Case Digest (G.R. No. 190922)
Facts:
Francisca Taar, Joaquina Taar, Lucia Taar and Heirs of Oscar L. Galo v. Claudio Lawan, et al., G.R. No. 190922, October 11, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners are members/heirs of a family who, relying on a February 18, 1948 Decision of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac that approved a partition agreement, prepared and secured approval of a subdivision plan (Subdivision Plan No. Ccs-03-000964-D) in February 2001 and then applied for free patents over a 71,014-square-meter parcel in Barangay Parsolingan, Genova, Tarlac. Private respondents Claudio Lawan, Marcelino M. Galo, Artemio Abarquez, Augusto B. Lawan and Adolfo L. Galo filed a verified protest to petitioners’ applications asserting that their predecessors had been in exclusive possession of the land since 1948.
DENR Region III conducted an ocular inspection and, by Regional Director Leonardo R. Sibbaluca’s May 29, 2002 Order, found private respondents to be the actual occupants, cancelled the subdivision plan and denied petitioners’ free patent applications; that order attained finality. Private respondents subsequently filed their own free patent applications, which were approved on January 23, 2004, and free patents and certificates of title were issued in their favor.
Petitioners then filed a Verified Petition with the DENR Secretary alleging extrinsic fraud and deprivation of due process; an investigating team reported facts supporting petitioners’ occupation (houses, fences, leasehold contracts, cultivated rice fields) and Secretary Angelo T. Reyes, in a January 18, 2007 Decision, adopted the team’s findings and ordered cancellation of the free patents issued to private respondents. Private respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied by Secretary Reyes; they appealed to the Office of the President.
The Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, reversed Secretary Reyes in an October 20, 2008 Decision and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a March 26, 2009 Resolution, on the ground that Director Sibbaluca’s May 29, 2002 Order had already become final. Petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals; the Court of Appeals dismissed it outright in a July 20, 2009 Resolution (denied reconsideration January 15, 2010) as an inappropriate remedy ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioners’ petition for certiorari?
- Does the February 18, 1948 Decision of the Court of First Instance bar private respondents from filing free patent applications over the Property under res judicata?
- Are the free patents and certificates of title issued to private respondents valid, or were they procured b...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)