G.R. No. 215454 - Heirs of Spouses De Guzman vs. Heirs of Bandong

Domingo Calzada originally owned a parcel of unregistered land in Barrio Angatel (now Barangay Real), Urbiztondo, Pangasinan, with an area of 3,018 square meters.
The 1960 Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Domingo conveyed only 660 square meters of the property to Emilio Bandong.
After Emilio’s acquisition, his son Pedro Bandong later became involved in subsequent conveyances.

In the 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale, Pedro Bandong sold a 1,320 square meter portion of the subject property to his brother Marceliano Bandong, which already showed a notable increase over the 660 square meters originally transferred.
The Spouses De Guzman (Corazon and Fortunato), heirs of Domingo Calzada, subsequently executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and Deed of Absolute Sale in 1984 conveying what was purported to be the remaining 2,358 square meters to them.
A cadastral survey in 1992 later designated the portions as Lot No. 3011 for the Bandong claim and Lot No. 3015 for the De Guzman claim.

On August 3, 1999, Marceliano Bandong filed an application for a free patent before the DENR-CENRO, alleging that the entire property (designated as Lot No. 3011) measured 3,221 square meters, was public land, and had been occupied and cultivated since 1940 by Pedro Bandong and his wife.
Based on the application and supporting documents such as the 1979 Deed and tax declarations, the DENR granted the application and issued the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-41536 in the name of the Spouses Bandong on October 25, 1999.

In 2001, the Spouses De Guzman discovered that Marceliano Bandong was intent on selling the disputed property part of which they claimed ownership.
On January 2, 2002, the De Guzmans filed a protest before the DENR-CENRO to cancel the title on the ground that the land registered under the Bandongs included a portion that rightfully belonged to them. The protest was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
On October 25, 2003, the Spouses De Guzman filed a complaint in the RTC of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, seeking the nullity of the title and free patent with damages, alleging that the Spouses Bandong committed fraud by misrepresenting the property’s area and boundaries.

Documentary evidence in the form of the 1960, 1979, and 1984 Deeds, cadastral survey records, and revised tax declarations revealed conflicting descriptions and boundaries.
Geodetic Engineer Leonardo V. De Vera conducted an ocular inspection and relocation survey, which established the existence of physical boundaries (including a barb wire fence) demarcating two distinct portions of the property: an eastern lot (approx. 2,102 sq. m.) and a western lot (approx. 1,119 sq. m.).
Testimonies from the parties and witnesses, including admissions regarding the origins and transfers of the property, further supported the evidence of actual possession and partition.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in April 2012 in favor of the Spouses De Guzman, determining that the errors in the cadastral survey led to the wrongful consolidation of the property and that the Bandongs’ free patent was tainted by fraud or misrepresentation.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, basing its ruling on the notion that the petitioners had failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of fraud, and that the notarized 1979 Deed enjoying the presumption of regularity supported the Bandongs’ title.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the CA committed irreversible errors in its factual and legal findings.

Whether the Spouses Bandong committed fraud and misrepresentation in their free patent application by inflating the area of the property from 1,320 square meters to 3,221 square meters.
Whether the documentary evidence—including the 1960, 1979, and 1984 Deeds, tax declarations, and geodetic reports—establishes the Spouses De Guzman’s prior title and effective possession of the disputed portion of the property.
Whether the issuance of a free patent on land that had already passed into private ownership, as evidenced by the De Guzmans’ acquisition and actual possession, is void ab initio.
Whether registration under the Torrens system, which merely confirms an existing title, can create title where there is none, particularly in light of fraudulent adjustments in property boundaries and area.