Pabaus v. Yutiamco

GR No. 164356

Jul 27, 2011

Facts:

The subjects of this case are the three parcels of land located in Agusan del Norte. Lots 1 and 2 were registered under the name of Amanda Yutiamco under OCT No. O-104 and TCT No. T-1428, respectively. Lot 2, on the other hand, was owned by Margarito Pabaus and covered by OCT P-8649.

A separate title, TCT No. T-1428, was subsequently issued to Amanda Yutiamco for Lot 2, thus partially canceling OCT No. O-104. Meanwhile, OCT No. P-8649 was issued to Margarito Pabaus on March 12, 1974 pursuant to Free Patent No. (X-2)102.

The heirs of Amanda Yutiamco subsequently filed for recovery of possession and damages against the heirs of Margarito Pabaus. They wanted to recover the land under OCT No. P-8649.

The Yutiamcos alleged that the Pabauses entered their lands, harvested coconuts, and built a house therein despite repeated objections from Moises Yutiamco.

The Yutiamcos avered that OCT No P-8649 issued to Margarito Pabaus is invalid as it substantially includes a land already covered by Decree No. N-130700 and OCT No. O-104 issued on July 9, 1970 in the name of Amanda Yutiamco.

The Pabauses admitted having gathered coconuts and cut trees on the contested properties, but asserted that they did so in the exercise of their rights of dominion as holders of OCT No. P-8649. They also contended that it was respondents who unlawfully entered their property and harvested coconuts therein.

It was later found out through a Relocation Survey Report that Lot 2 under Yutiamco was inside the lot covered by a title issued in favor of Pabaus. Meanwhile, a portion of Lot 1 under Yutiamco’s name is inside the lot of Pabaus as well. Thus, there is an overlapping in the issuance of titles.

The relocation survey report was made by three commissioners—a private surveyor who was court-appointed (Engr. Romulo Estaca), a representative of the respondents (Antonio Libarios, Jr.), and a representative of the plaintiffs (Engr. Regino Lomarda, Jr.).

A sketch plan prepared by Engr. Rosalinda De Casa was cited by the Pabauses to show that it was the Yutiamcos who encroached on their lot.

Engr. Estaca admitted that there were five missing corners so there was no precise and accurate ground verification made on the alleged overlapping.

RTC Ruling

• In favor of Yutiamcos
• It held that since the land in dispute was already under the private ownership of the respondents and no longer part of the public domain, the same could not have been the subject of a free patent.
• The trial court applied the rule that in case of two certificates of title issued to different persons over the same land, the earlier in date must prevail.
• Hence, respondents’ OCT No. O-104 is superior to petitioners’ OCT No. P-8649 which is a total nullity.

CA Ruling

• Affirmed the RTC
• emphasized that petitioners are bound by the findings contained in the Relocation Survey Report and the Relocation Plan because not only did they agree to the appointment of the three commissioners but the commissioner representing them also manifested his conformity to the findings.

Issues:

Did the CA commit a reversible error in affirming the RTC in its decision that the lot registered to Pabaus overlaps with that of Yutiamco?

Did the CA commit a reversible error in relying on the finding of the court-appointed geodetic engineer who disturbed the cadastral survey conducted by the government through the DENR?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the RTC because the Yutiamcos failed to prove their claim of overlapping.

In overlapping of titles disputes, it has always been the practice for the court to appoint a surveyor from the government land agencies – the Land Registration Authority or the DENR – to act as commissioner.

In this case, the trial court appointed a private surveyor in the person of Engr. Estaca who actually conducted the relocation survey while the two other surveyors chosen by the parties expressed their conformity with the finding of encroachment or overlapping indicated in the Relocation Plan²⁷ submitted to the court by Engr. Estaca.

A case of overlapping of boundaries or encroachment depends on a reliable, if not accurate, verification survey.

For relocation surveys, we should refer to The Manual for Land Surveys in the Philippines (MLSP), which provides:

Section 593 – The relocation of corners or re-establishment of boundary lines shall be made using the bearings, distances and areas approved by the Director of Lands or written in the lease or Torrens title.

Section 594 – The data used in monumenting or relocating corners of approved surveys shall be submitted to the Bureau of Lands for verification and approval. New corner marks set on the ground shall be accurately described in the field notes and indicated on the original plans on file in the Bureau of Lands.

In this case, records failed to disclose that the basis for relocating the missing corners was submitted to the Bureau of Lands (now Land Management Bureau) for verification and approval as required by Section 594. This is crucial considering that the court-appointed commissioner is a private surveyor and not a government surveyor from the LRA or LMB-DENR.

As admitted by Engr. De Casa, during the cadastral survey they conducted from 1986 to 1996, they did not send a written notice to the landowner Amanda Yutiamco and that she plotted the boundaries of her property based merely on a tax declaration because the cadastral survey team failed to obtain copies of OCT No. O-104 and TCT No. T-1428 from the Registry of Deeds.³⁴

The MLSP specifically required that relocation of boundary lines is to be made using the bearings, distances and areas approved by the Director of Lands or indicated in the Torrens titles.

Conclusion:

Said cadastral map is not competent proof of the actual location and boundaries of respondents’ Lots 1 and 2.

Doctrines:

If the land covered by free patent was a private land, the Director of Lands has no jurisdiction over it. Such free patent and the subsequent certificate of title issued pursuant thereto are a nullity.

A free patent issued over a private land is null and void, and produces no legal effects whatsoever.

The Director of Lands has no authority to grant free patent to lands that have ceased to be public in character and have passed to private ownership.

Note:

Since the claim of overlapping has not been clearly established, it is premature to declare the free patent issued to Margarito Pabaus null and void. Thus, SC remanded the case instead of ruling on the merits.