G.R. No. L-27070-71 - Cochingyan, Jr. vs. Cloribel

On May 16, 1949, Salvacion Firmalan filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA No. V-7861) for a 150 m² parcel of land in Barrio Capaclan, Romblon, Romblon.
The District Land Office found the lot suitable for residential purposes and recommended approval.
On February 23, 1950, the Chief of the Public Land Division ordered a reappraisal of the lot, but no action was taken on this order.

On April 25, 1967, Firmalan filed a second application for Lot No. 915 (325 m²), which included the 150 m² from the first application (MSA No. (V-6) 23).
The Acting District Land Officer recommended approval of this second application.
Alicia Galindez filed a protest against this second application, claiming possession since November 1951, construction of a house, and planting coconut trees on a portion of the lot.
Alicia claimed to have filed her own application on February 20, 1964 (MSA No. (V-6) 44).

On June 23, 1968, an action on Firmalan's second application was held in abeyance due to Alicia's protest.
The Director of Lands ordered a formal investigation.
July 11, 1978, Land Inspector Mabini Fabreo reported that the disputed lot was divided between Firmalan and Felipe Gaa, Sr. and recommended excluding Gaa's portion from Firmalan's application.
On March 20, 1981, Inspector Fabreo corrected his earlier report, clarifying Firmalan was not occupying the lot during inspection; instead, Alicia's son Elmer Galindez was.

Firmalan filed a complaint for forcible entry against Elmer, which was dismissed by the Municipal Trial Court in 1984, which stated that only the Bureau of Lands could determine better right over the lot.
On March 11, 1985, Bureau of Lands examiner Dionico Gabay reported no dispute regarding Gaa’s portion but opined Firmalan had superior right over Alicia due to compliance with application rules, while Alicia allegedly took possession by "trickery".
The report recommended segregating Gaa's portion and resolving claims between Firmalan and Alicia.

On August 27, 1990, the DENR Regional Executive Director affirmed Firmalan’s priority, holding that actual possession without approval does not ripen into ownership under the Public Land Act.
Alicia's motion for reconsideration was denied on November 15, 1991.
The DENR Secretary affirmed these rulings on June 29, 1998, ordering Alicia to vacate the premises and upholding Firmalan's amended application and Gaa's lease application.
Alicia’s motion for reconsideration was denied on March 28, 2005.
Alicia appealed to the Office of the President, which on January 31, 2006, upheld the DENR decisions, dismissing Alicia’s due process claims, and affirming Firmalan’s priority in filing.
Alicia’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 1, 2006.
Alicia filed an appeal with Court of Appeals, which on November 27, 2008, denied the appeal, affirming the Office of the President’s decision and stressing Firmalan’s compliance with the application conditions.
Alicia’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals on March 13, 2009.
Alicia filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Alicia argued Firmalan’s 1949 application was not properly processed due to lack of survey and appraisal and that Alicia had continuous, open possession since 1950, declared for taxation in 1956, and applied for a portion of the lot in 1964.
Alicia also claimed Firmalan unlawfully occupied and fenced the lot after filing her application, violating the terms of the application.
Alicia admitted to occupying without approval but argued her long continuous possession should give her preference under the Public Land Act.
Alicia accused Firmalan of applying for multiple lots and benefiting from unlawful support in the DENR and Bureau of Lands.
Respondent Firmalan asserted the unanimous factual findings by DENR, Office of the President, and Court of Appeals showed her compliance with the rules and bad faith on Alicia’s part.
Alicia countered that Examiner Gabay’s report was biased, ignoring contradictory testimony by Firmalan’s own daughter and stressed her preferential status based on possession.

Whether petitioner Alicia Galindez’s application should be given preference over respondent Salvacion Firmalan’s application for the said lot, particularly considering Alicia’s long possession of the disputed land.