GUILLERMO JAVIER, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (15TH DIVISION), DEMETRIO CARINGAL, SPOUSES DIONISIO CAAY AND NAZARIA CARINGAL, RESPONDENTS.

PETITIONER GUILLERMO JAVIER seeks reversal of the decision of the
Court of Appeals^[1]
in CA-G.R. CV No. 13112 dated 26 March 1991 setting aside the decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Balayan, Batangas dated 7 July 1986 which declared
petitioner the rightful owner of the disputed
land.

On 2 April 1985, petitioner filed an action for reconveyance and
recovery of possession with damages against respondents Demetrio Caringal and
spouses Dionisio Caay and Nazaria Caringal involving a parcel of land situated
at Barangay No. IV, Poblacion, Balayan, Batangas, with an area of 973 square
meters. The evidence for the petitioner
shows that the property was the subject of a prior Miscellaneous Sales
Application No. 14-2-305 filed by petitioner with the Bureau of Lands on 2
April 1973. Petitioner claims that he
has been in peaceful and adverse possession of the property since 1971 and this
possession was confirmed by Bureau of Lands Investigator Felix O. Laude, Sr.,
when the latter recommended that the miscellaneous sales application of
petitioner be given due course.

On 14 August 1974, petitioner sold the land covered by his sales
application to Santiago de Guzman by virtue of a deed of absolute sale. During this time, respondents Dionisio Caay
and Cesaria Caringal constructed a house on the disputed lot with permission
and upon tolerance of Santiago de Guzman. Respondent Dionisio Caay was then the driver of Santiago de Guzman.

On 31 August 1981, petitioner repurchased the property from
Santiago de Guzman with knowledge that the house of respondents Dionisio Caay
and Cesaria Caringal was existing on the property but did not immediately eject
them as respondent Caay was a good friend of petitioner. Petitioner later discovered that in 1982,
respondent Demetrio Caringal, father of respondent Cesaria Caringal, was
awarded by the Bureau of Lands a free patent over the property in question and
was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-462 in his name.

On the other hand,
evidence for private respondents shows that on 1 July 1981 respondent Demetrio
Caringal filed a free patent application covering the disputed property; that
his possession started in 1981 when it was sold to him by Gavino Tesorero who
appeared to be the only surviving heir of Gregoria Pineda, the original
applicant for free patent. Gregoria
Pineda had been in possession of the property since 1942 and had applied in
1951 for a revocable permit with
the Bureau of Lands in Tanduay, Manila. During the lifetime of Gregoria, respondent Caringal had introduced
improvements on the property including the house presently occupied by
respondents Dionisio Caay and Cesaria Caringal.

After Gregoria died in November 1976, her surviving heir, Gavino
Tesorero, sold the disputed property to respondent Caringal in 1981 for a
consideration of P5,000.00 as evidenced by an affidavit executed by
Tesorero. After proper inspection and
investigation by the Bureau of Lands, the free patent application of respondent
Caringal was given due course. In 1982,
the land was awarded by the Bureau of Lands to respondent Demetrio Caringal
under Free Patent Application No. 18220 and registered under Original
Certificate of Title No. P-462 in his name.

On 7 July 1986, the trial court rendered its decision declaring
petitioner the legal owner of the disputed property. It also ordered the Register of Deeds of Batangas to cancel the
name and personal circumstances of respondent Caringal as the registered owner
in OCT No. T-462 and to substitute, in lieu thereof, the name and personal
circumstances of petitioner. The court
further directed the Register of Deeds to issue to petitioner an owner’s
duplicate certificate of OCT No. T-462 upon payment by the latter of the fees
required by law. The court also ordered
respondents Demetrio Caringal, spouses Dionisio Caay and Cesaria Caringal to
pay petitioner jointly and severally litigation expenses in the amount of
P2,000.00 and attorney’s fees in the amount of P3,000.00.

In granting the complaint, the trial court found circumstances
showing that fraud attended the issuance of the free patent thus making it null
and void, to wit: (a) The existence of
a prior miscellaneous sales application of petitioner should have barred the
acceptance and processing of the free patent
application of respondent Demetrio Caringal; (b) The said free patent was
issued on 21 August 1982 to Caringal without the technical description of the
property having been first issued; and, (c) The survey plan of Gregoria Pineda,
original applicant for free patent and predecessor-in-interest of respondent
Caringal, was spurious as it was approved only after her death.

Respondent Demetrio Caringal appealed to the Court of Appeals
which on 26 March 1991 overturned the decision of the trial court and ordered
the dismissal of the complaint of petitioner. In finding for respondent Caringal, the appellate court cited the
following reasons for its decision: (a)
While petitioner had filed a prior sales application of the property in 1973,
no action on the application was taken by the Bureau of Lands even after
respondent Caringal filed a free patent application in 1981; the mere filing of
the miscellaneous sales application does not mean that petitioner Guillermo
Javier had acquired any vested right or title over the disputed property, the
application being evidence only of a claim over the land; (b) Petitioner had
not established continuous, adverse and open possession of the land because he
sold his rights over the same to Santiago de Guzman in 1974 and reacquired the
same from the latter in 1981. There was
also no evidence that petitioner occupied and possessed the land under claim of
ownership after he reacquired the same. On the other hand, unrebutted evidence for private respondents shows
their continuous possession and that of their predecessor-in-interest since
1951 until 1981 when respondent Demetrio Caringal filed an application for free
patent; and, (c) No survey plan was ever submitted by petitioner for the lot in
question. Thus, it is doubtful whether
the lot claimed by petitioner, which contains 1,000 square meters, is the same
property awarded to respondent Caringal by virtue of the free patent which
covers a 973-square meter lot.

Hence, this petition alleging that respondent Court of Appeals
gravely erred (a) in ruling that an action for reconveyance of title must be
commenced within one (1) year from the issuance of the original certificate of
title; (b) in misapprehending
the facts and disregarding the findings of fact of the trial court that fraud
attended the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. P-462 in the name of
respondent Caringal; and, (c) in declaring petitioner as not having established
continuous, adverse and open possession contrary to the testimonial and
documentary evidence of petitioner on record.

We cannot sustain petitioner. The basic rule is that after the lapse of one (1) year, a decree of
registration is no longer open to review or attack although its issuance is
attended with actual fraud. This does
not mean however that the aggrieved party is without a remedy at law. If the property has not yet passed to an
innocent purchaser for value, an action for reconveyance is still available.^[2]
The decree becomes incontrovertible and can no longer be reviewed after one (1)
year from the date of the decree so that the only remedy of the landowner whose
property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another’s name is to
bring an ordinary action in court for reconveyance, which is an action in personam and is always available as long as the property has not passed
to an innocent third party for value. If the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for
value, the remedy is an action for damages. In this case, the disputed property is still registered in the name of
respondent Demetrio Caringal, so that petitioner was correct in availing
himself of the procedural remedy of reconveyance.

However, despite the availability to petitioner of the remedy of
reconveyance, this Court finds no merit in petitioner’s claim that he has legal
title over the property in question that will justify its return to him. Petitioner failed to show sufficient proof
of ownership over the land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-462. In civil cases, the burden of proof is on
the plaintiff to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. If he claims a right granted or created by
law, he must prove his claim by competent evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the
weakness of that of his opponent.^[3]

In the case at bar, petitioner as plaintiff in the trial court
tried to prove his ownership over the property registered in the name of
respondent Caringal by a miscellaneous sales application he filed with the
Bureau of Lands and by his continuous possession thereof since 1971 when he
applied for a sales patent.

The records show that the property subject of petitioner’s
Miscellaneous Sales Application contained an area of 1,000 square meters and is
particularly bounded as follows: on the
North, by Gregoria Pineda; on the East, by a river; on the South, by Balayan
Bay; and, on the West, by Severino Labrador, situated in the Barrio of
Boulevard, Balayan, Batangas^[4]. On the other hand, the land subject of the
controversy which was awarded to respondent Demetrio Caringal by virtue of free
patent and registered in his name under Original Certificate of Title No. P-462
contained an area of 973 square meters and is bounded on the Northeast, by
Paula Tesorero; on the Southeast, by Guillermo Javier; on the Southwest, by
Francisco Espineli; and, on the Northwest,
by Gregoria Pineda^[5].

However, in his complaint for reconveyance which he filed with
the trial court, petitioner described the parcel of land he sought to recover
as –

A parcel of land situated at Boulevard, Balayan, Batangas. Bounded on the North by the property of
Gregoria Pineda; on the East by River; on the South by Salvage Zone; and on the
West by the property of Reneirio Ramos, containing an area of ONE THOUSAND
(1,000) SQUARE METERS, more or less.^[6]

The evidence for petitioner, which the court upheld, showed that
petitioner had been in possession of the parcel of land described in his complaint since 1970 and had
introduced improvements thereon; that petitioner paid realty taxes as early as
1974; that District Land Officer Constante Q. Asuncion testified that he
conducted an ocular inspection of the land subject of the miscellaneous sales
application and found petitioner to be in possession thereof and had
constructed four (4) houses of light materials thereon.^[7]

On the other hand, the evidence for respondent Demetrio Caringal
as found by the Court of Appeals showed that as early as 1942 Gregoria Pineda
had occupied the disputed lot covered by OCT No. P-462, and upon her death in
1976, her brother and only heir, Gavino Tesorero, succeeded to her rights over
the lot; then in 1981, respondent Caringal bought the rights over the lot from
Gavino Tesorero and later filed an application for free patent; on 7 August
1981, District Land Officer Constante Q. Asuncion issued a certification to the
Director of Lands that respondent Caringal and his predecessors-in-interest had
been in open, continuous and exclusive possession thereof and had introduced
improvements thereon consisting of fruit-bearing coconut trees and banana
plants; respondent Caringal had paid realty taxes thereon for the years 1983 to
1985; and, respondent Caringal has free patent over the property and was issued
OCT No. P-­462.

Culled from the evidence on record, there is serious doubt on the
precise identity of the parcel of land petitioner seeks to recover. The description and boundaries of the land
allegedly possessed by petitioner and which was the subject of his application
for sales patent differ from the parcel of land he described in his complaint
for reconveyance. What petitioner seeks
to recover in his complaint is the parcel of land covered by OCT No. P-462
which he claims to have been fraudulently registered in the name of Caringal. But, interestingly, the description and
boundaries of the lot covered by OCT No. P-462 are totally different from the
description in petitioner’s complaint for recovery of ownership before the
trial court against respondent Caringal in whose name OCT No. P-462 is
registered.

In order to maintain an action to recover ownership of real
property, the person who claims that he has a better right to it must prove not
only his ownership of the same but he must also satisfactorily prove the
identity thereof.^[8]
In this case, failing to fix the identity of the property he claims, petitioner’s
action for reconveyance must fail. But,
assuming in gratia argumenti that the property which petitioner
seeks to be reconveyed to him is the same as that covered by OCT No. P-462 in
the name of respondent Caringal, petitioner has not proved his ownership of the
same. The filing of the miscellaneous
sales application did not vest title upon petitioner over the property as there
was no showing that his application was approved by the Bureau of Lands or that
a sales patent over the property was granted to him prior to the issuance of
free patent and OCT No. P-462 in favor of respondent Caringal.

Under the Public Land Act, even the approval of a sales
application merely authorizes the applicant to take possession of the land so
that he can comply with the requirements prescribed by law before a final
patent can be issued in his favor. Meanwhile, the Government still remains the owner thereof, as in fact
the application can still be cancelled and the land awarded to another
applicant, if it be shown that the legal requirements have not been complied
with. Hence, when the Bureau of Lands
did not take action on the sales application of petitioner but instead issued
the Free Patent and title to another applicant, herein respondent Caringal, it
was only then that the Government was divested of its ownership and the land
was segregated from the mass of public domain, converting it into private
property.^[9]

Moreover, the record shows, which petitioner admits, that after
the filing on 7 April 1973 of the miscellaneous sales application with the
Bureau of Lands, he sold the property in 1974 to Santiago de Guzman. The records fail to disclose that the sale
was approved by the Bureau of Lands. Subsequently, Santiago de Guzman resold the property to petitioner. The sale of the property by petitioner to de
Guzman pending the approval of the former’s sales application without the
approval of the Bureau of Lands violated Sec. 29 of C.A. No. 141 which
provides:

After title has been granted, the purchaser may not, within a
period of ten years from such cultivation or grant, convey or encumber or
dispose said lands or rights thereon to any person, corporation or association,
without prejudice to any right or interest of the government in the land: Provided, That any sale and encumbrance made
in violation of the provisions of this section, shall be null and void and
shall produce the effect of annulling the acquisition and reverting the
property and all rights thereto to the State, and all payments on the purchase
price theretofore made to the Government shall be forfeited.

Clearly, this provision contemplates a sale and encumbrance that
a purchaser may desire to make during the pendency of his application and
before his compliance with the requirements of the law.^[10]
Since the application is still pending consideration and the rights of the
applicant have not yet been determined, he cannot make any transfer that may
affect the land, without the approval of the government. Thus, the law allows an applicant
“after the cultivation of the land has begun” to convey or encumber
his rights to any person “provided such conveyance or encumbrance does not
affect any right or interest of the Government on the land.” And to
safeguard such right or interest, previous approval of the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources is required. Such approval becomes unnecessary after the right of the purchaser is
already deemed vested, the issuance of the patent being a mere ceremony.^[11]

In this case, the sale of the property covered by a pending
application for a sales patent without the required approval of the government
produced the effect of annulling the sales application as if none had been
filed. Thus, the Bureau of Lands could
consider and approve subsequent applications for the acquisition of the
property filed by other persons with the necessary qualifications. In granting the free patent applied for by
respondent Caringal which led to the issuance of OCT No. P-462 in his favor,
the Bureau of Lands acted regularly within its authority.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the
Court of Appeals dated 26 March 1991 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Justice Nicolas P. Lapeña, Jr., concurred in by Justices Ricardo L.
Pronove, Jr., and Consuelo Y. Santiago.

^[2]
Armamento v. Guerrero, No.
L-34228, 21 February 1980, 96 SCRA 178.

^[3]
Pornellosa v. Land Tenure
Administration, No. L-14040, 31 January 1961, 1 SCRA 375.

^[4]
Exhibit “E” for the Plaintiff, Records.

^[5]
Exhibit “F,” Records.

^[6]
Records, p. 1.

^[7]
Rollo, p. 40.

^[8]
Sese v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 66186. 31 July 1987, 152 SCRA 585.

^[9]
Narciso Peña, Philippine Law on
Natural Resources, 1982 Edition, pp. 48-49.

^[10]
Antonio H. Noblejas and Edilberto H. Noblejas, Registration of Land Titles
and Deeds, 1986
Edition, pp. 385-386.

^[11]
Ibid.