G.R. No. L-1123 - Mabanag vs. Vito

Plaintiff Ombe (Bagoba), a member of the Bagobo Tribe and noted for her ignorance and illiteracy, initiated a verified petition on June 2, 1956, with the Court of First Instance of Davao.
Her petition sought the cancellation of the phrase “married to Vicente Diga” in Original Certificate of Title No. P-1108 (Psu-63251) covering a parcel of land in barrio Baracatan, Sta. Cruz, Davao, and the insertion of her true status as “single”.
The land in question measures approximately 121,761 square meters and had been long under her occupation.

While her petition was pending, defendant Vicente Diga allegedly gathered crops on the aforementioned land, effectively excluding the plaintiff from its use.
In response, the plaintiff filed a separate action for an injunction on July 28, 1956, seeking to prevent the defendant from further encroachment.
On July 31, 1956, after the plaintiff posted a bond of P1,000.00, the court issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction ordering the defendant and his agents to desist from entering the property and harvesting its crops until the matter was resolved.

Since 1946, he had been cohabiting with the plaintiff as her common-law husband;
He had assumed the role of the father of the family by supporting the plaintiff and her children, as well as taking care of the land; and
His actions on the property did not amount to usurpation.

The defendant also filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff amounting to P2,000.00 for expenses incurred because of the suit and requested a declaration granting him a 1/2 share of the property.
On August 20, 1956, the plaintiff responded to the defendant’s counterclaim.

The plaintiff, of the non-Christian Bagobo Tribe, is identified as ignorant and unlettered.
The defendant, a native of San Isidro, Leyte, had resided in Davao since arriving in 1941 and lived at Calinan, Davao City.

The plaintiff originally initiated the private survey of the land, which is identified as Psu-63251.
Evidence showed that she, as well as her predecessor-in-interest, had occupied, possessed, and cultivated the land since 1928 (and even earlier), consistently claiming it as her own and declaring it for taxation purposes.
Prior to the outbreak of World War II, she had filed an application for a free patent title, although the original records were lost, destroyed, or misplaced during the war.
She later renewed her free patent application, which was duly processed and resulted in the issuance of a free patent on August 2, 1951, followed by a certificate of title on October 1, 1951.

On November 26, 1947, the defendant and plaintiff were married according to Bagobo rites and customs.
However, the Certificate of Title No. P-1108 contained the notation “married to Vicente Diga”, which the plaintiff contested as it misrepresented her true civil status, given that no legal marriage existed as per the records of the local civil registrar in Sta. Cruz, Davao.

Both parties waived their right to introduce evidence regarding claims for damages and improvements, including the defendant’s admission of having planted 250 coconut trees on the property.

On May 28, 1957, the court rendered its decision on the basis of the stipulated facts:

The decision dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.
It declared the property as co-owned by Ombe (Bagoba) and Vicente Diga on a share-and-share alike basis.
The Register of Deeds of Davao was ordered to cancel the notation “married to Vicente Diga” and reissue the title accordingly.
The writ of preliminary injunction, dated July 31, 1956, was cancelled.

The plaintiff appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court on June 6, 1959, on the ground that it involved questions of law.

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint and declaring the property co-owned by both parties.
Whether the defendant’s claim to co-ownership, based on an alleged common-law marriage and subsequent acts of cultivation and improvement, is legally tenable.
Whether the issuance of the free patent and certificate of title to the plaintiff, preceding the defendant’s claims, conclusively perfected her title over the property.