Title
Heirs of Spouses De Guzman vs. Heirs of Bandong
Case
G.R. No. 215454
Decision Date
Aug 9, 2017
Dispute over 3,018 sq. m. land in Pangasinan: Spouses De Guzman claimed prior ownership via 1984 deed; Spouses Bandong obtained free patent fraudulently. SC upheld De Guzman's title to eastern portion, Bandong's to western portion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 50661)

Background

The case arose from a dispute involving claims over a parcel of land in Urbiztondo, Pangasinan, originally owned by Domingo Calzada. The land measures 3,018 square meters and has had various transactions linked to it. Domingo sold a 660-square-meter portion to Emilio Bandong in 1960, who allegedly later donated it to his son Pedro Bandong. In 1979, Pedro sold a larger portion, 1,320 square meters, to Marceliano Bandong. Upon Domingo's death in 1961, his heirs executed a Deed in 1984 to convey the remaining 2,358 square meters to the Spouses De Guzman. A cadastral survey in 1992 designated the portions as separate lots: Lot No. 3011 (claimed by the Bandongs) and Lot No. 3015 (claimed by the De Guzmans).

Application for Free Patent

In 1999, Marceliano applied for a free patent for a portion of the lot (Lot No. 3011), asserting continuous possession since 1979 and declaring it as public land not claimed by others. His application resulted in the issuance of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-41536 later that year. The De Guzmans learned of this application and filed a protest against it in 2002, asserting ownership of the disputed area based on their 1984 Deed. However, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources denied their protest, citing lack of jurisdiction and advising them to seek relief in court.

Regional Trial Court Decision

The Spouses De Guzman filed a complaint in the RTC, accusing the Spouses Bandong of fraud and misrepresentation. The RTC ruled in favor of the De Guzmans, stating that the increased area in Bandong’s title was due to a fault in the cadastral survey, ultimately deciding to cancel the OCT held by the Spouses Bandong and reaffirming the De Guzmans' ownership of the eastern portion of the land.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC's decision, arguing that the De Guzmans failed to present clear and convincing evidence of fraud concerning the issuance of the free patent to the Bandongs. The CA contended that mere possession by the De Guzmans did not negate the presumption of regularity afforded to the Notarized 1979 Deed, which indicated the Bandongs' legitimate ownership.

Petitioners' Claims and Court's Revaluation

The De Guzmans contended that their evidence demonstrated prior ownership and occupied the area before the Bandongs' free patent application. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the case required re-evaluation of the factual findings due to discrepancies between the RTC and CA's decisions. Importantly, it was noted that ownership claims arise from the need to establish prior ownership before the issuance of a free patent, which must reflect that the land could not be classified as public land.

Findings on Ownership and Possession

The Supreme Court found that both parties presented claims based on different deeds of sale, with the De Guzmans maintaining that the land in questio

...continue reading

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