Case Summary (G.R. No. 233767)
The Case Presented to the Supreme Court
Petitioners sought review of the CA’s reversal of the trial court in Civil Case No. 279‑0‑2006 and the CA’s denial of their motion for reconsideration. The CA had ordered defendants-appellees (the petitioners) to vacate and turn over the subject property to respondent. Petitioners contended that the trial court properly dismissed respondent’s recovery of possession action because petitioners had proven superior rights to the disputed portion, and that their documentary evidence was properly part of the record.
Respondent’s Claims and Pleadings
Respondent filed an action for Recovery of Possession and Damages (complaint dated July 12, 2006), asserting he was the registered owner of Lot 11122 under OCT No. P‑7061 and was listed in tax declarations. He alleged that petitioners entered the land in mid‑1994 without consent, planted trees, and refused demands to vacate, prompting the civil complaint. He relied principally on his certificate of title as proof of his right to possession.
Petitioners’ Defenses and Administrative Protest
In their answer, petitioners raised that they had filed an administrative Protest with Petition to Annul/Cancel Free Patent No. (111‑4)005010 (derivative OCT P‑7061) with the DENR, creating a prejudicial question that rendered respondent’s complaint premature. They also asserted failures in barangay conciliation requirements. Petitioners further asserted that portions of the lot had other claimants (e.g., Juanita Filipinas) and that, in any event, petitioners’ own rights over the disputed portion were superior—claiming acquisitive prescription (open, continuous, adverse possession since 1965).
Trial Court Findings and Ruling (RTC, March 4, 2015)
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 72, Olongapo City) dismissed respondent’s complaint for lack of merit. The RTC found, based on DENR‑Region III documentation (Certificate of Finality in petitioners’ favor canceling the free patent) and petitioners’ documentary and testimonial evidence, that petitioners had acquired ownership over the disputed portion by acquisitive prescription through open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since 1965. The RTC concluded respondent had not demonstrated he was in possession at the time petitioners entered, and that the OCT in respondent’s name was tainted by fraud and irregularity per DENR findings; hence respondent could not recover possession.
Court of Appeals Decision (March 20, 2017) and Rationale
The CA reversed the RTC. It held that petitioners’ documentary evidence was improperly considered because the documents were not formally offered and identified by witnesses in the manner required, so they should not have been admitted. The CA further emphasized the presumption of regularity attaching to OCT No. P‑7061 and reasoned a titleholder is entitled to possession; therefore respondent, as the registered owner, had a superior right. The CA held that the DENR Certificate of Finality could not be the basis to deprive respondent of possession and that the validity of an OCT cannot be collaterally attacked in the recovery of possession action. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration (Resolution dated August 16, 2017).
Parallel Administrative and Civil Proceedings (Nullification of Free Patent and Derivative Title)
Separately, petitioners filed Civil Case No. 49‑0‑2009 to nullify Free Patent No. (111‑4)005010 and derivative OCT No. P‑7061 on grounds of fraud in respondent’s application for the free patent and failure to disclose petitioners’ prior occupation. By RTC decision dated March 4, 2015 (in that case) the court ordered reconveyance to petitioners of the parcel described as “fourteen thousand nine hundred three (14,903) square meters” wrongfully registered under OCT No. P‑7061. The CA affirmed that RTC decision by its Decision dated December 15, 2016, and the Supreme Court denied respondent’s subsequent petition for review in G.R. No. 231304 (Resolution dated July 12, 2017), which became final.
Res Judicata — Conclusiveness of Prior Supreme Court Resolution
The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment. It explained that conclusiveness of judgment operates where the same parties and subject matter (but not necessarily the same cause of action) are involved and where a particular issue was actually and directly adjudicated in a prior competent court decision. The Court found the necessary elements present: (1) the Resolution in G.R. No. 231304 (July 12, 2017) was final; (2) it was rendered by a court (this Court) with jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter; (3) it disposed of the matter on the merits; and (4) the parties in both actions were identical (Corcuera and the Heirs of Elliot). Consequently, the conclu
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 233767)
Case Caption, Citation, and Forum
- Supreme Court First Division decision reported at 880 Phil. 232; 118 OG No. 39, 10764 (September 26, 2022).
- G.R. No. 233767, decided August 27, 2020; penned by Justice Lazaro‑Javier.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Court of Appeals issuances in CA‑G.R. CV No. 105502: (1) Decision dated March 20, 2017 reversing the trial court and declaring respondent Danilo Corcuera to have the better right of possession over a parcel covered by OCT No. P‑7061; and (2) Resolution dated August 16, 2017 denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- Prior related matters include Civil Case No. 279‑0‑2006 (RTC, Branch 72, Olongapo City) and a parallel action on nullification of Free Patent and OCT No. P‑7061 (Civil Case No. 49‑0‑2009) resulting in G.R. No. 231304.
Parties and Representation
- Petitioners: Heirs of Eutiquio Elliot, represented by Meriquita Elliot, Johul Elliot, Rene Elliot, and Perfecto Elliot.
- Respondent: Danilo Corcuera, represented by his attorney‑in‑fact Charles Burns, Jr.
- Counsel and bench authors noted in the record for the Court of Appeals and RTC decisions are identified in the source material.
Subject Property — Description and Documentary Basis
- Property described in Original Certificate of Title No. (OCT) P‑7061 as Lot 11122, Cad. 547‑D, containing an area of THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR (34,264) SQUARE METERS; full technical description appears in OCT P‑7061 and a copy was appended to the complaint (Attachment A).
- Respondent declared the lot under Tax Declaration Nos. 006‑1748 and 006‑1341 A, with aggregate market value P140,850.00 and assessed value P56,340.00.
Factual Background and Allegations
- Respondent’s pleading (Recovery of Possession and Damages dated July 12, 2006) alleged:
- He was the registered owner of the parcel covered by OCT No. P‑7061.
- Petitioners entered the land in mid‑1994 without consent, planted trees, and claimed ownership; they refused demands to vacate, prompting the complaint.
- Petitioners’ answer (May 29, 2007) essentially alleged:
- They filed an administrative "Protest with Petition to Annul/Cancel Free Patent No. (111‑4)005010 (OCT No. P‑7061)" before the DENR; the administrative protest raised a prejudicial question making the action premature.
- Respondent failed to comply with Katarungang Pambarangay proceedings.
- Annotation on OCT P‑7061 reflects that respondent ceded a portion to Juanita Filipinas; Filipinas pursued a forcible entry action (MTC Civil Case No. 002‑06) and presented her own certificate of title.
- Petitioners asserted their right over the property was superior to respondent’s or Filipinas’.
Trial Court Proceedings and Findings (RTC, Branch 72, Civil Case No. 279‑0‑2006)
- After trial, RTC, Branch 72, Olongapo City dismissed respondent’s complaint for lack of merit by Decision dated March 4, 2015.
- RTC findings included:
- Respondent was not in possession of the subject lot at the time relevant to petitioners’ entry.
- DENR‑Region III Certificate of Finality resolved petitioners’ protest and concluded the issuance of OCT in respondent’s favor was highly irregular and tainted with fraud and malice.
- Petitioners proved open, continuous, and adverse possession of the lot since 1965, establishing ownership by acquisitive prescription over the relevant portion.
- Even though respondent held a certificate of title, it did not automatically confer the right to recover possession because his title was obtained through fraud and respondent failed to show he had possession when petitioners allegedly entered.
- RTC judgment: complaint dismissed for utter lack of merit; judgment rendered in favor of the defendants (petitioners).
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling (CA‑G.R. CV No. 105502)
- On appeal, respondent argued (inter alia) that:
- The trial court erred in admitting evidence not formally offered by petitioners’ witnesses.
- Petitioners did not acquire ownership by acquisitive prescription because they merely intruded while respondent lawfully possessed the lot.
- OCT No. P‑7061 was lawfully and regularly issued to him.
- Petitioners argued (inter alia) that:
- Their documentary evidence were identified by witnesses and part of the record.
- They had possessed the lot since 1965 and acquired ownership by prescription.
- The trial court’s factual findings deserve respect and finality; registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership.
- Court of Appeals Decision dated March 20, 2017 reversed the trial court and ordered petitioners to vacate and turn over the subject property, holding:
- The trial court erred in considering petitioners’ documentary evidence because they were not properly identified by witnesses.
- A titleholder is entitled to all attributes of ownership, including possession; OCT No. P‑7061 is presumed regularly issued to