Case Digest (G.R. No. 208197)
Facts:
Araceli Mayuga v. Antonio Atienza et al., G.R. No. 208197, October 15, 2018, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Araceli Mayuga (substituted in the Supreme Court by Marilyn Mayuga Santillan after Araceli’s death) filed a petition under Rule 45 seeking review of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated July 8, 2013 in CA-G.R. CV No. 95599, which had reversed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) April 27, 2010 decision in Civil Case No. OD-489 (Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon) and dismissed petitioner’s amended complaint for cancellation/recall of Free Patent Applications (FPA) Nos. 11636 and 11637 and reconveyance.
The underlying action, filed May 4, 2000 in RTC Civil Case No. OD-489, sought recall and cancellation of two free patents issued on February 28, 1992 in favor of respondents Antonio Atienza (representing heirs of Armando Atienza) and Benjamin Atienza, Jr. (representing heirs of Benjamin A. Atienza, Sr.), and reconveyance of the petitioner’s alleged 1/3 share of two lots allegedly belonging to their common father, the late Perfecto Atienza (died June 1, 1978). Petitioner alleged respondents obtained the free patents through manipulation and misrepresentation, that she was not notified of the applications or hearings, and that the lots formed part of Perfecto’s estate to which she was entitled as a compulsory heir.
Defendants moved for a bill of particulars and then denied the material allegations; they raised affirmative defenses including mootness, indefeasibility of title after one year, long possession, and reliance on a 1973 “Confirmation Affidavit of Distribution of Real Estate” executed by Perfecto. The CENRO (DENR office) filed an answer describing its Ministerial role and sought exclusion as defendant. The RTC admitted pleadings, conducted pretrial and trial, and on April 27, 2010 ruled for petitioner: finding fraud in the respondents’ processing of free patent applications without notifying petitioner, and directing the Register of Deeds to cancel the certificates issued pursuant to Free Patent Nos. 11636 and 11637 and ordering reconveyance of petitioner’s alleged 1/3 shares.
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on July 29, 2010, and they appealed to the CA. The CA (Special 7th Division) granted the appeal, holding (1) the RTC should have dismissed the amended complaint for failure to append a certification against non-forum-shopping; (2) the free patents had become indefeasible and incontrovertible after one year from entry of the decree of registration under Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529; (3) petitioner failed to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence; (4) the notarized 1973 Confirmation Affidavit carried a presumption of validity; and (5) petitioner failed to prove title or entitlement to 1/3 for reconveyance — the CA therefore reversed the RTC and dismissed the amended complaint.
Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition in the Supreme Court after securing an extension of time; respondents raised procedur...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the Regional Trial Court’s April 27, 2010 decision and dismissing petitioner’s amended complaint for cancellation/recall of free patents and reco...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)