Case Digest (G.R. No. 196063)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Spouses Rolando and Susie Golez and the respondents, namely the heirs of Domingo Bertuldo, who are Genoveva Bertuldo, Erenita Bertuldo-Bernales, Florencio Bertuldo, Dominador Bertuldo, Rodel Bertuldo, and Roger Bertuldo. The events at the heart of this case began in 1976 when Benito Bertuldo sold Lot No. 1024 to Asuncion Segovia, who acted on behalf of her daughter Susie Golez. The transaction was formalized through a Deed of Absolute Sale, which defined the metes and bounds of Lot No. 1024. However, the petitioners erroneously constructed their house on a neighboring parcel of land—Lot No. 1025. Domingo, the father of the respondents and a cousin of Benito, contested the construction, asserting ownership of Lot No. 1025. Despite Domingo's objections, the petitioners claimed that their house was constructed on Lot No. 1024. Following Domingo's death, the respondents conducted a relocation survey confirming that the petitioners' house wa
Case Digest (G.R. No. 196063)
Facts:
In 1976, Benito Bertuldo sold Lot No. 1024 to Asuncion Segovia for the benefit of her daughter, petitioner Susie Golez. However, the petitioners later constructed a house not on Lot No. 1024 but on the adjacent Lot No. 1025, which was unregistered and claimed by Domingo Bertuldo, the father of the respondents. Domingo initially protested the construction, asserting ownership of Lot No. 1025, and following his death, his heirs conducted a relocation survey that confirmed the house was built on Lot No. 1025. Petitioners contended that an amended deed corrected the error, arguing that this sale was intended to convey Lot No. 1025.Subsequently, petitioners filed a complaint for quieting of title in 1993 before the RTC, which dismissed their claim for lack of merit by determining that they acquired Lot No. 1024 and not Lot No. 1025. This decision was affirmed by the CA and by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 178990, thereby recognizing the respondents’ ownership of Lot No. 1025.
Meanwhile, respondents pursued a free patent application over Lot No. 1025 with the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO). Petitioners, without mentioning the quieting title decision, opposed the application. After a series of motions and a procedural exchange at the DENR—including the issuance of an Order of Rejection by PENRO—the case was elevated to DENR Case No. 8887.
In its 2011 ruling, the DENR maintained that while petitioners were in actual possession of part of Lot No. 1025, they were not its owners; and that the respondents’ claim to ownership had been determined by the quieting title case. The DENR initially granted petitioners a preferential right over only a 400-square meter portion of the lot, but upon their motion for reconsideration in 2011, reversed this, declaring that petitioners held possession over the entire lot and granting them the preferential right to apply for public land title over Lot No. 1025.
Respondents then filed a Notice of Appeal, purportedly appealing the DENR decision to the Office of the President. However, the appeal was not perfected because the respondents failed to comply with the requirements under Administrative Order No. 22-2011—namely, payment of the appeal fee and the filing of an appeal memorandum. Consequently, the DENR issued an Order in July 2012 declaring its own resolution final and executory.
The petition for review on certiorari was later filed by petitioners before the CA, contesting the DENR rulings and alleging that the respondents had engaged in forum shopping by simultaneously pursuing a quieting title case and a free patent application. The CA, however, ruled in its 2016 Decision and again in its 2017 Resolution that respondents were the rightful owners of Lot No. 1025 and that petitioners’ remedies were barred by their earlier quieting title case as well as by their practice of forum shopping.
Issues:
- Whether the filing of the petition for certiorari before the CA by respondents was proper given their failure to perfect their appeal to the Office of the President pursuant to AO 22-2011.
- Whether the DENR acted with grave abuse of discretion in modifying its earlier decision to grant petitioners a preferential right over Lot No. 1025, despite the quieting title decision which recognized respondents’ ownership.
- Whether the dismissal of the quieting title action for “lack of merit” constitutes a bar to petitioners’ subsequent application for a free patent over Lot No. 1025, thereby amounting to forum shopping.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)