FULGENCIO OCUMIN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Reversal of the judgment
of the Court of Appeals, which sustained that of the Lower Court — decreeing the ejectment
of petitioners Ocumin, et al. from the land in
litigation and its surrender to respondent Victoria Manza
— is what is sought in the instant petition for review on certiorari.

Victoria Manza owned a piece of land in Lopez, Quezon,
identified as Lot 8210. 
On March 16, 1951 she and Flora Rabulan
executed a “Kasunduan” with Fulgencio Ocumin by which the
latter undertook to construct a fishpond on the lot in consideration of his
free use and enjoyment thereof for six (6) years, after which it would be
turned over to Manza. 
Manza showed the land to Ocumin
who thereupon commenced work thereon.  Ocumin’s occupancy was however questioned by the Bureau of
Forestry because, as it turned out, the land on which he built the fishpond was
not Lot 8210 but in fact the adjoining one,
identified as Lot 5011, which was part of a public
forest.  Manza
having quickly disowned participation and responsibility in such improper
occupancy, only Ocumin and his workers were meted the
corresponding sanction.

Ocumin then applied for a fishery permit over Lot 5011. 
Manza did the same, thru her nephew, Vicente Olega.  The
conflicting applications gave rise to an administrative proceeding, docketed as
DANR Case No. 1458.  But while this case
was pending, Manza hied
herself to the Bureau of Lands and, on the representation that
Lot 5011 was an agricultural public land, without any claimant, was able to obtain a free patent over it, Numbered V-55447, and the
corresponding Original Certificate of Title (No. P-3580).  The Bureau of Lands soon discovered the
misrepresentation, however, and lost no time in instituting suit in the Court
of First Instance of Quezon to nullify the patent and
title thus issued.

DANR Case No. 1458
resulted in a decision dated December 18, 1969 finding that Ocumin
and his companions were “the bona-fide occupants of said land (Lot 5011),
paying forest charges or fees for their occupation ** and ** had converted said
land from the undeveloped mangrove swamp that it was before into the thriving,
prosperous fishpond that it is now,” and directing the issuance to Ocumin of a fishery permit over the lot “after the
declaration by the court of the nullity of Free Patent No. V-55447 and the corresponding
Original Certificate of Title No. P-3580 in the name of Victoria Manza and the reversion of the area covered thereby to the
mass of public domain.”^[1] That declaration came seven (7) years later,
when in the the suit for annulment of Manza’s free patent and title, judgment was rendered by the
Court of Appeals dated February 3, 1976, annulling said free patent and title
as prayed for, and commanding the reversion of the land to the public domain,
which judgment became final and executory on April
29, 1976.^[2]

In the meantime, Manza and Rabulan instituted in
the Justice of the Peace Court of
Lopez, Quezon, an action for unlawful detainer against Ocumin, on the
theory that under the “Kasunduan“ of March 16, 1951 the
latter’s rights to occupy, use and enjoy both Lots 8210 and 5011 had expired.  That Court rendered judgment on February 28, 1958 requiring Ocumin to vacate Lot 8210 but, on
the finding that the “kasunduan“
referred only to Lot 8210, dismissing the complaint as
to Lot 5011.  The
Court of First Instance, on appeal, however ruled that the “kasunduan“ did embrace
both lots and ordered Ocumin also to return Lot
5011 to Manza as well as to pay her P10,000.00 as
damages and P3,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of
the Court of First Instance.  Hence, the
instant recourse to this Court by Ocumin and his
co-petitioners.

In the light of the undisputed facts above briefly narrated, the
resolution of the case at bar is clear, simple, inescapable.  Manza has no right
whatever over Lot 5011, the free patent issued in her favor and the title subsquently obtained by her having been declared void on
account of fraud by final judgment of the Court of Appeals.  On the other hand, Ocumin’s
entitlement to the occupation of said lot and to a fishery permit in regard to it has been established
by final order of the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.  Manza has no right
to the possession of Lot 5011 at all, it being Ocumin,
on the contrary, who has that right.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolves to SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals under review, as well as those
thereby affirmed in whole or in part, and to ORDER the dismissal of the
complaint for ejectment against the petitioners as regards
Lot 5011.  This resolution is immediately
executory, and no motion for extension of time to
file a motion for reconsideration will be entertained.  IT IS SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Cruz, Paras*,
and Gancayco,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, pp.
41-45

^[2]
Id., pp. 72-78

* Designated a Special Member of the First Division