’s surveyor did so five days later. It was then determined that the
3/4-hectare portion was within
Lot 5714-C, prompting private respondent to build a fence preventing petitioner from entering; petitioner’s sugarcane and bananas were destroyed as a result. On
29 April 1977, petitioner filed a complaint for
forcible entry against Ricardo Tan in the Municipal Trial Court of Sulop, later amending it to implead private respondent when it was discovered that private respondent was registered owner of
Lot 5714-C under
OCT No. P-7923 issued pursuant to Free Patent dated
15 September 1975. The MTC ruled for petitioner, holding that
ownership was not the issue but only
prior, physical and uninterrupted occupation and possession, ordering private respondent and those claiming under him to vacate and restore possession. The decision was affirmed by the then Court of First Instance. While the forcible entry case was pending, petitioner instituted, on
18 July 1977, an action for
reconveyance with damages in the Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur and Davao City, alleging that private respondent fraudulently registered the disputed portion by stating in the free patent application that the land applied for was not claimed or occupied by any other person, and denying the existence of the 1970 survey except as a mere table survey. After trial, the RTC rejected petitioner’s denial of the 1970 survey on the ground that petitioner was estopped from contesting it because he offered
Subdivision Plan CSD-11-001883-D in evidence. The RTC also found that the disputed portion was not part of what petitioner bought in 1946 and declared him a
mere trespasser in bad faith, denying reconveyance and damages for the destroyed crops. It denied petitioner’s claim for
P5,000.00 actual damages and instead granted private respondent’s counterclaim, ordering petitioner to pay attorney’s fees, expenses of litigation,
P15,000.00 for moral damages, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto, finding no substantiated fraud or misrepresentation and ruling that although petitioner won in forcible entry, that judgment did not automatically entitle him to reconveyance because
prior physical possession was the sole issue in forcible entry, while reconveyance required issues on
lawful ownership or possession de jure. The petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed, with modification deleting the award of attorney’s fees, moral damages, and expenses of litigation.
Issues:
Whether petitioner, who claims only a
preferential right based on occupation and alleges
fraud in the issuance of the free patent and title to private respondent, had legal standing to maintain an action for
reconveyance, and whether the forcible entry judgment operated as
res judicata over the reconveyance action.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: