G.R. No. 46963 - Ferrer vs. Bautista

The petitioner, Gloria A. Ferrer, filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside:

The dismissal order dated 11 December 1976 of her complaint for Quieting of Title to Real Property issued by the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of La Union, Branch III.
The subsequent order dated 03 May 1977 denying her motion for reconsideration.

The petition was allowed to be filed under Republic Act No. 5440 because it raised exclusively questions of law.
Initially, on 03 August 1978, the petition was dismissed for lack of interest due to the failure of petitioner’s counsel to submit the required memorandum. Later, on 28 September 1978, the dismissal was reconsidered and the petition was reinstated.

The controversy surrounds a strip of land located south of Lot 1980 of the Cadastral Survey of Aringay, La Union.
Petitioner’s Claim:

Asserts ownership of the disputed property by virtue of accretion, stemming from her ownership of the adjacent Lot 1980 (covered by TCT No. T-3280).
Relies on Article 457 of the Civil Code, which provides for accretion to adjoining lands due to the natural action of water.

The private respondents (Mariano Balanag and Magdalena Domondon) assert ownership based on long occupation.
They rely on Certificate of Title No. P-168 in the name of Magdalena Domondon, allegedly deriving from Free Patent No. 309504 issued on 24 January 1966.

On 23 March 1976, petitioner filed a complaint for Quiet Title (Civil Case No. A-514) against respondents.
Prior to this, a complaint for reivindicacion (Civil Case No. A-86) was filed on 25 November 1956 against the same respondents, which was dismissed on 10 February 1976 by the trial court on the ground of lacking authority for a collateral attack on the decree and title issued by the Director of Lands.

On 11 March 1976, respondents moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 514-A on various grounds:

Alleged lack of legal personality of the petitioner.
Claim that the case is barred by prior judgment.
Insufficient averments establishing a cause of action.
The notion that the action was merely a collateral attack on the Free Patent and Certificate of Title.

On 07 December 1976, Judge Antonio G. Bautista affirmed the dismissal, reasoning:

The action was essentially an indirect attempt to annul or revoke the title held by the respondents.
The plaintiff’s complaint was deemed a collateral attack on the Free Patent and Certificate of Title, which, after a lapse of one year, was considered indefeasible.

Failure to determine that the petitioner had legal personality to pursue Civil Case No. A-514-A.
Failure to find that there was a sufficient cause of action.
Failure to acknowledge that the petitioner’s title was beclouded by the respondents’ claim.
Wrongful dismissal of the case as a collateral attack on the Free Patent Decree.

The disputed property is an accretion adjacent to Lot 1980, which the petitioner lawfully owns.
The trial court’s dismissal was contested on the ground that the Free Patent, issued in 1966, was null because:

The land, at the time of issuance, was already under private ownership and not part of the public domain.
The Director of Lands did not have authority to issue a Free Patent over private land.

The standard prescriptive period for ownership via adverse possession is either ten years (if a just title with good faith exists) or thirty years (without such requirements).
The proceedings and the issuance of summons in related cases interrupted any claim to prescription.

Whether the petitioner, Gloria A. Ferrer, possesses the legal personality required to prosecute Civil Case No. A-514-A for quieting title.
Whether the complaint for Quiet Title sufficiently averred facts constituting a cause of action, especially the claim of ownership by accretion pursuant to Article 457 of the Civil Code.
Whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that it constituted a collateral attack on the Free Patent Decree and the Certificate of Title already in favor of the respondents.
Whether the issuance of the Free Patent and Certificate of Title to the respondents is null and void, given that the land was already under private ownership at the time of issuance.
Whether the respondents may claim ownership by acquisitive prescription under the applicable periods, and if such possession was interrupted by prior litigation or summons.