THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198233. June 4, 2014.]
ANDREA SUMAGANG [DECEASED], SUBSTITUTED BY ELENO SUMAGANG AND MARLON SUMAGANG, AND MAURICIO MALICAY, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF ALFONSO CATIGBE AND JUANITA C. CATIGBE, NAMELY: FRANCISCO CATIGBE, SR., ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 4, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198233 (Andrea Sumagang [deceased], substituted by Eleno Sumagang and Marlon Sumagang, and Mauricio Malicay vs. Heirs of Alfonso Catigbe and Juanita C. Catigbe, namely: Francisco Catigbe, Sr., et al.). — The Court resolves to DISPENSE with the submission of respondents' comment on the petition for review on certiorari.
The core issue in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the February 28, 2011 1 Decision and August 12, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 00592 entitled Andrea Sumagang and Mauricio Malicay v. Heirs of Alfonso Catigbe and Juanita C. Catigbe, namely: Francisco Catigbe, Sr., et al., is whether or not said court is correct in ruling that respondents are the legal owners of the disputed lot.
The facts of the case culled from the records are:
In 1956, Alfonso Catigbe (Alfonso) was granted a homestead patent over Lot No. 1868, containing an area of twelve (12) hectares, situated in Pinpin, Tubod, Lanao del Norte. 2 Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-2373 was subsequently issued to Alfonso in 1970. 3 Upon his death, said title was canceled and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-12382 was issued on May 3, 1988 in the name of respondents-heirs. 4 Respondent Francisco Catigbe, Sr. asserted that his father, Alfonso, obtained the first six (6) hectares through a cleaning and clearing agreement (Agsa) with Fortunato Catilosa (Fortunato), who was the live-in partner of Maria Maata, grandmother of petitioner Andrea Sumagang (Andrea); and the other six (6) hectares through the sale of rights by Fortunato. But petitioners averred that they had been in actual, open, adverse, and continuous possession in concept of owners of the six-hectare portion since 1938 through their predecessor-in-interest, Maria Maata. 5
Andrea, now deceased and substituted by son Eleno Sumagang and grandson Marlon Sumagang, had previously filed a protest 6 in 1967 with the Bureau of Lands against the inclusion of six (6) hectares in Alfonso's homestead application, claiming that this portion had been owned by her through acquisitive prescription since 1938. Petitioner Mauricio Malicay filed his protest-in-intervention on May 27, 1977, claiming that Andrea gave him two and a half (2 1/2) hectares of the disputed land. However, said protests have not been resolved up to now. 7 Petitioners then filed an action for reconveyance on February 2, 1999 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) docketed as Civil Case No. 07-448 entitled Andrea Sumagang and Mauricio Malicay v. Heirs of Alfonso Catigbe and Juanita C. Catigbe, et al., alleging that Alfonso fraudulently included the six-hectare portion of the disputed land in his homestead application.
In a Decision 8 dated November 10, 2005, the RTC upheld respondents' ownership over the disputed land. The fallo of its Decision reads: EIAScH
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing consideration, and by preponderance of evidence, the Court renders judgment dismissing the complaint of reconveyance of plaintiffs for want of legal basis, laches and for failure to state the cause of action. Since plaintiffs assert that they [are] still in possession of the six (6) hectares (3.5 hectares, more or less, occupied by plaintiff Andrea Sumagang, now succeeded by Eleno and Marion Sumagang, . . . and 2.5 hectares, more or less, by plaintiff Malicay) of Lot No. 1868, Pls-13, Case-2, out of the twelve (12) hectares of the titled property of defendants, under TCT No. 12382, which originated from OCT No. P-2373 of patentee, Alfonso Catigbe, they are ordered to vacate the same and turnover to defendants. Plaintiffs are ordered to pay moral damages of P50,000.00 to defendants. Plaintiffs are also equitably directed to pay attorney's fees to defendants the sum of P20,000.00, as prayed for, and P1,500.00 per appearance of their counsels. And to pay the cost of the proceedings.
SO ORDERED. 9
The court a quo found that petitioners had not shown proofs of how they acquired the six (6) hectares of Lot No. 1868. It ruled that they had not exhausted administrative remedies, as they did not pursue and follow up their protests before the Bureau of Lands; instead, they filed the present action for reconveyance. The RTC said that petitioners did not show evidence of fraud committed by Alfonso so that their action for reconveyance would not prosper. It also found that petitioners were guilty of laches for not filing a complaint for annulment of homestead patent within one (1) year from its issuance.
The CA denied the appeal. In a Decision 10 dated February 25, 2011, the appellate court ordered petitioners to turn over the possession of the six (6)-hectare portion of the disputed land to respondents. It held that petitioners have no legal standing in this case since the property they are claiming was once part of the public domain. The CA said, assuming that petitioners have legal standing, their action would still fail on the ground of prescription. The action for reconveyance must be filed within 10 years from the issuance of the title. Here, the action was filed 29 years after the issuance of the OCT.
Before us, petitioners raise the following issues:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS . . . GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONERS' APPEAL. ITS ASSAILED DECISION AND RESOLUTION ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE THAT, IF NOT REVERSED, WILL CAUSE GRAVE INJUSTICE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE PETITIONER[S].
IT IS [PETITIONERS'] HUMBLE SUBMISSION THAT, CONTRARY TO THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, THEY HAD THE LEGAL STANDING IN FILING THE COMPLAINT FOR RECONVEYANCE BECAUSE THEY ARE OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION; THAT PRESCRIPTION HAS NOT SET IN, AS THEY HAD BEEN IN ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SINCE [1938] UNTIL THE PRESENT; AND THAT ALFONSO CATIGBE PERPETRATED FRAUD IN ACQUIRING TITLE OVER THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING. 11
The petition is without merit.
The Court is not a trier of facts. The issues raised by petitioners are substantially factual. It is not the function of this Court to examine, review or evaluate the evidence all over again. 12 The resolution of factual issues in this case was faithfully performed by the trial and appellate courts, whose findings are received with respect and are binding on this Court. 13
More importantly, the application of law by the RTC and CA to the facts alleged by petitioners themselves is beyond cavil. It is undisputed that Alfonso Catigbe was granted a homestead patent over the disputed property. If indeed he fraudulently included the six-hectare portion which he allegedly does not own, that is between him and the State. Petitioners have no legal standing for the land they are claiming was part of the public domain. In other words, if a property was erroneously included in the homestead patent award, then the subject property must be returned to the State and not to another applicant. 14DAHSaT
But even if petitioners have legal standing, their action for reconveyance is still unmeritorious because of the tardy filing of the appropriate action. An action for reconveyance is a legal remedy granted to a landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name. And from the issuance of the latter's title, said action must be filed within ten years, as such issuance operates as constructive notice. 15 In the instant case, the initiatory action for the nullification of OCT No. P-2373 was filed only after 29 years from the date of issuance of said title. Clearly, the right of action has lapsed.
Further, the OCT carries a strong presumption that the provisions of law governing the registration of land have been complied with. It enjoys a presumption of validity. Once the title is registered, the owners can rest secure on their ownership and possession. Once a homestead patent granted in accordance with law is registered, the certificate of title issued by virtue of said patent has the force and effect of a Torrens title issued under the land registration law. 16 According to the RTC, there is no concrete evidence showing how petitioners acquired the six (6) hectares of Lot No. 1868. By preponderance of evidence, therefore, respondents' title prevails over petitioners' testimony on their alleged ownership of the disputed lot.
Petitioners' contention that they are owners of the disputed lot by acquisitive prescription is specious. The grant of the homestead patent to Alfonso only means that he complied with the requirements of the law. He, too, lawfully acquired his OCT; and that title cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession, neither can it be defeated by prescription. 17 This Court held in Alcantara-Daus v. De Leon:
It is well-settled that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Neither can prescription be allowed against the hereditary successors of the registered owner, because they merely step into the shoes of the decedent and are merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor in interest. Consequently, since a certificate of registration covers it, the disputed land cannot be acquired by prescription regardless of petitioner's good faith. 18 (emphasis supplied)
Similarly, respondents in this case stepped into the shoes of their father, Alfonso Catigbe, who was the registered owner of the land. Thus, acquisitive prescription cannot defeat such valid title simply because they allegedly have continuous possession of the disputed land and merely declared it for tax purposes.
Lastly, that petitioners' predecessor had been in possession of the property since 1938 or even prior to the issuance of the title in favor of Alfonso is irrelevant and does not run in their favor. At such time, the property comes within the public domain and so cannot be acquired by mere occupation and prescription.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The February 28, 2011 Decision and August 12, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00592 are hereby AFFIRMED. (Villarama, Jr., J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014.)
SO ORDERED." TcCDIS
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The Notice of Judgment from the CA states that its Decision was rendered on February 25, 2011; rollo, p. 45. The title page of the CA Decision, however, indicates February 28, 2011 as the date of promulgation; id. at 46.
2. Records, p. 90.
3. Id. at 93.
4. Id. at 95.
5. Rollo, p. 18.
6. Records, p. 44.
7. Rollo, p. 47.
8. Decision penned by Presiding Judge Alan L. Flores, RTC, Branch 70 in Tubod, Lanao del Norte.
9. Rollo, pp. 134-135.
10. Decision penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Ramon Paul L. Hernando, 21st Division, Cagayan de Oro City.
11. Rollo, pp. 21-22.
12. Alicer v. Compas, G.R. No. 187720, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 473.
13. FNCB Finance v. Estavillo, G.R. No. 93394, December 20, 1990, 192 SCRA 514, 517.
14. Lopez v. Esquivel, Jr., G.R. Nos. 168734 & 170621, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 545, 567.
15. Carpo v. Ayala Land, Incorporated, G.R. No. 166577, February 3, 2010, 611 SCRA 436.
16. Heirs of Emilio Santioque v. Heirs of Emilio Calma, G.R. No. 160832, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 665.
17. Vda. de Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117971, February 1, 2001, 351 SCRA 12.
18. G.R. No. 149750, June 16, 2003, 404 SCRA 74.