Facts:
This is a petition for review filed by the petitioner on the decision rendered by the CA reversing the CFI judgment in favor of her on a land registration case and orders the issuance of the Original Cert. of Title to the respondents Alejandro Santos and Ramona Francisco instead. Petitioner alleges that she is the absolute owner of the land in dispute covered with an Original Cert. of title of the Register of Deeds; that she is in continuous, adverse, open, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the land since time immemorial; respondents have never been in possession of the land as they claim and that they obtained their Decree of Registration of said land by fraud. Apparently, Diego Francisco, the petitioner’s father occupied the land in dispute since 1918 and obtained a homestead patent for it. He introduced some improvements on the land such as fencing the area with barbwires, planting mango trees and palays and pasturing carabaos. He was able to secure a title in favor of his children petitioner included for the big parcel of land he cultivates and improves and when he died in 1941 the petitioner continued to possess the land in question not embraced in the Transfer of Cert. of Title issued to them in the concept of an owner.
The petitioner had the land surveyed from a private surveyor only to find out that there is already a survey plan of the said land in the name of the respondents and that a title was already issued to them. Petitioner now contends that being an adjacent owner of the land in question they were not notified of the survey. The Surveyor’s Certificate reveals that notice was given to the following: Jose Cruz, Diego Francisco (petitioner’s father), and Santol Creek. It is noted that both Jose Cruz and Diego Francisco were already dead from the date of the notice and Santol Creek is not a person or entity. It was established that the petitioner and her brother and sisters who are the actual occupants of the adjacent land of the land in question were not notified of the survey. Petitioner did not read the publication in the Official Gazette and the former mayor of Teresa who is the owner of the property across the Santol Creek testified that Diego Francisco was in possession of the land throughout his lifetime and after his death his heirs and not the respondents. By virtue of this continuous, adverse, and open possession of the land in question for forty-seven (47) years now, Fausta Francisco has become the absolute owner of this parcel of land.
Respondent contends that the petitioner’s claim for ownership of the land in question is insufficient in form and substance failing to explain under what color of title she acquires ownership of the land in question, citing that an essential requisite for a valid petition for reopening and review of a decree should be made by a person who is deprived of the land or interest. "In order to obtain the benefits of section 38 of Act 496 the applicant (1) must have an estate or interest in the land, and (2) must show fraud in the procurement of the decree of registration. A mere claim of ownership is not sufficient to avoid a certificate of title obtained under the Land Registration Act. The mere claim of ownership of petitioner lacks this requisite to merit in granting of their petition. They claim that Toribio Santos, the respondent’s father owns the land and Alejandro Santos inherited it from him and occupied the land in 1920 and has been in possession thereof for more than 30 years.
1. Whether or not the applicant secured thru fraud Decree No. N-99332
2. Who is the true and absolute owner of the land in question.
Ruling:
It appears that Jose Cruz and Diego Francisco are both dead when the alleged notice was served and that Santol Creek could not appear for the hearing because it is not a person. The court finds it absurd that the respondent claims that they complied with the requisite of serving notice to interested parties on the land in question. It is clear that the petitioner and her brothers and sisters who are the actual occupants of the adjacent lots were not notified of the registration proceeding applied for by the petitioner. It is clear that no notice was sent to the actual owner and possessor of the land in question allowing the respondents to successfully register the land in their name. It was also established that respondents did not state the true adjoining owners of the North, East and West of the land in question. On the North side it is no longer Diego Francisco who is the owner of the lot but it is the petitioner by virtue of transfer of the homestead patent of their father to them as his heirs. On the East, it is no longer Jose Cruz who owns the land but it was already by a different person after his death. On the West, it is no longer Eugenio Francisco who is the owner but it is Paula Francisco, petitioner’s sister who is in actual possession of the land.
The court find that the respondents have the motive of concealing their application for registration from the real owners of these said lands by not sending them the actual notice of their application for registration to prevent them from filing their opposition. The court cited the failure of the surveyors of the respondent to comply with the requirement of finding out the actual occupants and boundary owners of the said land. The court held that the registration of land cannot serve as a protecting mantle to cover and shelter bad faith. Thus it reverses the decision of the CA and affirmed the decision of the lower court without prejudice to petitioner and the trial court complying with the additional requirements for the issuance of the corresponding title in favor of petitioner.
No comments:
Post a Comment