FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202294. September 14, 2021.]
DOLOREICH A. DUMALUAN, petitioner, vs.DANIEL M. VERGARA, THE PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICER (PENRO), DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), TAGBILARAN CITY, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, PROVINCE OF BOHOL, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 202294 — Doloreich A. Dumaluan v. Daniel M. Vergara, The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Tagbilaran City, and the Register of Deeds, Province of Bohol
The petition is devoid of merit.
At the outset, petitioner raises factual issues which hinge on the singular incipient question, viz.: who between Juan Dumaluan and Geralda, together with her son Leonardo legally owned the property? If it was owned by Juan Dumaluan, then the sale thereof by his heirs to herein petitioner was valid, for which, the latter's free patent application and title therefor were similarly valid. On the other hand, if it were Geralda and his son Leonardo who owned the property, their sale thereof to Spouses Mejia was valid, and so were the latter's subsequent sale to respondent and respondent's obtention of a free patent and title thereto.
To be sure, factual issues are not proper in a petition for review under Rule 45. The Court is not a trier of facts 1 and does not calibrate anew the evidence proffered by the parties below and passed upon in full by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. More so because the trial court's factual findings are binding and conclusive upon the Court, especially when they bear the full concurrence of the Court of Appeals, as in this case. Petitioner has not shown any compelling circumstance to warrant a deviation from this rule. So must it be.
But even on the merits, the petition must fail.
First. Settled is the rule that a free patent issued over a private land is null and void, and produces no legal effects whatsoever. 2 Here, upon the approval of respondent's free patent application, coupled with the issuance of a certificate of title to respondent, Lot 5682-B already ceased to be part of the public domain. It became private land and passed into private ownership by operation of law. 3 As a result, the subsequent grant of free patent and title on the same property in the name of petitioner is void ab initio. 4 The nullity of petitioner's title arises strictly not from the fraud or deceit but from the fact that the property is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow and whatever patent or certificate of title obtained therefor is consequently void ab initio. 5
Second. The fact that respondent's prior free patent application was not borne in the Allocation Books of Panglao Cadastre in 1995 does not negate its existence nor revert the land into the mass of public domain. It is a matter of public records that the existing title in respondent's name remains intact with the Register of Deeds, serving as notice to the whole world of respondent's ownership of the property. In any event, PENRO Officer Marydel Saclao testified that the reason why Allocation Books of Panglao Cadastre in 1995 did not reflect respondent's free patent application could have been the incomplete reconstruction of the said Allocation Books of Panglao Cadastre. Besides, there is ample evidence on record that petitioner had actual knowledge of the real status of the property. Both courts below keenly noted petitioner's admission during the hearing of the case that he saw respondent fencing the property before he filed his free patent application. 6 We therefore sustain the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court that petitioner's claim of good faith in obtaining title to the property is devoid of credence.
Third. The torrens title issued to respondent had long become indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from entry of its registration in 1994. 7 Petitioner's bare allegation of fraud in the obtention of said title cannot destroy the indefeasibility of respondent's title.
Finally, a title earlier registered under the Torrens System cannot be defeated by a subsequently issued title. 8 Indeed, where two (2) certificates of title purport to include the same land, the title which bears an earlier date prevails. 9 Here, there is no dispute that respondent obtained title over Lot 5682-B on January 13, 1994 while petitioner's certificate of title was only issued on May 29, 1996. Respondent's title therefore prevails.
ALL TOLD, the petition fails to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in rendering its assailed dispositions to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary discretion.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 20, 2012 and Resolution dated June 1, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 03071 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Siasat v. Court of Appeals, 425 Phil. 139, 154 (2002).
2. See Heirs of Kionisala v. Heirs of Dacut, 428 Phil. 249, 264 (2002).
3. See Cabuay v. Malvar, 438 Phil. 252, 264 (2002); See Angelesv. Republic, 536 Phil. 587, 613 (2006).
4. See Aznar Brothers Realty Co. v. Spouses Ybañez, 733 Phil. 1 (2014).
5. See Heirs of Spouses De Guzman v. Heirs of Bandong, 816 Phil. 617, 627 (2017).
6.Rollo, p. 182.
7.Mayuga v. Atienza, 823 Phil. 389, 394 (2018).
8. See De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp., 748 Phil. 706, 738 (2014).
9. See Garcia v. CA, 185 Phil. 266 (1980); See Sanchez v. Quinio, 502 Phil. 40, 46 (2005).