GAMOS vs FRANDO

PANGANIBAN, J.:
FACTS
Juliana Frando possessed the subject property. She had planted several trees and other plants
thereon.
In 1946, the property was traversed by a national road that divided it into 2 portions. Lot No.
1855 is the subject lot.
Frando filed for an Insular Government Property Sales Application for the subject lot which
consequently caused the inspection of the area where it was found such lot to be inside an
agricultural zone, free from private claims and conflicts.
The secretary of agriculture appraised the property at P240. Frando paid P24 as deposit and
paid the remaining P216 a year later as evidenced by OR No. A-2675530. The property
awarded to her covered Lots 7 and 1855.
Juliana’s daughter, as well as the latter’s own children (herein respondents), when the former
died, continued possession of the property and even made improvements thereon as well as
enjoyed the fruits thereon for themselves and on behalf of Juliana even after her death.
On 1958, a cadastral survey was conducted without the knowledge of private respondents.
During the survey, Lot 1855 became the subject of a case which resulted in petitioner Cerila
Gamos to be awarded the lot in question under free patent No. 459501; this was the basis for
the issuance of OCT No. P-10548 in petitioner’s name.
Later, private respondents filed a case against Cerila Gamos challenging the validity of the Free
Patent and the OCT. Stating that the Bureau of Lands had no authority to award the patent that
it had awarded to Juliana as well as alleging fraud in the issuance of the OCT in the form of
forged signatures of Cerila Gamos.
Petitioners contended actual and open possession of the property since 1952 and pointed out
that private respondent’s suit to contest a title 19 years after its issuance has already been
barred by prescription.
Bureau of Lands stated that Juliana indeed filed an IGPS application for the land but that she
failed to pay the balance of P216 thus rendering her title imperfect.
RTC ruled in favor of herein private respondents. Petitioners appealed to the CA which affirmed
the decision of the RTC but dismissed petitioner’s submission based on the report of the bureau
of lands that Juliana’s title was not perfected. The CA pointed out that the argument was belied
by the Bureau’s Order/Award to Juliana.

ISSUES
WON the order award given to Juliana Frando has been perfected.
WON Cerila Gamos’ free patent was secured through fraud.
WON action of the heirs of Juliana Frando has already been barred by laches/prescription.

RULING
First Issue
(this merely contains the quick answer to the issue, reading through the discussion regarding this issue in the full text
should explain the “whys” and “hows” of the decision)

Yes, the award given to Juliana Frando has been perfected.

In the present case, the bureau of lands did not issue the patent to Juliana because she
allegedly did not pay the P216 balance. However, the award issued to Juliana proves otherwise
since it recognized Juliana’s payment of the balance complete with OR number and a specific
date of payment.
Given the full payment as well as the compliance with all the requisites, this effectively vested in
Juliana and private respondents an equitable title to the property.
Consequently, when the cadastral survey was conducted, the Director of Lands no longer had
the authority to grant the patent thus, the free patent had no legal basis.

Second Issue
Fraud could not be established since both parties failed to present a copy of the Free Patent.

Third Issue
No, respondents are not barred. There was actually an action to contest an intrusion by Gilda
Bongais on the property, but such action was dropped due to financial burdens of the litigation.
Thus, the legal inaction was due to, not to their lack of vigilance, but merely to their lack of
resources to defend the property.
Furthermore, Guatno recognized Juliana and the private respondents as the true owners of the
property. Petitioner’s possession of the property was merely by tolerance and cannot ripen to
ownership nor operate to bar any action by private respondents to recover absolute possession
thereof.