Title
Ferrer vs. Bautista
Case
G.R. No. 46963
Decision Date
Mar 14, 1994
Petitioner claims ownership of disputed land via accretion; respondents assert title via free patent. SC rules petitioner owns land by accretion, voids respondents' title, orders reconveyance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 46963)

Procedural History

Ferrer initiated Civil Case No. A-514 in the Court of First Instance of La Union on March 23, 1976, seeking to quiet title against Balanag and Domondon. Prior to this, Ferrer had a complaint for reivindicacion (Civil Case No. A-86) dismissed on February 10, 1976, as the court found it lacked jurisdiction to annul the title awarded by the Director of Lands. On December 7, 1976, Judge Bautista dismissed Ferrer's complaint in Civil Case No. A-514, citing it as a collateral attack on the free patent granted to the respondents.

Basis for Dismissal

The trial court held that Ferrer's action was effectively an indirect attack against the free patent and certificate of title held by the respondents, which could not be contested collaterally. The court referenced the legal principle that a title, once issued and not revoked within one year, becomes indefeasible. Ferrer’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 3, 1977, prompting her to seek certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Claims

Ferrer argued several errors, including the lack of judicial recognition of her legal standing, insufficient cause of action considerations, and mischaracterization of her lawsuit as a collateral attack rather than a legitimate claim of ownership based on accretion. She maintained that her ownership of Lot 1980 entitled her to the accretions that formed over time.

Legal Principles Involved

The Court referenced Article 457 of the Civil Code, which grants owners of land adjoining water bodies the rights to any accretions formed. The Court stated that the petitioner's title as the registered owner of Lot 1980 allows her to assert ownership of the accreted land. Additionally, the Court reiterated that a free patent issued for land that has already transitioned into private ownership is null and void, granting no rights to the respondents.

On Nullity of Title and Prescription

The Supreme Court highlighted that under Philippine law, a title becomes conclusive only if it has not been subject to a valid contest. The Court rejected the notion that the dismissal of Ferrer’s previous case barred her current claims, as the free patent held by the respondents was deemed a nullity. Consequently, issues of prescription did not arise since actions challenging such void titles are not subject to limitation under the law, and the original action remained pending to potentially interrupt any prescriptive period.

Court’s Conclusion

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found merit in Ferrer’s arguments, concluding that she is the rightful owner of the d

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.