Facts:

This case revolves around a petition for review filed by Joseph Rementizo, the petitioner, against the heirs of Pelagia Vda. de Madarieta, the respondents. The controversy began with a complaint for annulment and cancellation of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. EP-195 and Emancipation Patent (EP) No. A-028390-H, lodged by Pelagia Vda. de Madarieta against Rementizo before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Camiguin. Madarieta claimed ownership of a parcel of land located in Tabulig, Poblacion, Mambajao, Camiguin, which was declared in the name of her late husband, Angel Madarieta. She contended that Rementizo was a tenant of another landowner, Roque Luspo, and that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) erroneously included her late husband’s land as part of Luspo's property under Operation Land Transfer, thereby issuing EP No. A-028390-H to Rementizo.

Madarieta asserted that Rementizo’s title was obtained without due process, as she had

...

Facts:

Background and Parties

• Joseph Rementizo, petitioner, was issued Emancipation Patent (EP) No. A-028390-H and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. EP-195 covering Lot No. 153-F under the government’s Operation Land Transfer.
• Pelagia Vda. De Madarieta, respondent, claimed ownership over the same parcel of land as part of the estate of her late husband, Angel Madarieta.
• The subject property, Lot No. 153-F, is part of a larger subdivision (Lot No. 153) that was divided during the implementation of the Operation Land Transfer.

Initiation of the Dispute

• Madarieta filed a Complaint for Annulment and Cancellation of OCT No. EP-195 and EP No. A-028390-H, contending that the land was erroneously awarded to Rementizo.
• She alleged that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) mistakenly included Lot No. 153-F as part of land belonging to Roque Luspo, not the estate of Angel Madarieta.
• Madarieta further contended that she was deprived of due process as she had received no notice regarding the transfer of ownership.

Proceedings Before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)

• The case began in DARAB, where a Provincial Adjudicator, on December 22, 1998, ordered the cancellation of the titles and directed Rementizo to vacate the property.
• Rementizo appealed the Provincial Adjudicator’s order.
• On February 7, 2001, the DARAB-Central Office reversed the earlier decision, ruling in favor of Rementizo by emphasizing his continuous possession and the lack of objection by Angel Madarieta.

Court of Appeals and Subsequent Proceedings

• Madarieta elevated the case to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, challenging the DAR’s decision on two main points: that she had already been aware of Rementizo’s occupation for over 11 years and that her delay in filing the action constituted negligence.
• The Court of Appeals initially ruled (May 26, 2004) that the title had become incontrovertible due to the lapse of time.
• On reconsideration, the Court of Appeals, in its Amended Decision dated July 4, 2005, set aside its earlier decision regarding EP No. A-028390-H by applying an exception to the 10-year prescriptive rule.
• However, the Supreme Court later reviewed these decisions, noting that despite the contested administrative error in the inclusion of Lot No. 153-F, there was no evidence of fraud or timely objection by Angel Madarieta.

Evidentiary Points and Arguments

• Rementizo asserted that he had been in possession of the subject property as an owner since 1987 and had even constructed a house there immediately after the registration of the title.
• Madarieta argued that her discovery of the true ownership of the land only materialized in 1997 through a relocation survey, which prompted her delayed action.
• The record showed no objection by Angel Madarieta during his lifetime, which was critical in establishing Rementizo's longstanding possession.
• There was no convincing evidence of fraud by Rementizo; his title was deemed to have been issued in accordance with the government’s Operation Land Transfer, thereby imprinting a constructive notice of his rights.

Issue:

Main Issue

• Whether the action for annulment of the emancipation patent—essentially an action for reconveyance—filed by Madarieta was barred by prescription, considering that more than 10 years had elapsed since the issuance and registration of the title in Rementizo’s name.

Subsidiary Issues

• Whether the absence of any objection or resistance from Angel Madarieta during his lifetime effectively ratified Rementizo’s possession and rendered the title incontrovertible.
• Whether the late discovery of the alleged error by Madarieta could serve as a valid basis for extending the prescriptive period, in the absence of any evidential fraud or misrepresentation.
• Whether the administrative mistake in including Lot No. 153-F within the Operation Land Transfer constitutes sufficient grounds for the cancellation of Rementizo’s title despite the lapse of the prescriptive period.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)