G.R. No. 146459 - Heirs of Dicman vs. Carino

The subject matter is a parcel of land in Residence Section "J", Camp Seven, Baguio City, measuring approximately 101,006 square meters as Lot 46, Ts-39, Plan SWO-37115, originally part of Mateo CariAo’s claim.
At the turn of the 20th century the land was developed with a sawmill and other buildings by H.C. Heald in connection with his lumber business.
On March 14, 1916, H.C. Heald sold the buildings to Sioco CariAo, son of Mateo CariAo, who subsequently took possession of both the buildings and the land.

Ting-el Dicman, a predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and employed by Sioco CariAo as a cattle herder, became the instrument through which the title was effected due to advice that Sioco CariAo should avoid multiple registrations in his own name.
On October 22, 1928, Ting-el Dicman executed a public instrument titled “Deed of Conveyance of Part Rights and Interests in Agricultural Land” pledging one half of his title, rights, and interest to Sioco CariAo in consideration of the survey expenses and improvements advanced by CariAo.
The deed provided that once Ting-el Dicman obtained his free-patent, he would be obliged to execute the final papers conveying the property to CariAo and his heirs.

On January 10, 1938, Sioco CariAo executed a “Deed of Absolute Sale” in favor of his son, Guzman CariAo, transferring all rights and interests in the subject property, including improvements, for a nominal consideration.
Guzman CariAo then took possession of the property, as evinced by public documents and the publishing of his residence details in a telephone directory.
Over the years, Guzman CariAo further improved the property by enhancing the building, planting fruit trees, leasing parts to third parties, and allowing its use by public institutions.
In 1954, a resurvey divided the parcel into two halves—Lot 76-A, which was identified as belonging to the petitioners (heirs of Dicman), and Lot 76-B, indicating the portion corresponding to the CariAo family.

Guzman CariAo filed a Free Patent Application in 1955 but later withdrew it when opposition was filed by the heirs of Ting-el Dicman.
On April 24, 1959, the heirs of Dicman initiated a petition to reopen Civil Reservation Case No. 1, G.L.R.O. 211, seeking to establish their title over both Lot 76-A and Lot 76-B.
The trial court in 1963 confirmed ownership of Lot 76-A for the heirs while reserving issue on Lot 76-B pending further hearings on adverse claims.
Meanwhile, Proclamation No. 628 of 1960 was issued by President Carlos P. Garcia, reserving certain “Igorot Claims,” including that of the Heirs of Dicman, although the issue of jurisdiction was complicated by later Supreme Court pronouncements.

Guzman CariAo continued possession of Lot 76-B until his death in 1982, with his widow and private respondent (Jose CariAo) retaining possession thereafter.
On April 20, 1983, the heirs of Dicman revived their claim by filing a complaint for recovery of possession with the RTC, alleging that defendant (private respondent) illegally occupied the eastern half of the property.
In response, private respondent claimed that his predecessors acquired the property by a valid “Deed of Absolute Sale” and that he had been in open, public possession for 55 years, hence perfecting his title through acquisitive prescription.
The RTC, after ocular inspection and review of tax declarations and other documentary evidence, rendered a decision on November 28, 1990, in favor of private respondent, dismissing the petitioners’ claims and declaring the respondent the lawful possessor with a better right to the property.

On January 23, 1991, petitioners filed a notice of appeal after the RTC decision.
The Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed the petition, upheld the RTC ruling, and denied the motion for reconsideration filed on December 15, 2000.
On February 12, 2001, petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising several grounds regarding the nullity of the deed, application of acts governing non-Christian transactions, and the claim of adverse possession by private respondent.
A controversy over the verification and certification of non-forum shopping arose when it was found that the certification had been executed by Julio F. Dicman, the son of one of the petitioners, instead of directly by the principal party, prompting a procedural issue concerning substantial compliance.

Whether the “Deed of Conveyance of Part Rights and Interests in Agricultural Land” executed in 1928 is void ab initio for lack of approval under applicable administrative provisions (Sections 145 and 146 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu and its subsequent extensions).
Whether the 1938 “Deed of Absolute Sale” is a valid instrument of title considering the allegedly inadequate authority of Sioco CariAo and the prior issues emerging from the conveyance by Ting-el Dicman.

Whether private respondent’s long, uninterrupted, open, and adverse possession of the property for over 55 years constitutes sufficient ground for acquisitive prescription, thereby perfecting his title notwithstanding any defects in the deeds.
Whether the filing of the petition by the heirs came too late, given that more than 20 years had elapsed since Guzman CariAo took possession.

Whether the failure to submit a verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed personally by the principal party (instead of by an authorized representative such as Julio F. Dicman) is fatal to the petition.
Whether substantial compliance can be invoked in view of the requirement that natural persons must sign the certification, especially when it appears that a non-principal (the petitioner’s son) signed the document.

Whether the petitioners’ delay in asserting their rights, evidenced by over 30 years of inactivity since the relevant deeds were executed, constitutes laches resulting in a bar to their claim.
Whether issues raised for the first time on appeal, which were not previously contested in the lower courts, should be barred by estoppel and principles of fair play and due process.

Whether Proclamation No. 628, which reserved certain Igorot claims, is applicable to the present controversy given that the rights to the property had already vested in private respondent.
How the rights of indigenous peoples (in light of Republic Act No. 8371) may affect the interpretation of the petitioners’ claims relative to traditional ownership and modern statutory instruments.