Title
Mayuga vs. Atienza
Case
G.R. No. 208197
Decision Date
Jan 10, 2018
Araceli Mayuga sought cancellation of free patents and reconveyance of her 1/3 share in properties, alleging fraud. SC upheld CA, ruling titles indefeasible, no fraud proven, and partition valid. Petition denied.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 208197)

Facts:

  • Petition and parties
    • On May 4, 2000, Araceli Mayuga (plaintiff) filed a petition for cancellation and recall of Free Patent Application (FPA) Nos. 11636 and 11637 and reconveyance before RTC Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon, docketed as Civil Case No. OD-489, against Antonio Atienza (representing heirs of Armando Atienza), Benjamin Atienza, Jr. (representing heirs of Benjamin A. Atienza, Sr.), CENRO and Register of Deeds.
    • She alleged that she and respondents were three compulsory heirs of the late Perfecto Atienza, owners of Lots 9819 (Lot 61-A) and 9820 (Lot 61-B), and that respondents obtained free patents through fraud and without notifying her.
  • RTC proceedings
    • Defendants moved for bill of particulars (June 2000); plaintiff filed reply clarifying alleged misrepresentation in filing of titles and lack of notice.
    • After trial, on April 27, 2010, RTC ruled in plaintiff’s favor, finding fraud in respondents’ free patents, ordered cancellation of Certificates of Title Nos. 11636 and 11637 and reconveyance of Araceli’s 1/3 share. Motion for reconsideration was denied on July 29, 2010.
  • Court of Appeals proceedings
    • Respondents appealed; CA Division granted appeal in Decision dated July 8, 2013, reversed RTC judgment, dismissed the amended complaint.
    • CA held:
      • Amended complaint should have been dismissed for lack of certification against forum-shopping.
      • Free patents became indefeasible one year after issuance under Section 32, PD 1529.
      • No clear and convincing evidence of fraud or misrepresentation; confirmation affidavit of distribution (June 22, 1973) was duly notarized and valid.
      • Petitioner failed to establish ownership or dispossession for reconveyance; respondents had open, continuous possession since 1962.
  • Supreme Court proceedings
    • Petitioner filed Rule 45 petition for review; respondents filed comments.
    • Issues on verification, substitution of parties after petitioner’s death, and substantive merits were addressed.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC Decision of April 27, 2010 and dismissing the amended complaint for cancellation of free patents (FPA Nos. 11636, 11637) and reconveyance.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.