CALIMOSO V. ROULLO GR NO.

198594
Heirs of Bienvenido Tanyag V. Gabriel to 1,763 square meters.  They contended that the issuance of OCT No. 1035
on October 28, 1998 over the subject land in the name of respondent’s heirs
Facts:    
of Jose Gabriel was null and void from the beginning.
      Subject of controversy are two adjacent parcels of land located at Ruhale,
On the other hand, respondents asserted that petitioners have no
Barangay Calzada, Municipality of Taguig. The first parcel (“Lot 1”) with an
cause of action against them for they have not established their ownership
area of 686 square meters was originally declared in the name of Jose
over the subject property covered by a Torrens title in respondents’
Gabriel, while the second parcel (“Lot 2”) consisting of 147 square meters
name.  They further argued that OCT No. 1035 had become unassailable one
was originally declared in the name of Agueda Dinguinbayan. For several
year after its issuance and petitioners failed to establish that it was irregularly
years, these lands lined with bamboo plants remained undeveloped and
or unlawfully procured.
uninhabited.
Issue:
          Petitioners claimed that Lot 1 was owned by Benita Gabriel, sister of
Jose Gabriel, as part of her inheritance as declared by her in a 1944 notarized Who has a better right over the subject property?
instrument (“Affidavit of Sale”) whereby she sold the said property to
Ruling:
spouses Gabriel Sulit and Cornelia Sanga.
From 1969 until the filing of this complaint by the petitioners in
          Lot 1 allegedly came into the possession of Benita Gabriel’s own
March 2000, the latter have been in continuous, public and adverse
daughter, Florencia Gabriel Sulit, when her father-in-law Gabriel Sulit gave it
possession of the subject land for 31 years.  Having possessed the property
to her as part of inheritance of his son, Eliseo Sulit who was Florencia’s
for the period and in the character required by law as sufficient for
husband.  Florencia Sulit sold the same lot to Bienvenido S. Tanyag, father of
extraordinary acquisitive prescription, petitioners have indeed acquired
petitioners, as evidenced by a notarized deed of sale dated October 14,
ownership over the subject property.   Such right cannot be defeated by
1964.  Petitioners then took possession of the property, paid the real estate
respondents’ acts of declaring again the property for tax purposes in 1979
taxes due on the land and declared the same for tax purposes issued in 1969
and obtaining a Torrens certificate of title in their name in 1998.
in the name of Bienvenido’s wife, Araceli C. Tanyag.
Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, to successfully maintain an action
As to Lot 2, petitioners averred that it was sold by Agueda
to recover the ownership of a real property, the person who claims a better
Dinguinbayan to Araceli Tanyag under Deed of Sale executed on October 22,
right to it must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land claimed;
1968.  Thereupon, petitioners took possession of said property and declared
and second, his title thereto.  In regard to the first requisite, in an accion
the same for tax purposes. Petitioners claimed to have continuously, publicly,
reinvindicatoria, the person who claims that he has a better right to the
notoriously and adversely occupied both Lots 1 and 2 through their caretaker
property must first fix the identity of the land he is claiming by describing the
Juana Quinones; they fenced the premises and introduced improvements on
location, area and boundaries thereof.  In this case, petitioners failed to
the land.
identify Lot 2 by providing evidence of the metes and bounds thereof, so that
Sometime in 1979, Jose Gabriel, father of respondents, secured in his the same may be compared with the technical description contained in OCT
name Lot 1 indicating therein an increased area of 1,763 square meters. No. 1035, which would have shown whether Lot 2 consisting of 147 square
meters was erroneously included in respondents’ title.  The testimony of
On March 20, 2000, petitioners instituted a civil case alleging that
Agueda Dinguinbayan’s son would not suffice because said witness merely
respondents never occupied the whole 686 square meters of Lot 1 and
stated the boundary owners as indicated in the 1966 and 1967 tax
fraudulently caused the inclusion of Lot 2 in such that Lot 1 consisting of 686
declarations of his mother.  On his part, Arturo Tayag claimed that he had the
square meters originally declared in the name of Jose Gabriel was increased
lots surveyed in the 1970s in preparation for the consolidation of the two Respondents presented before the RTC a joint
parcels.  However, no such plan was presented in court. affidavit... stated that Genaro originally owned Lot No.
3341. It further stated that one-half (1/2) of the
HEIRS OF DELFIN v. HEIRS OF JOSE BACUD, GR No.
property was owned by Lorenzo; but that the whole
187633, 2016-04-04
property was declared as his, only for taxation
Facts: purposes.
On September 9, 1999, petitioners Delfin Tappa Respondents started occupying their respective
(Delfin)[5] and Maria Tappa (Spouses Tappa) filed a portions after the sale made to each of them. They
complaint[6] for Quieting of Title, Recovery of continued to occupy them despite several demands to
Possession and Damages (Complaint) against vacate from Spouses Tappa.
respondents Jose Bacud (Bacud),[7] Henry
Spouses Tappa claimed that the 1963 Affidavit was
Calabazaron (Calabazaron), and Vicente Malupeng
executed through force and intimidation.[23] Bacud
(Malupeng).[8] The property subject of the complaint is
and Malupeng denied this allegation.[24]
a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 3341, Pls-793
with an area of 21,879 square meters, located in The R
Kongcong, Cabbo, Peñablanca, Cagayan (Lot No.
TC... that there was no document in the hands of
3341).[9]
respondents as strong and persuasive as the title in
In their complaint, Spouses Tappa alleged that they the name of the Spouses Tappa that will support
are the registered owners of Lot No. 3341, having been respondents' claim of ownersh... ip
issued
Respondents appealed to the CA
OCT No. P-69103... r 18, 199
They alleged that Spouses Tappa committed fraud
September 18, 1992,... Delfin allegedly inherited Lot because they were not in possession of the lot since
No. 3341 from his father, Lorenzo Tappa (Lorenzo). 1963, which possession was required for an applicant
Spouses Tappa claimed that both Delfin and Lorenzo for a free patent under the law.
were in open, continuous, notorious, exclusive
respondents argued that the complaint should be
possession of the lot since time immemorial
dismissed because both extinctive and acquisitive
In their Answer,[12] respondents Bacud, Calabazaron prescription have already set in.
and Malupeng claimed that the original owner of Lot
They also argued that the action for quieting of title
No. 3341 was Genaro Tappa (Genaro) who had two
had already prescribed since the possession of Bacud
children, Lorenzo and Irene. Upon Genaro's death, the
and Malupeng started in 1963, which fact was
property passed on to Lorenzo and Irene by operation
allegedly admitted by Spouses Tappa in their
of law; and they became ipso facto co-owners of the
complaint.[40] Thus, Spouses Tappa had only until
property.
1993 to file a complaint, which they failed to do.
Ail respondents claimed that from the start of their attacked in this case;[57] andWhether the CA erred in
possession, they (1) have paid real taxes on the lot, (2) finding that respondents have acquired the property
have planted crops, and (3) have continued to possess through acquisitive prescription.[58]
the lot in the concept of owners.[41]... respondents
Ruling:
alleged that Spouses Tappa failed to prove their right
over the subject lot because they cannot rely on the We affirm the decision of the CA.
certificate of title issued to them on September 18,
for an action to quiet title to prosper, two
1992 by virtue of a free patent
indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the
The CA set aside the decision of the RTC. plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title
to or interest in the real property subject of the action;
uled in favor of respondents and explained that their
and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
possession over Lot No. 3341 already ripened into
claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown
ownership through acquisitive prescription.
to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima
A noted that Spouses Tappa acknowledged in their facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
complaint that they have not been in possession of the [61]Spouses Tappa failed to meet these two requisites
lot, and that respondents have been continuously
We agree with the CA that at the time of the
occupying portions of it since 1963.
application for free patent, Lot No. 3341 had already
first requisite is absent because Spouses Tappa do not become private land by virtue of the open, continuous,
have a legal or an equitable title to or an interest in exclusive, and notorious possession by respondents.
the property. The CA explained that the free patent Hence, Lot No. 3341 had been removed from the
granted to Spouses Tappa produced no legal effect coverage of the Public Land Act,[62] which governs
because Lot No. 3341 was a private land,... while public patent applications.
Spouses Tappa were able to obtain a free patent over
Spouses Tappa also admitted in their complaint that
the property, and were able to register it under the
sometime in 1963, Bacud and Malupeng started
Torrens system, they have not become its owners.
occupying portions of Lot No. 3341 and planted crops
"[r]egistration has never been a mode of acquiring on the property, while Calabazaron did the same on
ownership over immovable property—it does not another portion of the lot in the 1970's.[71] The
create title nor vest one but it simply confirms a title complaint stated further that since 1963, the
already vested, rendering it forever indefeasible." respondents "continuously occupied portion of the
subject land."[7
Issues:
Records also show that Spouses Tappa were aware of
Whether the CA erred in dismissing Spouses Tappa's
respondents' possession of the disputed portions of
complaint for quieting of title against respondents;
Lot No. 3341. They even admitted such possession
[56]Whether the CA erred in not finding that Spouses
Tappa's certificate of title cannot be collaterally
(since 1963) by respondents in their complaint filed in
1999.

A cloud... ment (deed, or contract) or record or claim

or encumbrance or proceeding; (2) which is apparendy
valid or effective; (3) but is, in truth and in fact, invalid,
ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, or
extinguished (or terminated) or barred by extinctive
prescription; and (4) and may be prejudicial to the title

1963 Affidavit however, was not proven to be, in fact,

invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, or
extinguished (or terminated) or barred by extinctive
prescription. The CA correctly found that Spouses
Tappa's claim of force and intimidation m the
execution of the 1963 Affidavit was "unsubstantiated
e of man are susceptible to prescription," and that property
of the State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in
character shall not be the object of prescription."

The Court further stressed that the period of acquisitive

prescription would only begin to run from the time that the
State officially declares that the public dominion property is
no longer intended for public use, public service, or for the
development of national wealth.

Accordingly, although lands of the public domain that are

considered patrimonial may be acquired by prescription
under Section 14(2) of P.D. No. 1529, before acquisitive
prescription could commence, the property sought to be
registered must not only be classified as alienable and
disposable; it must also be declared by the State that it is no
longer intended for public use, public service or the
development of the national wealth. Thus, absent an express
declaration by the State, the land remains to be property of
public dominion.

The Court finds no evidence of any official declaration from

the state attesting to the patrimonial character of the subject
property. Cortez failed to prove that acquisitive prescription
has begun to run against the State, much less that he has
acquired title to the subject property by virtue thereof. It is
of no moment that Cortez and his predecessors-in-interest
have been in possession of the subject property for 57 years
at the time he applied for the registration of title thereto. lt
is not the notorious, exclusive and uninterrupted possession
and occupation of an alienable and disposable public land
for the mandated periods that converts it to patrimonial.