FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235903. * September 29, 2021.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. BIENVENIDO PAALAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235903(Republic of the Philippines, petitioner v. Bienvenido Paalan, respondent).
This is an appeal by certiorari seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated April 21, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated November 27, 2017, in CA-G.R. CV No. 99611, which affirmed the Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 48 (RTC) dated March 15, 2011, dismissing the complaint for the cancellation or annulment of Homestead Patent No. 152827 and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 614 issued in the name of respondent Bienvenido Paalan (Bienvenido), and reversion to the public domain of the land involved. The petition also assails the CA Resolution 4 dated November 27, 2017, which denied the motion for reconsideration of the said CA decision.
On August 2, 1961, Pedro Ensomo applied for a patent over Lot No. 73, Pls-529 (subject land) containing an area of 7.8521 hectares, located in Barangay Napsan, Puerto Princesa City. However, his application was denied as he already had a farmland in his name. Consequently, his wife, Pastora Jacobo Ensomo (Pastora), filed a patent application for the same parcel of land. 5
In 1975, school teacher and herein respondent Bienvenido was assigned to educate the youth of Barangay Napsan. Within a year, he erected a house on a parcel of land allotted to him by then Barangay Chairman Hilario Tabang, and was awarded a farmland by barangay officials and Samahang Nayon members in a general assembly. The farmland turned out to be exactly the same lot that the spouses Ensomo had long been applying for. 6
On May 28, 1980, Bienvenido completed his homestead application for the subject land. Land Investigator Casiano Rancap (Land Investigator Rancap) recommended the approval of the application. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 614 was afterwards issued in Bienvenido's name. Later, on January 19, 1981, Pastora's patent application for the subject land was denied on the strength of Land Investigator Rancap's certification that the land was already being occupied by Bienvenido. 7
Forthwith, Pastora filed a protest, and by virtue thereof, Special Land Investigator Gerardo Quebec, Jr. (Special Land Investigator Quebec) conducted an investigation and allegedly found that Bienvenido had forcibly entered, cleared, and cultivated the parcel of land which was purportedly in the peaceful possession of the spouses Ensomo. He thus recommended the cancellation of Bienvenido's homestead patent and title. 8 Proceeding from this recommendation, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a complaint for the annulment or cancellation of Bienvenido' s homestead patent and title, with a prayer for the reversion of the subject land to the State. 9 The Republic contended that Bienvenido utilized fraud and misrepresentation to secure the subject land. 10
On March 15, 2011, the RTC rendered a Decision 11 dismissing the complaint on the following rationale:
x x x the Court is persuaded that Land Investigator Casiano Rancap's report that Bienvenido Paalan was in actual possession of the disputed premises is more credible as the evidence shows that Rancap actually set foot on the affected land and interviewed actual residents therein. The Court is not unmindful of the fact that the protestant herself, Pastora Ensomo, admitted in open court in the course of her testimony that she abandoned the land in question in 1977 after having occupied the same since 1961. x x x This testimony incidentally fits into the claim of Paalan that they occupied the land in 1977. After the same was awarded to them by the Samahang [Nayon] in 1975. It is inconceivable that the Barangay Authorities concerned and the Samahang Nayon would award a lot to their school teacher which they know is already legally possessed by the Ensomo couple. Land Investigator Casiano Rancap would likewise have been gravely remiss in his duty had he not found this out.
After carefully weighing and evaluating the factual background of this case the Court finds the recommendation of the special investigator Gerardo P. Quebec, Jr. and the Chief Legal Division of the Bureau of Lands for the annulment of Paalan's Patent and Title to be groundless. Equally incomprehensible is their ignorance of the fact that the spouses Ensomo are no longer qualified to apply for the land in question not because it is already titled in the name of Paalan, but more importantly, because of the fact that their previous applications [therefor] have been rejected. 12
The dispositive portion of the RTC decision states:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the instant case and denying the reversion of the subject premises to the mass of the public domain.
Defendant Register of Deeds of Puerto Princesa City is hereby absolved of any liability as it merely exercised its ministerial duty of issuing the corresponding Original Certificate of Title pursuant to the Homestead Patent of Bienvenido Paalan.
No cost.
SO ORDERED. 13
Aggrieved, the Republic filed an appeal with the CA. It argued that the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint after the Republic had sufficiently proven that Bienvenido obtained his homestead patent through fraud and misrepresentation. 14
On April 21, 2017, the CA rendered the assailed Decision 15 denying the appeal and affirming the RTC ruling. It held that the Republic failed to substantiate its allegation that Bienvenido obtained his homestead patent and land title through fraud and misrepresentation.
First, the CA observed that the Republic had argued that Bienvenido obtained his homestead patent through fraud as early as its Complaint dated April 27, 1990. It averred that Bienvenido forcibly entered the subject land and cleared and cultivated it. The Republic presented Pastora in open court supposedly to expound on how Bienvenido forcibly entered the subject land. However, it turned out that Pastora did not know of the circumstances and merely relied on information she gathered from third persons. 16 Her testimony was hearsay and uncertain, and thus, did not constitute clear and convincing evidence. The CA thus held that the Republic's allegation of fraud should be taken as what it really is-an empty asseveration, a baseless imputation, and only a presumption. 17
Second, the CA held that the Republic also failed to prove its allegation that Bienvenido secured his homestead patent and title by making misrepresentations and false statements in his homestead application. The Republic averred that Bienvenido alleged in his homestead patent that he had been occupying and cultivating the subject land since 1970, and planted banana, kasuy and palay thereon. Yet, the evidence is clear that he set foot in Barangay Napsan only in 1975. The Republic pointed out that under the Public Land Act, a misrepresentation in the homestead application is a ground for the cancellation of any concession, title, or permit granted by the government. 18
The CA, however, quoted Bienvenido's entire homestead application and held that, contrary to the Republic's contention, said application did not contain any statement that Bienvenido had resided on the subject land since 1970. 19 The CA held that the only instance where the year 1970 was referred to as the year in which Bienvenido first established residence in Barangay Napsan was in the Certification dated July 1, 1980, issued by Land Investigator Rancap. 20 Aside from the fact that Bienvenido did not assert in his homestead application that he settled in Barangay Napsan as early as 1970, his wife, Aurelia, as well as their witnesses, consistently maintained that Bienvenido set foot in the locality only in 1975. Hence, the Republic once again failed to prove its allegation of Bienvenido's misrepresentation by clear and convincing evidence. 21 The CA ruled that the degree of evidence needed to prove the existence of fraud has always been clear and convincing evidence. Mere allegations will not suffice to sustain an imputation of fraud in a civil case. 22 The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal filed by the Office of the Solicitor General on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines is DENIED. The Decision rendered by Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City on 15 March 2011 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.23
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, the Republic filed this petition on the following grounds:
1.
THE INSTANT PETITION FALLS UNDER THE RECOGNIZED EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW MAY BE RAISED UNDER RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF COURT AS THE ASSAILED DECISION AND RESOLUTION WERE BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS.
II.
RESPONDENT BIENVENIDO PAALAN OBTAINED HIS HOMESTEAD PATENT OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THROUGH FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION WHICH MERITS THE ANNULMENT OF THE HOMESTEAD PATENT ISSUED IN HIS FAVOR AND THE CONSEQUENT REVERSION OF THE LAND COVERED THEREBY. 24
The Republic argues that the case falls under the recognized exceptions to the general rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, as the CA decision and resolution were based on a misapprehension of facts. 25 On the merits, the Republic asserts that Bienvenido committed fraud and misrepresentation by alleging in his homestead application that the subject land contained no indication of settlement or occupation, that he had been occupying and cultivating the subject land since 1970; and that he had planted banana, kasuy, and palay and built a house thereon made of light materials. The Republic argues that it is on the basis of these allegations that Bienvenido's application had been approved and the corresponding homestead patent issued in his favor. 26 Since these allegations were false, Bienvenido's homestead patent and land title should be annulled and the subject land reverted to the public domain. 27
The petition lacks merit.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Although jurisprudence has provided several exceptions to this rule, these exceptions must be alleged and proved by the parties. 28
Here, the Republic invokes, as an exception to the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, that the CA decision and resolution were based on a misapprehension of facts. However, it appreciably failed to substantiate this allegation. Hence, the Court adheres to the well-settled rule that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are deemed binding and conclusive, 29 and consequently denies the petition for lack of merit.
First, the Republic alleged that Bienvenido committed fraud and misrepresentation when he falsely claimed in his homestead application that he had been occupying the subject land since 1970, and not 1975, which was the actual year he came to Barangay Napsan as shown by the evidence. The Republic pointed out that under Section 91 of the Public Land Act, any falsity made in the homestead application shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession, title or permit granted. 30
As discussed above, the CA found that Bienvenido's homestead application "never contained even the slightest of indications that x x x Bienvenido resided in the subject property as early as 1970." 31 The CA quoted the entirety of such homestead application, 32 in which it can readily be seen that indeed no such statement exists. Moreover, the CA noted that Bienvenido's wife, Aurelia, and their other witnesses had ever since maintained that the couple settled in Barangay Napsan in 1975. 33 The evidence thus negates the fraud and misrepresentation that the Republic accuses Bienvenido of committing.
The Republic manifestly failed to dispute the CA's findings with contrary evidence, but came to this Court armed with no more than mere allegations which clearly do no suffice to tilt the weight of evidence in its favor. As the CA had stressed, the degree of evidence needed to prove the existence of fraud is, and has always been, clear and convincing evidence. The burden of evidence rests on the part of the party alleging the fraud and mere allegations will not suffice to sustain an imputation of fraud. 34
On another point, the Republic faults the CA for overlooking the report rendered by Special Land Investigator Quebec, who was tasked to investigate Pastora's protest. Special Land Investigator Quebec allegedly reported that Bienvenido informed him that he did not build his house on the subject land. His ocular inspection also supposedly revealed that the property claimed by Bienvenido was the very same property being claimed by the spouses Ensomo, and that the improvements found on the subject land were introduced by the latter spouses. Thus, the Republic asserts that Bienvenido committed fraud and misrepresentation when he deliberately omitted in his homestead application the fact that the land he was applying for was not his in the first place, since it was first occupied by the spouses Ensomo. 35 The Republic also faults the trial court for upholding the report of Land Investigator Rancap as more credible than that of Special Land Investigator Quebec, when it was actually full of inconsistencies. 36
Once again, the Court finds no sufficient basis to overturn the findings of the RTC, which were affirmed by the CA.
Noteworthy is the finding of the RTC that Pastora admitted in open court in the course of her testimony that she abandoned the subject land in 1977 after having occupied it since 1961. The RTC held that this testimony fits into the claim of the spouses Paalan that they occupied the subject land in 1977 after it was awarded to them by the Samahang Nayon in 1975. 37
In addition, the Republic's witness, Roman Zafra, Jr., a farmhand of the spouses Ensomo, testified that the spouses had built a house on the subject land, and planted it with bananas, palay, and coconuts. However, when asked if there were any trees left, the witness answered "no more," as these have either been eaten by termites or have rot. 38 This testimony appears consistent with Aurelia's testimony that when she first set foot on the subject land it was totally forested; there were large trees, but not a single fruit tree can be found. 39
The foregoing circumstances evince that at the time the spouses Paalan occupied the subject land in 1977, there were no longer any identifiable traces of the spouses Ensomo's occupation thereof. With a dearth of evidence showing that the improvements introduced by the spouses Ensomo still existed at the time the subject land was awarded to Bienvenido, there is no basis to conclude that the latter committed fraud and misrepresentation in omitting to declare in his homestead application the existence of those improvements.
Finally, as regards the report of Special Land Investigator Quebec, the Republic failed to rebut the allegation in respondent's Comment 40 that Special Land Investigator Quebec never testified in court; 41 the person who identified his report was not the custodian of the original copy of the report, 42 and that only a photocopy of the report was identified in court. 43 The comment emphatically argues:
Since the alleged report of Quebec, Jr. urged by petitioner as more credible than the report of witness investigator Casiano Rancap: (1) was not testified to by Mr. Quebec, Jr.; (2) the witness testifying about it did not testify on matters which could exempt such alleged report from the hearsay rule; and (3) the official custodian of the record did not certify that the photocopy of the alleged report presented before the court was the faithful reproduction of its original, how could the trial [court] and Court of Appeals have treated the alleged report of Quebec, Jr. as other than hearsay which has no probable value? Or how could the courts have appreciated said Quebec, Jr. report as more credible than the testimony of Mr. Rancap about his own report? 44
The Republic remarkably ignored this issue raised by respondent on the probative value of the report rendered by Special Land Investigator Quebec, as in fact its reply merely reiterated the arguments it raised in the petition.
The Court takes note that the RTC did not give weight to Special Land Investigator Quebec's report on the ground that it was based on interviews of witnesses, most of whom admitted having been caretakers of the spouses Ensomo and whose bias for the latter was understandable. Moreover, the RTC found that Special Land Investigator Quebec "did not actually set foot in the area but simply relied on information gathered from interviews." 45 As a counter-argument, the Republic asserted that the RTC "failed to account for the fact that Senior Special Investigator Quebec actually made an ocular inspection of the subject property and that he interviewed witnesses presented both by Spouses Ensomo and respondent Paalan," and "even interviewed respondent Paalan himself." 46 However, noteworthy is the fact that the Republic did not point to any evidence on record that can substantiate its arguments. In the light of the uncontested allegation that Special Land Investigator Quebec did not testify in court to identify his report, and the equally uncontested findings of the trial court pertaining to the apparent bias and lack of personal knowledge of the investigator who prepared the report, there is no basis for the Court to overturn the RTC's assessment of the evidence.
In sum, the Republic invokes the Court to evaluate the evidence all over again and rule in its favor. However, while the petition is replete with accusations of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of Bienvenido, and lapses on the part of the CA and the RTC in the appreciation of evidence, these allegations were not matched with a discussion of evidence extant in the record that would lend firm support and convince the Court of their merit. The Court has stressed time and again that allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence because mere allegation is definitely not evidence. 47
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Court of n
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Part of the Supreme Court's Case Decongestion Program.
1.Rollo, pp. 58-71; penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (now a Member of this Court) and Franchito N. Diamante, concurring.
2.Id. at 73-74.
3.Id. at 75-78; penned by Presiding Judge Perfecto E. Pe.
4.Id. at 73-74.
5.Id. at 58-59.
6.Id. at 59.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 75-78.
12.Id. at 77.
13.Id. at 78.
14.Id. at 61.
15.Id. at 58-71.
16.Id. at 62-63.
17.Id. at 63.
18.Id. at 64-65.
19.Id. at 65-68.
20.Id. at 67-68.
21.Id. at 70.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 37 and 39.
25.Id. at 38.
26.Id. at 41.
27.Id. at 39-52.
28.Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 169 (2016).
29.Carbonell v. Carbonell-Mendes, 762 Phil. 529, 537 (2015).
30.Rollo, pp. 40-41.
31.Id. at 65.
32.Id. at 65-67.
33.Id. at 70.
34.Id.
35.Id. at 48-49.
36.Id. at 49.
37.Id. at 77.
38.Id. at 44.
39.Id. at 76.
40.Id. at 86-101.
41.Id. at 95.
42.Id. at 97.
43.Id. at 100.
44.Id.
45.Id. at 77.
46.Id. at 49.
47. See Spouses Ramos v. Obispo, 705 Phil. 221, 230 (2013).
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. With illegible portion.