Conclusive and binding decision

Even if a property is already titled in the name of a person, another one may have a better right to possess it and can file a suit to eject the person with a title through an action denominated as accion publiciana after the expiration of one year. This is illustrated in this case between the heirs of Eusebio and Domingo Castro.

The case involves an action for Recovery of Possession and Damages filed by Domingo Castro against the heirs of Eusebio represented by Marcia, Josue, Randy and Pete, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the province where the property is located. Said property is covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-6710 registered in the name of Domingo, containing an area of 35,000 square meters with a tax declaration under his name with market value of P15,000 and assessed value of P57,000.

According to Domingo, Marcia et.al. entered the property about 12 years ago without his consent and planted trees thereon, and started claiming they owned the lot. Thus, he averred that he demanded them to vacate the lot but despite demands, they refused, compelling him to file the complaint.

Marcia et.al. allege, however, that Domingo’s title is based on a Free Patent which they petitioned the DENR to annul. Said petition is still pending and therefore a prejudicial question that should be resolved first. They claimed that they have been in possession of said lot for more than 41 years, after the land was already declared disposable and alienable by the DENR and even before Domingo’s application for free patent.

After due proceedings, the RTC rendered a decision dismissing Domingo’s complaint for lack of merit. It noted that Domingo was not even in possession of the land and the issuance of his title over it was highly irregular and tainted with fraud and malice. Besides, the RTC said that although he held a certificate of title over the land, the same did not automatically give him the right to recover possession thereof since he obtained the same through fraud. The RTC said that he failed to present evidence of his being in possession thereof at the time Marcia et. al. entered the lot.

The Court of Appeals (CA), however, reversed the RTC decision and ruled that Domingo had the right to recover possession of the lot on the strength of OCT No. P-6710. According to the CA, a title holder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership over the property, including possession, since the issuance of said Title is still presumed to have been regularly issued and its validity cannot be attacked collaterally. Was the CA correct?

The Supreme Court (SC) declared that the CA is not correct. According to the SC, the heirs of Eusebio have a better right over subject lot because they have already acquired ownership over it through acquisitive prescription. The heirs of Eusebio are to be considered owners/possessors who have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the land that they presently occupy and have occupied and cultivated for more than thirty (30) years. This right has been invaded by the fraudulent inclusion of said property in Domigo’s free patent application that resulted in the issuance of OCT P-6710.

In fact, the heirs have even filed a petition for nullification of the Free Patent while Domingo’s action for recovery of possession and damages was being heard, and said petition has already been finally resolved by the SC in G.R. 231304 wherein said Free Patent was already cancelled for being null and void, thus ordering Domingo to turn over said land to the heirs. This ruling in G.R. 231304 is conclusive in the present case under the concept of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment. (Heirs of Elliot etc. vs. Corcuera, G.R. 233767, Aug. 27, 2020)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]