MENDOZA V.

NAVARETTE
G.R. No. 82531 (1992)
Davide, Jr., J.
TOPIC. Properties of the Public Domain
FACTS. A parcel of land was partitioned upon the death of the petitioners
and respondents father as follows: to Eugenia Aquino, his wife; to
Domingo Mendoza, the petitioner; and none for Maria Navarette, the
respondent, who waived her share. Later, this piece of land was sold to the
respondent. Respondent applied for a Free Patent covering the entire lot in
her husbands name, and petitioner moved for the nullification of the title.
ISSUE. Was the title of the respondent, based on the Free Patent, valid?
RESOLUTION. No.

ARGUMENTS & HOLDING

PETITIONERS bases. a) The registered owners are not the real owners of
the land, and b) the petitioner has been in the open, public, adverse, and
exclusive possession, in the concept of an owner, of of the land.
RESPONDENTS defense. The action is barred by prescription, as it was
filed more than 10 years after the application for Free Patent and
registration.
TRIAL COURT. Prescription does not run against co-owners in a coownership. Judgment for petitioner.
COURT OF APPEALS. Action for nullification should have been brought 4
years from issuance of title. Trial Court judgment reversed.
SUPREME COURT. The Trial Court ruling is correct, but on the wrong
grounds. The title is void because it was based on a Free Patent. A Free
Patent is null and void when issued over private land, and does not affect the
ownership thereof. The Bureau of Lands cannot dispose of any land that is
not public. The Free Patent issued, therefore, has no effect.

. MIKLI