Republic of the Philippines

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Region XIII, Caraga Administrative Region
Ambago, Butuan City
Tel. Nos. (085) 341-1996; (085) 3419812; Telefax (085) 341-7280

TIMOTEO CORALDE, ET.AL,

Protestant,

-versus- For: Cancellation of Free Patent

Application of the Heirs of Alberto
HEIRS OF ROBERTO ALBA, P. Alba over Lot No. 3486, Pls.48-D
Protestees, located at Caramcam
District, Mangagoy, Bislig City
x------------------------------------/

DECISION
In the case at bar is the question on who has the preferential right for Free Patent
application over a parcel of residential land known as Lot No.3486, Pls-480-D, with an
area of Three Thousand Three Hundred Eleven (3,311) square meters located in
Caramcam District, Mangagoy, Bislig City.

Factual Antecedents of the Case

Protestants’ allegations:

In the year 1959, Protestants, thru their predecessors-in-interest, entered the

subject property and introduced several improvements thereat. Since then up to the
present time, they occupied it adversely, openly and exclusively under a bona fide
claim of ownership.

As consequence thereof, Protestants built their respective houses made of light

and strong materials for several decades. Also, majority of the Protestants have been in
occupation and possession thereof for more than forty years.

They attached as Annex D-1 the Joint Affidavit dated 02 December 2013 of
Anita A. Banalo and Clementino A. Balbuena, former Barangay Captain of Barangay
Mangagoy, Bislig City and Purok President of Purok 4 Caramcam, Mangagoy, Bislig City,
respectively, affirming the possession of the Protestants over the subject lot. Thus:

“6. That Mr. Roberto P. Alba has not actually occupied any portion of lot
at Purok 4 Caramcam District, Mangagoy, Bislig City, nor has made any
improvements therein (sic). On the contrary, since time immemorial, the
entire lot at Purok 4 Caramcam District, Mangagoy, Bislig City has been
actually occupied by those persons listed in Annex “B”.” (Emphasis ours)

They stated further that Protestees were not known to have occupied the
contested lot and never known to have contested the occupation of the Protestants.
In other words, the application of Roberto P. Alba was only discovered when the
Protestants applied for individual titles before the Office of the DENR.

They argued that their evidence of possession is incontrovertible. That the

subject land which is a public land was converted into “alienable and disposable land”
over which they acquired ownership over it through prescription in which case they are
entitled to apply for Miscellaneous Sales Application.

That prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership under Article 1106
of the New Civil Code which provides thus:

1
 “By prescription one acquires ownership and other real rights through the
lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law.”

According to Protestants, Protestees failed to establish overt acts of possession

through preponderance of evidence. It dictates thus:

“Overt acts of possession may consist in introducing valuable

improvements on the property, like fruit bearing tress, fencing the area,
constructing a residential house thereon, and declaring the same for
taxation purposes.”(Sandoval vs. Insular Govt., G.R. No. 4206, Feb. 1, 1909,
12 Phil. 648)

Protestees’ allegations:

That sometime in 1957 and 1958, the lands of Macario Picasales and Benita
Gersana-Picasales in Caramcam, Mangagoy, Bilsig City was surveyed and applied for
titling before the Bureau of Lands in the name of the Heirs of Macario Picasales and
Benita Gersana-Picasales. The survey resulted in the issuance of Original Certificate of
Title No. 54 in the name of Macario Picasales.

That during the survey of the above mentioned land, not all of the lands of
Macario Picasales and Benita Gersana-Picasales in Caramcam, Mangagoy, Bislig City
were included and covered in the survey due to inclement weather at that time. A
portion of One Thousand (1,000) Square Meters, more or less, was not included. With
the passing of time, the unsurveyed portion is enlarged by accretion which is now
identified as Lot No. 3486.

That the unsurveyed portion is part of the contiguous land owned by Picasales
family since time immemorial and was declared for tax purposes since 1928. Said tax
declaration was subsequently revised through the passing of years.

That the Protestants came to occupy Lot No. 3486 building their houses thereon
through the permission and consent of the Picasales family. The Picasales family
members have been collecting monthly rentals from the Protestants and their
predecessors-in-interest for decades.

Upon the death of Spouses Macario Picasales and Benita Gersana-Picasales,

their eldest child in the name of Quirico Picasales served as the administrator of the
property while his siblings such as Leonida G. Picasales-Alba acted as owners and were,
as well, enjoying the fruits.

As evidence that Quirico Picasales and his sibings owned and possessed the lot,
they claimed to have maintained around 200 coconut trees in the property. That
Quirico Picasales caused the declaration for purposes of taxation in 1962. That in 1972,
he applied for the titling of the unsurveyed portion. The then Timber Management
Assistant of DENR-Bureau of Lands Amando T. Capiton issued a certification dated 17
June, 1972 that said unsurveyed portion is an alienable and disposable land.

That sometime on 23 September 2015, all improvements including coconut trees

and other structures standing on the unsurveyed portion were completely burned.

That in 1980, Quirico Picasales relinquished his rights over the unsurveyed land in
favor of his nephew Roberto Picasales Alba, the father of the Protestees.

Protestees presented a Certification dated 20 March 2006 from the Punong

Barangay Jonas Cacayan certifying that the heirs of Roberto Alba are the occupants
of Lot No. 3486 otherwise known as the unsurveyed portion.

2
 Issue

Who among the Protestants and the Prostestees have the preferential right to
apply for Free Patent over the Lot No. 3486 otherwise known as the unsurveyed portion?

Ruling

We find for the Protestants.

Requirements for Free Patent Application for Residential Lands…

Republic Act No. 10023 otherwise known as “An Act Authorizing the Issuance of
Free Patents to Residential Lands” provides the qualifications for application of Free
Patent, thus:

“Any Filipino citizen who is an actual occupant of a residential land may

apply for a Free Patent Title under this Act, provided that in highly
urbanized cities the land should not exceed two hundred (200) square
meters; in other cities it should not exceed five hundred (500) square
meters; in first class and second class municipalities it should not exceed
seven hundred fifty (750) square meters; and in all other municipalities it
should not exceed one thousand (1000) square meters; provided further,
that the land applied for is not needed for public service and/or public
use.”1

“The application on the land applied for shall be supported by a map

based on an actual survey conducted by a licensed geodetic engineer
and approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) and a technical description of the land applied for together with
supporting affidavit of two (2) disinterested persons who are residing in the
barangay of the city or municipality where the land is located, attesting
to the truth of the facts contained in the application to the effect that the
applicant thereof has, either by himself or through his predecessor-in-
interest, actually resided on and continuously possessed and occupied,
under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, the land applied for
at least ten (10) years and has complied with the requirements prescribed
in Section 1 hereof.”2

The Tax Declaration dated 1977 of Quirico Picasales on the disputed lot classified
the latter as residential land. The Tax Declaration dated 2013 of Roberto P. Alba over
the same disputed lot classified it as residential land.

This Office takes judicial notice that Bislig City is not a highly urbanized city.
Hence, it belongs to the classification under other cities which applicant’s application
for Free Patent over residential land should not exceed five hundred (500) square
meters.

From the factual allegations of both the parties, the disputed lot measures about
Three Thousand Three Hundred Evelen (3,311) Square Meters. Therefore, Protestees
application must be denied on the ground that the residential land applied for through
Free Patent exceeds the maximum land area prohibition. In contrast, the Thirty-Six (36)
Protestants if they apply for Residential Free Patent will have a rough number of Ninety-
Two (92) Square Meters land area and the same is within the maximum limit.

1 Section 1.
2 Section 3.

3
 Not only that Protestee’s application for Free Patent is defective due to the
above cited reason, but also because of lack of possession and occupation of the
Protestees. The same is exhaustively discussed hereunder.

Possession in the Concept of an Owner….

In Cequea v. Bolante,3 the Supreme Court ruled that it is only when tax
declarations are coupled with proof of actual possession of the property that they may
become the basis of a claim of ownership.4 In the absence of actual public and
adverse possession, the declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove
ownership.5

The same reasoning has been reiterated by the said court in another instructive
case6 which opined thus:

“It bears stressing that petitioner presented only five tax declarations (for
the years 1957, 1961, 1967, 1980 and 1985) for a claimed possession and
occupation of more than 45 years (1945-1993). This type of intermittent
and sporadic assertion of alleged ownership does not prove open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation. In any
event, in the absence of other competent evidence, tax declarations do
not conclusively establish either possession or declarants right to
registration of title.”

We refused to countenance the alleged Tax Declarations of the Protestees

tracing back from 1928 until the present time and the alleged payment of taxes as
evidence of possession.

Tax declarations and tax payments are not proof of possession and ownership
unless coupled by proof of actual possession.

Further, bare allegation of payment of taxes without proof thereof is considered

hearsay. Nothing in the records would show that Protestees made payments.
Therefore, alleged payment of taxes cannot be well-taken.

The allegation of Protestees on the Certification dated 20 March 2006 from the
Punong Barangay Jonas Cacayan certifying that the heirs of Roberto Alba are the
occupants of Lot No. 3486 otherwise known as the unsurveyed portion does not hold
water. Said certification runs counter to the Joint Affidavit dated 02 December 2013 of
Anita A. Banalo and Clementino A. Balbuena. The said Joint Affidavit reads in part thus:

“That Mr. Roberto P. Alba has not actually occupied any portion of lot at
Purok 4 Caramcam District, Mangagoy, Bislig City, nor has made any
improvements therein. On the contrary, since time immemorial, the entire
lot at Purok 4 Caramcam District, Mangagoy, Bislig City has been actually
occupied by those persons listed in Annex “B”.”

Mrs. Anita A. Banalo was also a former Barangay Captain of Mangagoy, Bislig
City while Clementino A. Balbuena was the former Purok President of Purok 4
Caramcam District, Mangagoy, Bislig City where the disputed lot is located.

If there is any person who can properly attest as to the possessor/s of the
disputed lot, it is Purok President Clementino A. Balbuena inasmuch as he is more aware
of his constituents and a Barangay is a closely-knitted community in which the leader

3 386 Phil. 419 (2000).

4 Id. at 430.
5 Id. at 431.
6 G.R. No. 177384, December 8, 2009, 608 SCRA 72.

4
has actual participatory process in the overall performance as a public official. In fine,
it can be safely inferred that Mr. Balbuena has actual knowledge of the actual
possessor on the disputed lot.

Moreover, Mr. Balbuena executed the Joint Affidavit under oath of which he
can be punished for perjury or false testimony for stating untruthful and perjurious
statement. Hence, there is no doubt that he was stating the truth that Protestants were
in actual possession of the disputed lot.

This fact is buttressed by the Investigation Report dated 19 March 2015 of Ruel E.
Efren in which he categorically stated that Protestants had been in actual possession
and occupation of the disputed lot while Protestees showed no possession and
occupation either in whole or in part of the subject lot. We hereby adopt the said
report, thus:

“1. There were residential houses of the Protestants were (sic) found to
have been established in the subject lot; some of these houses were
made of light materials, while others were made of strong materials.
Regardless of what materials used, it shows that these were built in a
permanent capacity;

2. The Protestants have their own respective occupation and possession

over the subject lot;

3. There is no showing of any possession and occupation of the

Respondent either in whole or in part of the subject lot;” (Emphasis
ours)

We give credit and probative value to said Investigation Report for the reason
that the same is based on the personal knowledge of the field investigator who made
ocular inspection and investigation in the disputed area.

It is a settled rule that government officials are presumed to perform their

functions with regularity and strong evidence is necessary to rebut this presumption.
Hence, the Investigation Report deserves great weight and credence.

With respect to the Affidavit of Trifina P. Alba-Masangcay as to the alleged

payment of rents by the possessors in Lot No. 3486 otherwise named by her as “Kilid sa
Suba”, the same does not convince this Honorable Office. The said alleged payments
of rents are unbelievable for receipts of payment were not presented in the records of
the case. Assuming that the receipts were all destroyed when Caramcam District was
razed by fire, no date was ever mentioned as to when the fire occurred. What about
the receipts after the assumed date of fire? Why they were not presented as
evidence? It is contrary to the normal vocation of a lessor in not presenting any receipt
of payments of rent if ever Protestees were really the lessors of the disputed lot.
Secondly, if they were the lessors and the lessees refused to pay the rents, they could
have filed a formal complaint in court for ejectment and/or collections of rents.
Nonetheless, the same remedies were not availed. This presumed that Protestees were
not lessors on the disputed lot.

On the allegations that not all of the lands of Macario Picasales and Benita
Gersana-Picasales in Caramcam, Mangagoy, Bislig City were included and covered in
the survey due to the inclement weather at that time and that a portion of One
Thousand (1,000) Square Meters, more or less, was not included, the same deserve
scant consideration. It is unnatural for a presumed owner of a land to do away with the
completion of the survey by reason of bad weather. If the same is true, the survey
could have completed after the day or days of the alleged stormy weather

5
 Protestants build houses of light and strong materials over the disputed land is an
incontrovertible evidence. These improvements are evidences of acts of dominion or
possession in the concept of an owner. The same reasoning has been opined in an old
ruling7, thus:

“Can the fact of possession be established by the plaintiff in an action of

forcible entry and detainer by proof of ownership? The answer is that,
under certain conditions, it can. Of course, if party can prove of external
acts of dominion over a particular piece of ground, as continuous
cultivation or the uninterrupted taking of produce from the fields, he has
no need to resort to proof of ownership.”

The same reasoning has been explained in a latter case8, thus”

“Adverse possession or acts of dominion in derogation of owner’s interest

may include the construction of permanent building and the collection of
rentals, harvesting of the fruits of fruit-bearing trees, the giving of advice as
to the owners of adjoining properties, the payment religiously of taxes on
the property.”

We also adopt the scholarly arguments of the Office of the Solicitor General in
one case9, thus:

“The OSG further contends that respondent failed to show indubitably

that he has complied with all the requirements showing that the property,
previously part of the public domain, has become private property by
virtue of his acts of possession in the manner and length of time required
by law. The OSG maintains that respondent and his predecessors-in-
interest failed to show convincingly that he or they were in open,
continuous, adverse, and public possession of the land of the public
domain as required by law. The OSG points out that there is no evidence
showing that the property has been fenced, walled, cultivated or
otherwise improved. The OSG argues that without these indicators which
demonstrate clear acts of possession and occupation, the application for
registration cannot be allowed.”

Prescinding from the above principles, indeed, the improvements constructed by

the Protestants as their permanent abode over the subject land are considered acts of
dominion or possession in the concept of an owner.

Possession for more than 10 years…

In order that an applicant may be granted for Free Patent on residential land,
said applicant must have possession over the same for a period of at least Ten (10)
years. This, the Protestants had complied with. The allegation of possession by the
majority of the Protestants for a period of more than Forty (40) years had not been
refuted by the Protestees.

Basing from all the attendant circumstances of this case, we are constrained to
believe that Protestants had actual possession and occupation of the disputed land.

Other arguments and refutations of the Protestees need no elaboration.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Protest is hereby granted

7 Mediran vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-12838, March 9, 1918.

8 Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, L-40880, Oct. 13, 1979.
9 Republic vs. Rizalvo, G.R. No. 172011, March 7, 2011.

6
 Having been convinced that the Protestants had been in actual, physical and
continuous occupation and possession in the concept of an owner of the land subject
matter of this case, we hereby conclude and hold that the application of Protestees for
Free Patents over the subject land be DENIED and the preferential right for Residential
Free Patent application be GIVEN to the Protestants.

SO ORDERED.

Ambago, Butuan City ________________________.

NONITO M. TAMAYO, CESO IV

OIC, Regional Director

Copy furnished:

Timoteo Coralde, et. Al.,

Caramcam District, Mangagoy,
Bislig City

Heirs of Roberto P. Alba

represented by Angelina M. Alba
and Jorge Alba
Purok 4, Caramcam, Mangagoy,
Bislig City

Atty. Florante Clod T. Sanico

Counsel for the Protestees
Second Floor, Saren Bldg., Espiritu St.,
Mangagoy, Bislig City

Atty. Rowell Rex C. Mabale

Counsel for the Protestants
La Salle Drive, John Bosco District,
Mangagoy, Bislig City

CENRO Bislig City

File…