HEIRS OF TAPPA vs.
HEIRS OF BACUD uled in favor of respondents and explained that their possession over Lot No. 3341 already
(G.R. No. 187633, April 4, 2016)
JARDELEZA, J
FACTS:
On September 9, 1999, petitioners Delfin Tappa (Delfin)[5] and Maria Tappa (Spouses Tappa)
filed a complaint[6] for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession and Damages (Complaint)
against respondents Jose Bacud (Bacud),[7] Henry Calabazaron (Calabazaron), and Vicente
Malupeng (Malupeng).[8] The property subject of the complaint is a parcel of land identified
as Lot No. 3341, Pls-793 with an area of 21,879 square meters, located in Kongcong, Cabbo,
Peñablanca, Cagayan (Lot No. 3341).[9]
In their complaint, Spouses Tappa alleged that they are the registered owners of Lot No.
3341, having been issued
OCT No. P-69103... r 18, 199
September 18, 1992,... Delfin allegedly inherited Lot No. 3341 from his father, Lorenzo Tappa
(Lorenzo). Spouses Tappa claimed that both Delfin and Lorenzo were in open, continuous,
notorious, exclusive possession of the lot since time immemorial
In their Answer,[12] respondents Bacud, Calabazaron and Malupeng claimed that the original
owner of Lot No. 3341 was Genaro Tappa (Genaro) who had two children, Lorenzo and Irene.
Upon Genaro's death, the property passed on to Lorenzo and Irene by operation of law; and
they became ipso facto co-owners of the property.
Respondents presented before the RTC a joint affidavit... stated that Genaro originally owned
Lot No. 3341. It further stated that one-half (1/2) of the property was owned by Lorenzo; but
that the whole property was declared as his, only for taxation purposes.
Respondents started occupying their respective portions after the sale made to each of them.
They continued to occupy them despite several demands to vacate from Spouses Tappa.
Spouses Tappa claimed that the 1963 Affidavit was executed through force and intimidation.
[23] Bacud and Malupeng denied this allegation.[24]
The R
TC... that there was no document in the hands of respondents as strong and persuasive as
the title in the name of the Spouses Tappa that will support respondents' claim of ownersh...
ip
Respondents appealed to the CA
They alleged that Spouses Tappa committed fraud because they were not in possession of
the lot since 1963, which possession was required for an applicant for a free patent under
the law.
respondents argued that the complaint should be dismissed because both extinctive and
acquisitive prescription have already set in.
They also argued that the action for quieting of title had already prescribed since the
possession of Bacud and Malupeng started in 1963, which fact was allegedly admitted by
Spouses Tappa in their complaint.[40] Thus, Spouses Tappa had only until 1993 to file a
complaint, which they failed to do.
Ail respondents claimed that from the start of their possession, they (1) have paid real taxes
on the lot, (2) have planted crops, and (3) have continued to possess the lot in the concept of
owners.[41]... respondents alleged that Spouses Tappa failed to prove their right over the
subject lot because they cannot rely on the certificate of title issued to them on September
18, 1992 by virtue of a free patent
The CA set aside the decision of the RTC.
ripened into ownership through acquisitive prescription.
A noted that Spouses Tappa acknowledged in their complaint that they have not been in
possession of the lot, and that respondents have been continuously occupying portions of it
since 1963.
first requisite is absent because Spouses Tappa do not have a legal or an equitable title to or
an interest in the property. The CA explained that the free patent granted to Spouses Tappa
produced no legal effect because Lot No. 3341 was a private land,... while Spouses Tappa
were able to obtain a free patent over the property, and were able to register it under the
Torrens system, they have not become its owners.
"[r]egistration has never been a mode of acquiring ownership over immovable property—it
does not create title nor vest one but it simply confirms a title already vested, rendering it
forever indefeasible."
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in dismissing Spouses Tappa's complaint for quieting of title against
respondents;[56]
Whether the CA erred in not finding that Spouses Tappa's certificate of title cannot be
collaterally attacked in this case;[57] and
Whether the CA erred in finding that respondents have acquired the property through
acquisitive prescription
HELD:
We affirm the decision of the CA.
for an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1)
the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property
subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be
casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima
facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.[61]Spouses Tappa failed to meet these two
requisites
We agree with the CA that at the time of the application for free patent, Lot No. 3341 had
already become private land by virtue of the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession by respondents. Hence, Lot No. 3341 had been removed from the coverage of the
Public Land Act,[62] which governs public patent applications.
Spouses Tappa also admitted in their complaint that sometime in 1963, Bacud and Malupeng
started occupying portions of Lot No. 3341 and planted crops on the property, while
Calabazaron did the same on another portion of the lot in the 1970's.[71] The complaint
stated further that since 1963, the respondents "continuously occupied portion of the
subject land."[7
Records also show that Spouses Tappa were aware of respondents' possession of the
disputed portions of Lot No. 3341. They even admitted such possession (since 1963) by
respondents in their complaint filed in 1999.
A cloud... ment (deed, or contract) or record or claim or encumbrance or proceeding; (2)
which is apparendy valid or effective; (3) but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective,
voidable, or unenforceable, or extinguished (or terminated) or barred by extinctive
prescription; and (4) and may be prejudicial to the title
 SPOUSES GALANG vs. SPOUSES REYES
(G.R. No. 184746, August 15, 2012)
MENDOZA, J
FACTS:
On September 4, 1997, spouses Conrado S. Reyes and Fe de Kastro Reyes... filed a case for
the annulment of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-928 against spouses Crispin and
Caridad Galang... with the Regional Trial Court,... Antipolo
Reyeses alleged that they owned two properties: (1) a subdivision project known as
Ponderosa Heights Subdivision (Ponderosa), and (2) an adjoining property covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 185252, with an... area of 1,201 sq.m.;... that the
properties were separated by the Marigman Creek, which dried up sometime in 1980 when it
changed its course and passed through Ponderosa; that the Galangs, by employing
manipulation and fraud, were able to obtain a... certificate of title over the dried up creek
bed from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources... that they discovered the
existence of the certificate of title sometime in March 1997 when their caretaker, Federico
Enteroso (Enteroso), informed them that the subject property had been fraudulently titled in
the names of the Galangs; that in
1984, prior to such discovery, Enteroso applied for the titling of the property, as he had been
occupying it since 1968 and had built his... house on it; that, later, Enteroso requested them
to continue the application because of financial constraints on his part
The Galangs in their Answer[7] denied that the land subject of the complaint was part of a
creek and countered that OCT No. P-928 was issued to them after they had complied with
the free patent requirements of the DENR,... that they and... their predecessor-in-interest
had been in possession, occupation, cultivation, and ownership of the land for quite some
time; that the property described under TCT No. 185252 belonged to Apolonio Galang, their
predecessor-in-interest, under OCT No. 3991; that the property was... transferred in the
names of the Reyeses through falsified document;[8] that assuming ex gratia argumenti that
the creek had indeed changed its course and passed through Ponderosa, the Reyeses had
already claimed for themselves the portion of the... dried creek which adjoined and co-
existed with their property; that Enteroso... was able to occupy a portion of their land by
means of force, coercion, machinations, and stealth in 1981;
In its Decision,[9] dated July 16, 2004, the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of
action and for being an erroneous remedy.
In the case before the trial court, the Reyeses presented no evidence of fraud despite their
allegations that the Galangs were not... in possession of the property and that it was part of a
dried creek. There being no evidence, these contentions remained allegations and could not
defeat the title of the Galangs
The fraud must be actual... not me... the evidence thereof must be clear, convincing and
more than merely preponderant, because the proceedings which are being assailed as having
been fraudulent are judicial proceedings, which by law, are presumed to have been fair... and
regular.
CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision and ordered the cancellation of OCT No. P-928
and the reconveyance of the land to the Reyeses.
the free... patent covering the subject land, a private land, and the certificate of title issued
pursuant thereto, are null and void.[12]
The Galangs moved for a reconsideration,[13] but their motion was denied
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN NOT RESOLVING THAT THE OFFICE OF THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL, NOT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, HAS THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO FILE
[CASES FOR] ANNULMENT OF TITLE INVOLVING
PUBLIC LAND.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAVE [A]
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PETITIONERS EVEN WITHOUT EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMED[IES].
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN DEVIATING FROM THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE
TRIAL COURT AND INTERPRETING ARTICLE 420 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 461 OF THE CIVIL
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES BY SUBSTITUTING ITS
OWN OPINION BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF FACTS.
HELD:
Regarding the first issue, the Galangs state that the property was formerly a public land,
titled in their names by virtue of Free Patent No. 045802-96-2847 issued by the DENR. Thus,
they posit that the Reyeses do not have the personality and authority to institute any
action... for annulment of title because such authority is vested in the Republic of the
Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General.
In this regard, the Galangs are mistaken. The action filed by the Reyeses seeks the transfer to
their names of the title registered in the names of the Galangs. In their Complaint, they
alleged that: first, they are the owners of the land, being the owners of the properties...
through which the Marigman creek passed when it changed its course; and second, the
Galangs illegally dispossessed them by having the same property registered in their names. It
was not an action for reversion which requires that the State be the one to initiate the action
in... order for it to prosper.
In this case... the complaint instituted by the Reyeses before the RTC was for the annulment
of the title issued to the Galangs, and not for reversion
Thus, the real party in interest here is not the State but the Reyeses who claim a right of
ownership over the property in... question even before the issuance of a title in favor of the
Galangs.
Although the Reyeses have the right to file an action for reconveyance, they have failed to
prove their case.
Court agrees with the RTC that the Reyeses failed to adduce... substantial evidence to
establish their allegation that the Galangs had fraudulently registered the subject property in
their names.
Before such a conclusion can be reached, the fact of natural abandonment of the old course
must be shown, that is, it must be proven that the creek indeed changed its course without
artificial or man-made intervention. Thus, the... claimant, in this case the Reyeses, must
prove three key elements by clear and convincing evidence. These are: (1) the old course of
the creek, (2) the new course of the creek, and (3) the change of course of the creek from the
old location to the new location by... natural occurrence.
Reyeses failed to adduce indubitable evidence to prove the old course, its natural
abandonment and the new course.
performance
The bottom line here is that, fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of
patent and annulment of titl~, should never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and
convincing evi~ence, with mere preponderance of evidence not being adequate. Fraud is a
question of... fact which must be proved.