G.R. No. 156547-51 - Ocampo III vs. People

Petitioner: Franco Esguerra, who claims ownership of Lot No. 661, Cad. No. 699, covering 7,786 square meters in Barangay San Cristobal, Licab, Nueva Ecija, which he asserts was inherited from his father, Pio Esguerra.
Respondents: Alfonso Manantan, Danilo Manantan, Ariang Antonio, Aquilino Concepcion, and Fortunato Miguel, who occupied and built houses on the property without the knowledge or consent of Pio Esguerra.

Pio Esguerra, the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, originally owned the property and allowed Gaudencio Miguel (also known as Dionisio Miguel) to occupy it.
Pio granted Gaudencio a “Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase” dated June 6, 1960, effectively mortgaging the property.
In 1979, Gaudencio executed an instrument known as the Kasunduan to cancel the deed of sale with right to repurchase, thereby evidencing a change in the transactional nature of the property.
Despite this cancellation, respondents proceeded to construct houses on the lot without further permission from Pio.

On April 14, 1992, petitioner Franco Esguerra filed an application for a free patent covering the subject property.
On May 20, 1992, Free Patent No. 034914-92-1117 was issued in his name, and subsequently, the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-15176 in his name.
Following the issuance of the free patent and OCT, petitioner demanded that the respondents vacate the premises, but they refused.

Petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment against the respondents (Civil Case No. 723-G) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimba, Nueva Ecija.
In response, the respondents filed a case for annulment of OCT No. P-15176 (Civil Case No. 779-G), grounded on issues including allegations of fraud and prescription, which was subsequently consolidated with the ejectment case.
On February 13, 1997, the RTC dismissed the ejectment complaint and declared OCT No. P-15176 null and void, ordering its cancellation by the Register of Deeds.

Petitioner appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals, contesting several points:

That he was estopped from raising the issue of the RTC’s jurisdiction.
That respondents had not acquired a vested right over the property and consequently could not challenge his title.
That his right to redeem the property had not expired.
That his claim for moral and attorney’s fees had merit.

Petitioner was estopped from questioning the trial court’s jurisdiction due to his participation in the proceedings.
Respondents had acquired title via adverse possession through 30 years of possession.
Pio’s redemption period under Article 1606 of the Civil Code had lapsed.
Petitioner’s claim for fees was baseless.

Notarized contract (Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase) and subsequent Kasunduan, demonstrating the real intention of the parties and constituting an equitable mortgage under Article 1602(6).
Declarations by Pio concerning the property for tax purposes, establishing long-term ownership and possession.
Agreements evidencing that respondents’ possession was based on mere tolerance and permission (e.g., payment of rent arrangements), not adverse possession as required by law.

Whether petitioner Franco Esguerra is estopped from questioning the RTC’s jurisdiction over the ejectment and annulment cases, given that he participated fully in the trial proceedings.

Whether respondents have acquired a better right over the subject property through adverse possession by occupying the land and paying taxes for 30 years.
Whether the respondents’ filed action for annulment of title on the grounds of fraud and prescription is time-barred.
Whether the free patent and the OCT issued to petitioner are valid given the property’s status as private land.

Whether Pio's right to redeem the property had already prescribed, thus precluding petitioner’s claim of redemption based on the Kasunduan executed after the alleged repurchase.

Whether petitioner’s claim for moral and attorney’s fees has any legal basis in light of the course of the proceedings and the established rights of the parties.