Case Digest (G.R. No. 59979)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Camilo Pareja, Leonardo Calayo, Aquilina Mira, Balbina Calayo, Jorge Jesalva and Carlito Mira, G.R. No. 59979, August 30, 1990, the Supreme Court First Division, Medialdea, J., writing for the Court.The underlying controversy began with Victorio Llona and Victoria Llave (plaintiffs in the trial court) filing Civil Case No. 2548 in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon on March 5, 1971 to quiet title to two adjoining parcels of unregistered land and to recover damages against defendants Camilo Pareja, Leona Martinez, Leonardo Calayo, Jorge Jesalva and Aquilina Mira. Summons were served in March 1971; the defendants did not answer and, on motion of the plaintiffs, the trial court declared them in default and, after reception of evidence, rendered judgment by default on November 11, 1971 declaring the plaintiffs owners of the parcels and awarding possession, attorney’s fees and damages.
Execution of the judgment followed. A writ of execution issued March 28, 1972 produced a sheriff’s return certifying physical delivery of possession to the plaintiffs on June 27–28, 1972. After the defendants refused to vacate, the trial court issued a writ of demolition which was carried out in August 1973, with the deputy sheriff reporting demolition of several houses on the premises. More than two years later, on August 14, 1975, the plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt alleging that the defendants reentered the land in March 1975, rebuilt houses and gathered coconuts; the trial court ordered inspection and, after hearings, found the defendants guilty of contempt on March 29, 1978.
Concurrently and prior to the filing of the civil action, an administrative process at the Bureau of Lands had been underway. A Lands Inspector’s report dated July 30, 1970 concluded that at least one of the contested parcels fell within an area certified as alienable and disposable by the Bureau of Forestry (December 10, 1968), and described tenant occupancies and coconut plantings. Subsequent surveys and free-patent applications followed: a parcel surveyed for Pareja (December 21, 1970), free patent applications by appellees/defendants, and administrative proceedings before the District Land Officer and the Director of Lands, including a July 30, 1976 order to maintain status quo and an October 1, 1976 dismissal of the plaintiff’s protest with direction to continue formal investigation.
During the pendency of the contempt appeal, the contested administrative process produced free patents: Aquilina Mira received Free Patent No. 004922 (for 1.2659 ha) and OCT P-16550 (Aug. 3–7, 1978); Balbina Jesalva Calayo received Free Patent No. 004920 and OC...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon have jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership (quiet title) of the unregistered parcels alleged to be public agricultural land?
- Who has legal title to the parcels — the plaintiffs by virtue of the trial court’s default judgment, or the defendants/appellants by virtue of free patents issued by the Bureau of Lands (Director of Lands)?
- If the free patents prevail, can the appellants be held guilty of contempt for reentering and occu...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)