"x x x.
In real property law, alienation is defined as the transfer of the property and possession of lands, tenements, or other things from one person to another. It is the “act by which the title to real estate is voluntarily resigned by one person to another and accepted by the latter, in the forms prescribed by law.”[29] In this case, Comia did not transfer, convey or cede the property; but rather, he relinquished, renounced and “quitclaimed” the property considering that the property already belonged to the spouses. The voluntary renunciation by Comia of that portion was not an act of alienation, but an act of correcting the inclusion of the property in his free patent.
The evidence on record reveals that prior the grant of the free patent, the spouses already owned the property. This fact can be inferred from the following testimony of Jose Abelgas, Jr.:[30]
A: It was in 1971 when he (Servillano Comia) went to our house bringing with him an Original Certificate of Title issued to him by the Bureau of Lands.
Q: What was his purpose of bringing to you Original Certificate of Title (sic) issued by the Bureau of Lands?
A: He wants to segregate the 3,000 square meters out of 6,790 square meters from the Original Certificate of Title which I bought from him, sir. (Emphasis supplied.)
This testimony was not contested or objected to by Comia. Neither did he put in evidence that he sold the property during the period of the prohibition as he would have been deemed to be in violation of the law. Rather, his argument has always been the non-existence of the said Deed which both lower courts have already concluded otherwise.[31]
More important, Comia failed to dispute by clear and convincing evidence[32] the presumption that the spouses owned the property prior to the grant of his free patent. This presumption is present in this case since the Deed of Relinquishment and Renunciation of Right was annotated in a public document, specifically, the original certificate of title. Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. [33] Entry No. 81908 annotating OCT No. P-8553 reads as:[34]
MEMORANDUM OF INCUMBRANCES (sic)
Entry No. 81908; Doc. No. xxx [not legible] RENUNCIATION OF RIGHTS AND QUITCLAIMS – In favor of the espouses (sic): JOSE ABELGAS JR. AND LETECIA JUSAYAN DE ABELGAS, of legal age, filipinos, (sic) and residing at Poblacion, Gloria, Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, - covering this Original Certificate of Title No. P-8553, in conformity with the conditions stipulated in the Deed of Renunciation of Rights and Quitclaim executed by SERVILLANO COMIA married to ESTELITA AIMARIA, of legal age, filipino, (sic) and residing at Socorro, Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, on file in this registry.
Date of Instrument ------------------------- May 1, 1971
Date of Inscription ------------------------- May 3, 1971 at 8:10 a.m.
(Sgd.)
REYNALDO M. MAMBIL
REGISTER OF DEEDS
The Deed of Relinquishment, Renunciation of Rights and Quitclaim, as referred in the title, recognizes the ownership of the spouses. Comia explicitly declared in the said Deed that the subject portion belonging to the spouses Abelgas had been included in his title for it adjoins his land. The Deed reads thus: [35]
That I hereby relinquish, renounce, and quitclaim, and by these presents have RELINQUISHED, RENOUNCED, and QUITCLAIMED, all my rights, interests, possession, occupation, and participation of a portion of THREE THOUSAND (3,000) SQUARE METERS, of the parcel of land described above, free from all liens and encumbrances, together with all its existing improvements that may be found there unto the ESPOUSES (sic) JOSE A. ABELGAS Jr. and LETECIA JUSAYAN DE ABELGAS, likewise of legal ages, filipinos (sic) and a resident of Poblacion, Gloria, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and agreeing further to warrant and forever defend the title and peaceful possession of the herein espouses (sic): JOSE A. ABELGAS JR. and LETECIA JUSAYAN DE ABELGAS, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns against the just and lawful claims of any or all persons whomsoever.
That the above described property, with an area of THREE THOUSAND (3000) SQ. METERS, is the sole property of the above described espouses (sic) and it had only been included in my title for it adjoins my land situated in the barrio of Quinabigan, Pinamalayan Oriental Mindoro and it was not my fault therefore so it being not mine (sic). I have voluntarily renounced the area of three thousand (3000) square meters, in favor of the saidJOSE ABELGAS JR. and LETECIA JUSAYAN DE ABELGAS. (Emphasis and underscoring in the original).
In support of the fact that the alienation transpired prior to the grant of a free patent, it is remarkable that Comia never contested that the spouses had been in actual possession of the subject portion even before his patent application. The private ownership of land – as when there is a prima facie proof of ownership like a duly registered possessory information or a clear showing of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession – is not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same land.[36]
A prima facie proof of ownership is not necessarily defeated by a free patent, especially if the title covers a portion not belonging to the grantee. Where an applicant has illegally included portions of an adjoining land that does not form part of the applicant’s homestead, the title issued by virtue thereof should be cancelled.[37] InAngeles v. Samia[38], this Court explained that:
The Land Registration Act as well as the Cadastral Act protects only the holders of a title in good faith and does not permit its provisions to be used as a shield for the commission of fraud, or that one should enrich himself at the expense of another (Gustilo vs. Maravilla, 48 Phil., 442; Angelo vs. Director of Lands, 49 Phil., 838). The above-stated Acts do not give anybody, who resorts to the provisions thereof, a better title than he really and lawfully has. If he happened to obtain it by mistake or to secure, to the prejudice of his neighbor, more land than he really owns, with or without bad faith on his part, the certificate of title, which may have been issued to him under the circumstances, may and should be cancelled or corrected (Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil., 590). (Emphasis supplied.)
Seeing that there is no alienation to begin with, this Court finds that the prohibition is not applicable. Thus, the Deed of Relinquishment, Renunciation of Rights and Quitclaim is not null and void for being contrary to the Public Land Act.
In a similar case, in Heirs of Manlapat v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that where the alienation or transfer took place before the filing of a free patent application, the prohibition should not be applied. In that situation, “neither the prohibition nor the rationale therefor which is to keep in the family of the patentee that portion of the public land which the government has gratuitously given him, by shielding him from the temptation to dispose of his landholding, could be relevant.”[39]
Consequently, this Court rules against the cancellation of TCT Nos. T-46030, and T-46364 to 46375. Indeed, these subsequent certificates were issued based on a duly executed instrument sanctioned by law.
As for the encumbrances, Comia also unsuccessfully assailed the mortgages by virtue of an alleged violation of the Public Land Act.
For the prohibition in Section 118 of CA 141 to apply, the subject property must be acquired by virtue of either a free patent or a homestead patent. In this case, the 3,000-sqm portion subdivided into twelve (12) lots as evidenced by TCT Nos. T-4634 to 46375 has not been shown to be under a free patent. As it appears, what was submitted to the mortgagee banks were TCTs not derived from a free patent.
Thus, the encumbrances thereon are not null and void, as these do not fall within the ambit of the prohibition. This being the case, it cannot be said that the banks were in bad faith for accepting the encumbered properties that did not originate from a free patent. In any event, at the time of the mortgage, the Rural Banks Act (Republic Act No. 720), as amended by Republic Act No. 5939,[40] already allows banks to accept free patents as security for loan obligations.[41]
Absent any finding of nullity, we sustain the RTC’s ruling that the alienation and encumbrances are valid. Consequently, there is no cause to cancel the subsequent TCTs and the resulting mortgages thereon.
x x x."
No comments:
Post a Comment