G.R. No. L-15743. July 26, 1960
OMBE (BAGOBA), PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. VICENTE DIGA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
BARRERA, J.:
Instance of Davao, a verified petition praying for the cancellation in
Original Certificate of Title No. P-1108 [Psu-63251] (which covers a
parcel of land located at barrio Baracatan, Sta. Cruz, Davao,
containing an area of 121,761 square meters, more or less) of the words
“married to Vicente Diga”, and in lieu thereof, the insertion of her
true status as “single” in the same. While said petition was pending in
said court, defendant Vicente Diga, allegedly, gathered crops on said
land, to the exclusion of plaintiff. Plaintiff, therefore, on July 28,
1956, filed with the above-mentioned court, a separate action for
injunction against defendant with prayer for a preliminary injunction.
On July 31, 1956, upon plaintiff’s filing a bond in the amount of
P1,000.00, the court issued, ex parte, a writ of preliminary
injunction, ordering defendant, his representatives, agents, laborers,
and other persons working under him to desist or refrain from entering
the land in question and taking the products harvested thereon, pending
the termination of the litigation.
On August 10, 1956, defendant filed his answer alleging, inter alia,
that as early as 1946, plaintiff lived with him as his common-law wife;
that since plaintiff and her children lived with him, he had been
treated as the father of the family, and he was the one taking care of
the land in question and supporting plaintiff and her children; that it
is not true that he collected the share of the crops thereon against
plaintiffs will; and that he is not a usurper. Defendant filed a
counterclaim against plaintiff in the sum of P2,000.00 for expenses
incurred as a result of the suit, and prayed, among others, that
plaintiff be ordered to give to him ½ of the property. On August 20,
1956, plaintiff filed her answer to the counterclaim.
On February 6, 1957, the parties submitted the following:
“STIPULATION OF FACTS
“That
the plaintiff OMBE (BAGOBA) is ignorant, illiterate and unlettered
being a member of the non-Christian Tribes of Davao, particularly the
Bagobo Tribe.“That the defendant Vicente Diga, is a native
of San Isidro, Leyte, Philippines, having come to the Province and City
of Davao, sometime in 1941 and resided at Calinan, Davao City.“That
the plaintiff OMBE (Bagoba) originally caused the private land survey
of one (1) parcel of land situated in the Barrio of Baracatan,
Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Province of Davao, identified as Psu-63251
duly approved by the Director of Lands, * * *.“That since
1928, and even prior to that date, the herein plaintiff OMBE (Bagoba),
thru her predecessor-in-interest and by herself has occupied, possessed
and cultivated, as well as claimed as owner, the parcel of land covered
by Psu-63251, publicly, openly, and continuously, and in fact has
consistently declared the land subject of Psu-63251 for taxation
purposes, * * *.“That plaintiff OMBE (Bagoba), long before
the Pacific War in 1941, filed a Free Patent Application for the parcel
of land covered by Psu-63251, but said application including all the
records of the same are inexistent, by reason of loss, destruction, or
misplacement, * * *.“That the plaintiff Ombe (Bagoba) has two recognized natural children, namely, Julia and Prosina, both surnamed Otic.
“That
after the Pacific War, the plaintiff OMBE (Bagoba) renewed her Free
Patent Application over the parcel of land covered by Psu-63251, and
the same was given due course and is numbered in the Land Records as
F-V-4426 (Psu-63251), * * *.“That on November 26, 1947,
the defendant Vicente Diga, married the plaintiff OMBE (BAGOBA), in
accordance with the Bagobo rites and customs.“That in the
aforesaid Certificate of Title No. P-1108, it is made to appear that
plaintiff Ombe (Bagoba), ‘is married to Vicente Diga, the defendant in
this case, * * *.“That there is not any legal marriage
whatsoever between the herein plaintiff Ombe (Bagoba) and defendant
Vicente Diga, as shown by the Certificate of the Local Civil Registrar
of the Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Davao, * * *.“That the
defendant Vicente Diga has spent for the improvement thereon, as a
matter of fact he has planted with his own hands 250 coconut trees.“That
the herein parties hereby waive and abandon their right to present any
evidence with respect to their claim for damages and improvements as
contained in their pleadings; * * *.”
On
the basis of the foregoing Stipulation of Facts the court, holding that
the title to the land in question was acquired during the cohabitation
of plaintiff and defendant, and applying Articles 144 and 486 of the
New Civil Code,[1] rendered a decision on May 28,1957 the dispositive part of which, reads:
“The
Court therefore renders judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint;
and declares the property covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
P-1108 of the Register of Deeds of the province of Davao to belong in
common to Ombe (Bagoba) and Vicente Diga share and share alike. The
Register of Deeds of the province of Davao is hereby directed to cancel
Original Certificate of Title No. P-1108 and to issue in lieu thereof
another in the name of Ombe (Bagoba) and Vicente Diga as co-owners
thereof share and share alike. The Writ of Preliminary Injunction
issued by this Court dated July 31, 1956, is hereby cancelled. No
pronouncement is made as to costs, and no award of damages is hereby
made.”
From this decision, plaintiff
appealed to the Court of Appeals, but said court, in its resolution of
June 6, 1959, certified the case to us, on the ground that it involves
only questions of law.
Plaintiff, in this appeal, claims
that the lower court erred in dismissing her complaint, and in
declaring the land in question as owned in common by her and defendant.
We agree with the plaintiff. From the stipulation of facts, it appears
that plaintiff had originally caused the survey of the land in
question. Since 1928, and even prior thereto, she had by herself arid
through her predecessor-in-interest, occupied, possessed, and
cultivated said land under claim of ownership, publicly, openly, and
continuously. She had consistently declared the same for taxation
purposes in her name and paid the corresponding taxes. Long before the
outbreak of World War II, she had actually filed an application for a
free patent title to said land. Since the records relative to said
application were lost or destroyed on account of said war, she renewed
said application thereafter, which application was given due course or
acted upon by the Bureau of Lands, resulting in the issuance to her of
a free patent on August 2, 1951 and a certificate of title on October
1, 1951.
In the case of Naval, et al. vs. Junsay, et al. 95 Phil., 939; 50 Off. Gaz., [10] 4792,[2] this Court held:
“*
* * Occupation and cultivation of the land in question since 1907
unquestionably gave Elias Naval the right to apply for a free patent
therefor under the provisions of the Public Land Law. But in order
that that right might ripen into a free patent title, it was necessary,
among other things, that an application be actually filed. Without
this requisite no such title could be acquired, so that if Elias Naval
had never filed his application he could have acquired no right of
ownership which he could transmit to his heirs. As was said in a case,
it is an erroneous theory, adopted by some courts, that the entryman
acquired an equitable title piecemeal, or in the installment plan, until he earned a perfect or complete title by having complied with all the conditions prerequisite to obtaining a patent.
The entry man in fact acquired nothing until the instant he was
entitled to everything. If his compliance with the statutory conditions
fell short in any essential, he had nothing, but the instant he had
fully complied with them, the equitable estate burst into full blossom
as his property, and simultaneously therewith he acquired the right to a patent. (Petition of S.R.A. Inc., 18 NW 2d 447, 449.).” [Emphasis supplied.]
In the light of the above ruling, plaintiff acquired a perfect or
complete title to the land in question, when she complied with all the
conditions prerequisite to obtaining a free patent title thereto,
namely, her occupation, possession, and cultivation under claim of
ownership and publicly, openly, and continuously (by herself and
through her predecessor-in-interest) of said land since 1928 and even
prior thereto, and lastly, her filing of an application for a free
patent title to said land prior to the outbreak of the war. All these
conditions she had complied with long before her marriage to defendant
on November 26, 1947, which marriage is null and void, because the
parties did not comply with the provisions of the Marriage Law. The
issuance to her of a free patent on August 2, 1951 and of the
certificate of title on October 1, 1951, served merely as a
confirmation of her ownership of the land in question. The fact that
defendant had subsequently labored and spent for some additional
improvement of the land in question did not make him a co-owner of the
same, for plaintiff’s title had ripened long prior to their said
invalid marriage in 1947, when she had already complied with all the
requisites necessary to obtaining a free patent.
All things considered, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that plaintiff is the sole owner of the land in question.
No adjudication regarding the improvements introduced by defendant is
made because of the waiver thereof contained in the last paragraph of
the stipulation of facts.
Wherefore, the decision appealed
from is hereby reversed and set aside. The Register of Deeds of Davao
is ordered to cancel in Original Certificate of Title No. P-1108
(Psu-63251) covering the land in question, the words “married to
Vicente Diga” and, in lieu thereof, to insert the word “single” to
indicate plaintiff’s true and actual status at the time of the issuance
of the same. Without costs. So ordered.
Paras, C. J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
[1] “Art. 144. When a man
and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not
married, or their marriage is void from the beginning, the property
acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or
their wages and salaries, shall be governed by the rules on
co-ownership.”
“Art. 485. The shares of the co-owners, in the benefits as well
as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests.
Any stipulation in the contract to the contrary shall be void.
“The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved.”
[2] Which case is, incidentally, relied upon by the court a quo in sustaining the claim of defendant.