Indicia of ownership

Free patents are issued only to disposable lands of the public domain. But if one such land has already been in possession of private persons since time immemorial, can it still be the subject of a grant under a free patent? This is the principal issue resolved in this case of two groups of heirs.

The land subject of the controversy was a 574 sq. m. parcel of land located in the poblacion of a suburban town known as lot 2344. It was originally declared for tax purposes by the spouses Enteng and Adela Santos who had five children. Among their children were Ambo and Mameng whose descendants figured in a court battle over the lot 70 years later.

The said lot was subdivided into three portions: lot 2344-A with an area of 168 sq.m.; lot 2344-B with an area of 349 sq.m. and lot 2344-C with an area of 57 sq.m. Initially, lots 2344-A and B were acquired by Ambo while lot 2344-C was inherited by Mameng.

Mameng had a son Pepe. During her lifetime, she and her son lived in the nipa hut she built on lot 2344-C.It was in this nipa hut where Nano, one of Pepe’s children ( he also had a daughter Naty), was born. The hut underwent improvements in 1931 and 1952 thus becoming a house of strong materials. Eventually, the lot and house were transferred, by succession, to Nano and his sister Naty, grandchildren of Mameng. Since the lot area was only 57 sq.m., it was too small to be declared for taxation purposes, Nano did not obtain a separate tax declaration for the lot and just gave his share in the taxes.

On the other hand lots 2344-A and B were acquired by one of Ambo’s son, Simeon, a government employee, who purchased them from his father, Ambo and his brother, Jaime as evidenced by a "kasulatan ng bilihan ng lupa". When Simeon retired from government service in 1968, he constructed a house on lot 2344-B.On September 15, 1972, Simeon sold lot 2344-A to his nephew and niece Nano and Naty for P 5,000. Immediately after the execution of the notarized deed of sale, Nano and Naty constructed a house on said lot. Hence Nano and Naty became the owners of lots 2344-A and C with a total area of 225 sq.m., while their uncle Simeon retained lot 2344-B with an area of 349 sq.m. Their claim of ownership over the respective properties were evidenced by mere tax declarations.

Unknown to Nano and Naty, however, their uncle Simeon applied for a free patent with the Bureau of lands for the entire lot 2344 with a total area of 574 sq.m. So on September 26,1980,the Bureau of Lands issued free Patent No. 0130448 and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. P-10878 covering the entire lot in Simeon’s name.

On May 6,1983, Simeon died. Thus the title to lot 2344 (OCT No.P-10878) was transferred to his children. About a year later or on April 3, 1984, the children of Simeon, as his heirs, sued Nano and Naty before the Regional Trial Court for the recovery of the real right of possession (accion publiciana) of the portion of lot 2344 where Nano and Naty constructed his house particularly lots 2344-A and C. They alleged that by virtue of the title, the entire lot belonged to them and that Nano and Naty constructed a house on the portion thereof in bad faith and refused to vacate despite demands. While the case was pending, Nano died so his children succeeded as parties to the case. Can the heirs of Simeon recover possession of the portion of the lot occupied by the heirs of Nano and his sister Naty?

(To be continued)