Case Summary (G.R. No. 208197)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
- May 4, 2000: Petitioner filed Civil Case No. OD‑489 in RTC Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon, for cancellation/recall of FPAs and reconveyance.
- Free patents at issue were issued on February 28, 1992 (Free Patent Nos. 11636 and 11637).
- April 27, 2010: RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner, ordering cancellation of certificates issued pursuant to the free patents and reconveyance of petitioner’s alleged 1/3 share.
- July 8, 2013: Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, dismissed the amended complaint.
- Petition for review under Rule 45 was filed before the Supreme Court; substitution was allowed after petitioner’s death in 2015. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision.
Applicable Law and Legal Standards
- Property Registration Decree (Presidential Decree No. 1529), Section 32: certificate of title and decree of registration become incontrovertible upon expiration of one year from entry of the decree of registration (indefeasibility/incontrovertibility).
- Civil Code provisions referenced in the decision: Articles 776 (scope of inheritance), 854 (preterition), 906 (compulsory heir remedy for legitime impairment), 978 and 980 (succession to descendants), and Article 1080 regarding partition inter vivos.
- Jurisprudential standards applied: Distinction among actions for declaration of nullity of free patent/certificate of title, action for reversion, and action for reconveyance (Spouses Galang v. Spouses Reyes; Heirs of Kionisala v. Heirs of Dacut).
- Standard of proof for allegations of fraud/misrepresentation affecting title: fraud must be shown by clear and convincing evidence; mere preponderance is inadequate.
Factual Background
Petitioner alleged she and respondents (and another sibling) were compulsory heirs of the late Perfecto Atienza, who died intestate on June 1, 1978, and that two lots in Budiong constituted part of his estate. Petitioner asserted that respondents secured free patents through manipulation and misrepresentation: respondents’ free patent applications were allegedly based on a “Confirmation Affidavit of Distribution of Real Estate” executed by Perfecto on June 22, 1973, which petitioner claimed was misrepresented to him; petitioner further alleged lack of notice of the free patent proceedings and that respondents took advantage of petitioner’s absence abroad. Petitioner sought cancellation/recall of the free patents and reconveyance of a 1/3 share to her as a compulsory heir.
Trial Court Ruling (RTC)
The RTC found fraud in the processing of the free patent applications, mainly because the petitioner was allegedly not notified and the respondents procured the patents while the petitioner was abroad. The RTC ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel the certificates issued pursuant to Free Patent Nos. 11636 and 11637 and directed the respondents to reconvey the petitioner’s alleged 1/3 share in the two lots. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision, dismissing the amended complaint. Procedurally, the CA held the RTC erred in not dismissing the amended complaint for failure to append a certification against non‑forum‑shopping. Substantively, the CA ruled that: (1) the free patents became indefeasible and incontrovertible after the one‑year period provided in Section 32 of PD No. 1529; (2) the petitioner failed to establish fraud or misrepresentation by clear and convincing evidence. The CA relied on evidence that a Notice of Application for Free Patent had been posted in conspicuous places, the existence of a notarized Confirmation Affidavit dated June 22, 1973, testimony from DENR personnel that requirements were complied with, tax declarations dating to 1974 reflecting occupation, and an investigation report showing possession since 1962. The CA also held the RTC erred in ordering reconveyance because petitioner failed to establish title or ownership to 1/3 of the properties.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The central issue reviewed by the Supreme Court was whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC decision and dismissing the petitioner’s amended complaint for cancellation/recall of free patents and reconveyance. Ancillary procedural questions were raised by respondents concerning defective verification and the lack of certification against forum‑shopping in the original complaint.
Supreme Court Ruling and Reasoning
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court followed the CA’s distinction between causes of action: an action for declaration of nullity of a free patent and certificate requires proof of pre‑existing ownership and fraud sufficient to show the land was beyond the Bureau of Lands’ jurisdiction; an action for reconveyance presumes the certificate as incontrovertible and requires proof that the plaintiff was an owner and was illegally dispossessed. The Court agreed that the petitioner failed to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence. The DENR’s issuance process was entitled to a presumption of regularity, and that presumption was not successfully rebutted. The Court accepted evidence of posted notices
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 208197)
Title, Citation and Procedural Posture
- Decision of the Supreme Court rendered January 10, 2018; reported at 823 Phil. 389; 114 O.G. No. 42, 7158 (October 15, 2018), Second Division, G.R. No. 208197.
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the Court of Appeals Decision dated July 8, 2013 in CA-G.R. CV No. 95599.
- Petition seeks review of CA reversal and setting aside of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated April 27, 2010 (Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon) in Civil Case No. OD-489 which had ordered cancellation of free patents and reconveyance.
- Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the CA decision.
Parties and Representations
- Petitioner: Araceli Mayuga (later substituted by Marilyn Mayuga Santillan on behalf of all the heirs after petitioner’s death in September 2015).
- Respondents: Antonio L. Atienza (representing the heirs of Armando Atienza) and Benjamin A. Atienza, Jr. (representing the heirs of Benjamin A. Atienza, Sr.), among other heirs impleaded in the amended complaint.
- Additional defendant originally impleaded: Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) and Register of Deeds of Romblon; CENRO denied participation in issuance and sought exclusion as defendant.
- Counsel and judicial officers referenced: RTC Executive Judge Jose M. Madrid (RTC decision), CA Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz (CA decision), Supreme Court Members listed in the disposition (Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Perlas‑Bernabe concur; Reyes, Jr. on leave).
Subject Land, Titles and Instruments
- Two parcels alleged subject of dispute:
- Lot 9819 Csd 341‑D (Lot 61‑A) — 294 square meters.
- Lot 9820 Csd 341‑D (Lot 61‑B) — 280 square meters.
- Combined area: 574 square meters, located at Budiong, Odiongan, Romblon.
- Instruments and dates:
- Free Patent (NRD‑IV‑21) No. 11636 and FPA No. 11637, both patents dated February 28, 1992 (Free Patent Nos. issued in 1992; certificates of title recorded in Registry of Deeds in June 1992).
- Confirmation Affidavit of Distribution of Real Estate dated June 22, 1973, executed by Perfecto Atienza, alleged to confirm a partition in 1960.
- Petitioner’s allegation of intestate death of Perfecto Atienza on June 1, 1978.
Reliefs Sought by Petitioner and Basis of Cause of Action
- Petitioner instituted Civil Case No. OD‑489 on May 4, 2000 for:
- Cancellation and recall of Free Patent Application (FPA) No. 11636 and FPA No. 11637 and reconveyance.
- Reconveyance and ordering of Register of Deeds to cancel certificates issued pursuant to those free patents.
- Division of the two lots into three equal parts among the three compulsory heirs (petitioner, Benjamin A. Atienza Sr., and Armando A. Atienza).
- Principal allegations:
- Petitioner is one of three surviving legitimate, legal and forced heirs of Perfecto Atienza.
- Respondents secured free patents through manipulation, misrepresentation and fraud to the prejudice of petitioner.
- Petitioner was not notified of the free patent applications nor hearings and was absent from the Philippines (in the United States) when applications were filed.
RTC Proceedings, Findings and Judgment
- RTC history:
- Petition filed May 4, 2000; bill of particulars ordered and reply admitted.
- Defendants filed motions (e.g., bill of particulars, motions to dismiss) which RTC denied in part; pretrial and trial ensued.
- RTC ruling dated April 27, 2010:
- Found that defendants’ applications for free patents were tainted with fraud because they were processed without petitioner’s knowledge and without notice of hearings; defendants took advantage of petitioner’s absence abroad.
- Declared that titling obtained by fraud would not bar reconveyance.
- Ordered cancellation of Certificates issued pursuant to Free Patent No. 11636 (Antonio L. Atienza) and Free Patent No. 11637 (Benjamin A. Atienza).
- Ordered defendants to reconvey the petitioner’s alleged 1/3 share of Lots 9819 and 9820 (identified respectively with Lot 61‑A and Lot 61‑B).
- Motion for reconsideration by defendants denied by RTC on July 29, 2010.
- Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Rationale
- CA Decision dated July 8, 2013 (Special Seventh Division) reversed and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the amended complaint.
- Procedural ground:
- CA held RTC erred in not dismissing the amended complaint for failure to append a certification against non‑forum shopping.
- Substantive grounds:
- CA applied the doctrine of indefeasibility/incontrovertibility under Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529: free patents and their certificates of title become indefeasible after one year from the entry of decree of registration.
- CA found no clear and convincing evidence of fraud, manipulation or misrepresentation in respondents’ acquisition of free patents.
- CA gave legal presumption of regularity to DENR officers’ actions and to the notarized Confirmation Affidavit of Distribution of Real Estate dated June 22, 1973.
- CA found records negated petitioner’s allegation of non‑notification because a Notice of Application for Free Patent had been posted in conspicuous places from January 2, 1987 to December 18 (year in record).
- CA recognized tax declarations dated as early as 1974 and a Report of Investigation by Deputy Land Investigator/Inspector Emilio Firmalo indicating possession and occupation by Antonio Atienza and his predecessors since 1962 and by Benjamin Atienza and his predecessors since 1962.
- Dispositive CA decree:
- “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated April 27, 2010 ... are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Amended Complaint ... is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.”
Issues Brought to the Supreme Court
- Single core issue articulated: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC Decision and dismissing the amended complaint for cancellation of free patent and reconveyance.
- Ancillary procedural/contentions raised by respondents in their Comments:
- Defective verification and certification of the Petition due to lack of authority of Marilyn Mayuga Santillan who verified instead of Araceli Mayuga.
- Petitioner's initial failure to explain lack of verification and certification against forum‑shopping in original complaint.
- Argume