G.R. No. 211917 - Gamaro vs. People

On October 29, 1990, Gabriel Danga notarized a Transfer of Rights in favor of respondent Rosita dela Paz for a parcel of agricultural land in Antipolo City measuring 143,417 square meters.
Prior to this transfer, Danga had transferred the very same rights to Josefina delos Reyes, who secured an Order of Transfer of Homestead Rights on December 1, 1989.
The conflicting transfers set the stage for later disputes over ownership and actual physical possession of the property.

The disputed property was covered by Homestead Application No. V-38136 (later E-V-33129) in Danga’s name, approved on July 12, 1948.
Respondent initiated administrative proceedings before DENR Region IV (DENR 4 Case No. 5723) seeking cancellation of Delos Reyes’ homestead patent application.
DENR Region IV, via its Resolution dated October 30, 2000, found that the transfer to Delos Reyes was invalid, recognized respondent’s claim over the property, and ordered her to file her own homestead application.
Subsequently, respondent obtained a Transfer of Homestead Rights (issued on March 20, 2002) and later secured a free patent and issuance of an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) for subdivided portions of the property on December 10, 2003.

On September 13, 2000, respondent filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) alleging that petitioner Charlie T. Lee and co-defendants had unlawfully occupied portions of the disputed land by means of stealth, strategy, and force amid her absence due to illness.
Petitioner, in his Answer, claimed ownership and possession over two parcels within the 143,417-square-meter property, substantiated by free patents (Nos. 045802-91-204 and 045802-91-203) and corresponding OCTs (Nos. P-619 and P-620) issued on June 3, 1991.
The MTCC dismissed respondent’s complaint on the ground that she failed to prove prior physical possession, which is essential in forcible entry (ejectment) cases where the sole issue is de facto possession.

Respondent’s appeal of the MTCC decision was heard by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 71, which reversed the MTCC ruling on April 4, 2005, ordering petitioner to vacate the areas in dispute.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC decision, which led to the Court of Appeals dismissing his petition on January 25, 2008, and denying his Motion for Reconsideration on July 1, 2008.
The factual controversies centered on whether respondent indeed had prior physical possession of the property and whether the DENR Resolution or documentary evidence was sufficient to override petitioner’s long-continuous occupation.

Respondent’s primary evidence for possession included the DENR Region IV Resolution, the notarized Transfer of Rights from Danga, and a Tax Declaration with real property tax clearances.
Petitioner’s evidence consisted of the free patents and OCTs that presupposed a prior, uninterrupted, adverse, and continuous possession dating as far back as 1960.
The Court also noted that the free patents issued to petitioner enjoy the presumption of regularity and that the later issued documents in respondent’s favor could not override the earlier established possession.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining respondent’s claim that she established exclusive ownership and physical possession of the entire 143,417‑square‑meter property based on the DENR Resolution, despite insufficient evidence of prior physical possession compared to petitioner’s long and actual possession.

Whether it was erroneous to hold that the property was no longer part of the public domain and thereby favor respondent’s claim, in light of petitioner’s legal right and earlier possession over portions of the property.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming that respondent validly acquired title from Danga, disregarding petitioner’s established prior adverse and continuous possession of the contested portions.

Whether the rejection of respondent’s homestead application (and her subsequent filing for a free patent) should permanently bar her from claiming any title over the entire property, and whether the court erred in this respect.

Whether the appellate court improperly admitted evidence of titles and patents for the first time on appeal, especially when respondent failed to present such evidence before the MTCC, in apparent violation of the Rules of Court on offer of evidence.