In case of land dispute, prior possession usually determines who has a better right. This is once more illustrated in this case between Lino and Lito.
This case pertained to a parcel of land located in Mindoro actually occupied by Lito’s father as early as 1936 and upon his demise in 1969, by Lito himself who continued occupation and cultivation of the same.
Their possession was somehow interrupted when another person by the name of Flora obtained a Free Patent and an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) over the said land by misrepresenting that she and her children had been continuously occupying and cultivating the same since 1906. Flora then got Celia to take care of the land who in turn commissioned her sons Lino and Ely and another caretaker Pacio to enter the land cultivate the same and introduce improvements thereon.
But Flora’s Free Patent and OCT was declared void ab initio by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on June 27, 1988. The RTC ordered the reversion of the land back to the State or the Republic of the Philippines upon petition of the Bureau of Lands after its representative discovered Flora’s misrepresentation because she and her children never entered nor cultivated the land. The RTC found that it was Lito and his father who had been actually occupying and cultivated the same since 1936. But since the land was reverted back to the State, Lito had to file his free patent application over the land.
This time it was Lino who filed a protest against Lito’s free patent application on July 17, 1991 with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Regional Office. Lino alleged that he and some other persons are the actual occupants of the land; that they had introduced various improvements thereon; and that when they first entered the land in 1960 there were already improvements introduced by the tenants of Flora who was then the registered owner of the land. Lino even claimed that Lito never took possession of the land nor introduced improvements thereon.
But the DENR Regional Director and subsequently, the DENR Secretary dismissed Lino’s protest. Both cited the RTC decision annulling the Free Patent and OCT of Flora which was obtained through misrepresentation. The Director declared that the preferential right of applicant Lito and that of his father over the land in question had already been recognized by the Court in said decision. The DENR Secretary on the other hand ruled that since the title of Flora from whom Lino derived his claim and gained entry to the land in question had been cancelled, Lino cannot claim a better right over Lito whose predecessor-in-interest had been found to have possessed the land since 1936. Was the DENR correct?
Yes. Both the DENR Director and Secretary are correct in ruling that Lito has a preferential right over the land in question as this was already recognized by the RTC whose decision has long been final. Well settled is the rule that the findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts. Consequently Lito’s free patent application should be given due course leading to the issuance of a patent over the land in his favor (Lim vs, de los Santos etc. G.R. 172574, July 31, 2009).
* * *
E-mail: jcson@pldtdsl.net