Order Imperial Vs Cayetano (DBB)
Order Imperial Vs Cayetano (DBB)
by Natividad Imperial,
Claimants-Protestants
ORDER
This case arose from the Protest filed by the Heirs of David Imperial
represented by Natividad Imperial (Protestants for brevity) against the Free
Patent Application of Heirs of Teresa Romero-Santiago represented by Grace
Cayetano (Respondents)
1
October 5, 2015, the Heirs of David Imperial represented by Natividad
Imperial, filed a Protest against the FPA (V-1) 15179-D. Protestants claimed that
they are the absolute owners of the subject lot. They alleged further in substance as
follows: That when David Imperial died, his wife and children searched and scanned
through his files and discovered documents pertinent to the subject lot; that the
documents prove that the subject lot was originally owned by Rodolfo Fidela who
sold it to Jorge Imperial, uncle of David Imperial who in turn sold it to the latter;
that applicant merely presented photocopies of her document and not the original
copies thus, it cannot be proven valid or authentic; that said documents are
incomplete and lacks material details; that the extra –judicial settlement of estate
which applicant anchored her application from contained inconsistencies particularly
on the year of death of Valentin Amier and his marriage; and that the said
documents are fake, illegal, and false.
The bone of contention in lands claims and conflict cases is the preferential
right to apply and occupy the land. This case is no exception. The preferential right
in the acquisition of public land is based on the principle of “prior tempore potior
jure” which means, he, who is first in time is preferred in right. The priority refers
either to the filing of the application or in the occupation of the land. The rule
implies that the first person to apply for the land is actually occupied in good faith by
a person other than the applicant, the occupant shall have a preference right to
apply for the same.
The qualifications for the grant of the Patent is provided for in Section 44 of
the Public Land Act, to wit:
2
cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-
interest, a tract or tracts of agricultural public land subject
to disposition, who shall have paid the real estate tax
thereon while the same has not been occupied by any
other person shall be entitled, under the provisions of this
Chapter, to have free patent issued to him for such tract or
tracts of such land not to exceed twelve (12) hectares.
In the instant case, the respondent has in her favor to first to apply and
occupy the land in question. And further, she satisfied the first and second
considerations of an applicant as the land is classified as alienable and disposable
and that she is a natural born citizen of the Philippines who does not own more than
twelve (12) hectares of land.
As to the question on possession, it was established in the course of the
investigation that the subject lot, a riceland, is cultivated by respondent thru her
present tenant farmer Nixon Ramirez and his father, Ruperto Ramirez. They
succeeded Alfredo Astillero who previously attended the land. Apart from it being a
riceland, a portion of the lot is utilized as a piggery owned by respondent. Further, it
was ascertained that protestants have never possessed the land. Protestants argued
in their protest that they only learned about the lot upon the demise of David
Imperial in 2015. It is noteworthy that on July 25, 2016, respondent filed a
complaint before the barangay against her tenant, Nixon Ramires for illegal
construction of fence. From the blotter issued by Punong Barangay, Rosalina O.
Cervero, Nixon Ramirez admitted the construction of fence which enclosed the
property per protestant’s order in consideration of P9,000. Nixon Ramirez claimed
that he agreed to do so because he needs the money and he was made to believe
that the protestant is the lawful owner of the lot and not the respondent. Upon
settlement, Nixon Ramirez agreed to remove the constructed concrete posts and
respondent withdrew the complaint. This claim is well-corroborated by the barangay
officials. Apparently, this unfortunate event occurred in the protestant’s attempt to
establish possession over the subject lot.
As to the real property tax due thereon, both respondent and protestant
presented tax declarations in support of their respective claims and defenses.
Respondent presented a series of tax declarations from Celedonia Garcia (1907-
1948), Salvacion Rodriguez (1951-1956) and Applicant Teresa R. Santiago (1958-
present) who are the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent from which her
acquisition of the land trailed from. Likewise, she presented a certification that the
taxes due thereon are paid until present time. On the other hand, Protestant
presented two sets of tax declaration, one under the name of Rodolfo Fidela and
another in the name of Jorge Imperial also the same persons whom she anchored
her claim from. As to the payment of taxes, there is no indication in the records that
David Imperial has paid the taxes after he allegedly purchased the lot from Jorge
Imperial in 1998; also, it appears that there was no attempt to declare the same
under his name until he died in 2015.
3
Both parties presented tax declarations pertaining to the same lot to support
their right over the land. Protestant’s claim that respondent’s tax declaration lacks
the lot number is immaterial because in lieu of the same, one can simply rely on the
boundaries stated in the tax declaration in order to identify and locate the lot in
question. However, the Public Land Act requires payment of real property taxes
thereon and not merely tax declaration which are two distinct and separate things.
In the submitted evidence, it appeared that respondent has satisfactorily
complied with all the requirements provided for in Sec. 44 of the Public Land Act.
Possession coupled with payment of realty taxes establishes bona fide intent
to have the subject lot registered in their favor. This principle is best explained in the
case of Spouses Gabriel and Maria Llanes vs. Republic of the Philippines. G.R. No.
177947, November 27, 2008 where the Court ruled:
Respondent religiously paid the real estate taxes of the subject lot for fifty-
nine (59) years. Although as a rule, payment of taxes or tax declarations are not
conclusive evidence of ownership, they are proof that the holder has a claim of title
over the property and serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession. Such
payment coupled with possession and cultivation of the land constitute a “well-nigh
incontrovertible’’ evidence of a claim of ownership.
SO ORDERED.
4
Legazpi City, Philippines,
Copy Furnished:
Grace Santiago-Cayetano
Purok 3, San Roque, Legazpi City
Natividad Imperial
Sunrise Subd., Washington Drive, Legazpi City