View full case

ADORACION L. BASILIO v. PERLA CALLO

FACTS:

Facts: Petitioners Adoracion Basilio and Lolita Lucero filed a complaint against respondent Perla Callo for reconveyance, accion publiciana, and cancellation of title with damages. They claimed to be direct descendants of Eduveges Bafiaga and sought to recover Lot No. 4462, which was covered by OCT No. P-24666 in respondent's name. Petitioners alleged that the title was obtained through fraud and a fictitious claim of ownership. They asserted that the subject lot was awarded to them in the Final Project of Partition of Eduveges' estate, and that the mortgage allowing respondent to cultivate the land had already been terminated. Respondent countered that she acquired the title legally and had been in uninterrupted possession of the subject lot for over 35 years. The RTC nullified OCT No. P-24666 due to fraud, but the CA reversed the decision and dismissed the complaint. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent satisfied the requirements for the issuance of a free patent.

  2. Whether or not the respondent's free patent and title should be declared null and void.

  3. Whether the subject lot had already ceased to be public land and had become private property.

  4. Whether the Eduveges heirs have the right to ask for reconveyance of the subject lot.

  5. Whether Free Patent No. 0371 09 0617641 and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. P-24666 issued in the name of respondent Perla Callo are null and void.

  6. Whether the heirs of Eduveges Bañaga are the rightful owners of the subject lot.

  7. Whether the heirs of Eduveges Bañaga are entitled to judicial confirmation or administrative legalization of their incomplete or imperfect title.

RULING:

  1. The respondent did not satisfy the requirements for the issuance of a free patent because she did not meet the requirement of continuous occupation and cultivation for at least 30 years before the effectivity of RA 6940. Furthermore, her possession was not in the concept of owner since she affirmed the petitioners' ownership when she filed a petition for security of tenure as a tenant after the mortgage was redeemed.

  2. The respondent's free patent and title should be declared null and void. The respondent's failure to state in her free patent application that the mortgage by reason of which she took possession of the subject lot had already been redeemed constituted a concealment of material facts and amounted to fraud and misrepresentation. This was sufficient to cause the cancellation of her free patent and title.

  3. Yes. The subject lot had already ceased to be part of the public domain and had become private property by operation of law. The possession and occupation by the Eduveges heirs for at least thirty years as possessors in the concept of owners conferred a right to a government grant, thereby converting the land from public to private land.

  4. Yes. The Eduveges heirs have the right to ask for reconveyance of the subject lot. They possessed the essential requisites for judicial confirmation of an imperfect title and had acquired a vested right over the land. Their right to ask for reconveyance is irrefutable.

  5. Free Patent No. 0371 09 0617641 and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. P-24666 are declared null and void ab initio.

  6. The heirs of Eduveges Bañaga, represented by Adoracion L. Basilio and Lolita Lucero, are recognized as the rightful owners of the subject lot.

  7. The heirs of Eduveges Bañaga are entitled to either judicial confirmation or administrative legalization of their incomplete or imperfect title, subject to compliance with the requirements therefor.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A free patent applicant must satisfy the requirements of being a natural-born citizen, not owning more than 12 hectares of land, continuous occupation and cultivation for at least 30 years, and payment of real estate taxes (Taar v. Lawan).

  • Statements made in a free patent application are considered essential conditions and any false statements or omission of material facts can result in the cancellation of the free patent and title issued (Section 91, CA 141).

  • Confirmation proceedings in the context of agricultural lands merely confirm a conversion already effected by operation of law when the required period of possession is complete.

  • An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful landowner to transfer or reconvey land wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another.

  • A free patent that was fraudulently acquired may be assailed by the government through an action for reversion, but a private individual may bring an action for reconveyance to establish the true ownership of the land.

  • A certificate of title cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner.

  • A certificate of title cannot be used as a shield for the commission of fraud.

  • A certificate of title does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with persons not named in the certificate.

  • A certificate of title does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be held in trust for another person by the registered owner.

  • The rightful owner of a property is entitled to have the nullity of a certificate of title declared and have the property restored to his possession.

  • Incomplete or imperfect titles may be subjected to judicial confirmation or administrative legalization.