Ramos-Balalio v.

Ramos

G.R. No. 168464, January 23, 2006

FACTS:

Petitioner Zenaida Ramos-Balalio and her brother Alexander (now deceased) are the children of
spouses Susana Bueno and Abundio Ramos. The spouses started occupying Lot No. 204 in
1938. Abundio died in 1944. Susana met her second husband, respondent Eusebio Ramos in
1946, with whom she had five children, one of whom is respondent Rolando Ramos.

Susana’s father, George Bueno, and daughter, petitioner Zenaida continued the cultivation and
possession of the subject land. Sometime later, Susana sold the land to petitioner who, in turn,
partitioned it among herself, her brother Alexander, and respondent Rolando and his siblings.
The partition was not registered but Deeds of Sale were executed in favor of Rolando and
Alexander.

Petitioner thereafter mortgaged her share; however, it came to her knowledge that respondents
Rolando and Eusebio had usurped her share and deprived the mortgagees of possession over
the land. After settling the mortgage, petitioner filed a case for recovery of inheritance,
possession and damages with a petition for preliminary mandatory injunction.

After the land was surveyed, the trial court favoured the petitioner and held that she was
deprived of her right to cultivation and possession of her share in the land.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that neither Zenaida nor Alexander complied with the
homestead application requirements in order to acquire superior vested right over the subject
parcel land which is still part of the public domain. As a consequence, it reversed the decision of
the trial court. Thus, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in its decision that the petitioner had no rights whatsoever in the
land in question?

RULING / DOCTRINES:

Partially granted. Commonwealth Act No. 141 (1936), or the Public Land Act, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1073 (1977), remains to be the general law governing the classification
and disposition of alienable lands of the public domain. It enumerates the different modes of
acquisition of these lands and prescribes the terms and conditions to enable private persons to
perfect their title to them.

A homestead patent, such as the subject of the instant case, is one of the modes to acquire
title to public lands suitable for agricultural purposes. Under the Public Land Act, a
homestead patent is one issued to any citizen of this country, over the age of 18 years or the
head of a family, and who is not the owner of more than 24 hectares of land in the country. To
be qualified, the applicant must show that he has resided continuously for at least one year in
the municipality where the land is situated and must have cultivated at least one-fifth of the land
applied for.

Petitioner has not satisfactorily established that a valid application for homestead patent was
filed by her parents. As such, the land remains part of the public domain.

The sale between petitioner and her mother had no effect. Susana did not have authority to
dispose a land she did not own. For the same reason, Susana’s heirs, the respondents, cannot
claim any right whatsoever. Hence, the subject land remains to be part of the public domain and
rightfully belongs to the State.

Nonetheless, the possession  of the land is different from the issue of its ownership.

Petitioner argues that her petition may be treated as an accion publiciana and not merely an
action for recovery of inheritance.

An accion publiciana is an action for the recovery of the right to possess and is a plenary
action in an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty
independently of title. In this case, the issue is whether Zenaida, as an applicant for public
land, may be considered as having any right to the land occupied, which may entitle her to sue
in courts for the return of the possession thereof.

Petitioner Zenaida has proven prior possession of the portion of land she claims as her share,
which possession antedates the filing of the homestead application, by producing evidence such
as tax declarations in her name covering the property, which are although not conclusive
evidence of ownership, nevertheless, good indicia of possession in the concept of owner. They
constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.

Therefore, petitioner’s uncontested and verified application for a homestead patent coupled with
her open and notorious occupation of the land gives her preferential right to possess the land
claimed, which entitles her to be protected by the law in such possession.