ARACELI MAYUGA, SUBSTITUTED BY MARILYN MAYUGA SANTILLAN FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THE HEIRS, PETITIONER, V. ANTONIO ATIENZA, REPRESENTING THE HEIRS OF ARMANDO[] ATIENZA; BENJAMIN…

Araceli Mayuga versus Antonio Atienza

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Araceli Mayuga, later substituted by Marilyn Mayuga Santillan on behalf of all the heirs, against Antonio Atienza, representing the heirs of Armando Atienza, and Benjamin Atienza, Junior, and others. The action below was one for recall and cancellation of two free patent applications and for reconveyance of two parcels of land in Odiongan, Romblon, which the petitioner claimed formed part of the estate of her late father, Perfecto Atienza. The case matters because it draws a sharp line between an action for declaration of nullity of a free patent and an action for reconveyance, and because it reminds the bar that fraud in obtaining a patent must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, never presumed.

Procedural History

Araceli Mayuga filed the original petition for cancellation and recall of the free patents and for reconveyance before the Regional Trial Court of Odiongan, Romblon, Branch 82. She later filed an amended complaint to implead the heirs of Armando Atienza and of Benjamin Atienza, Senior. The trial court ruled in her favor, directing the Register of Deeds of Romblon to cancel the certificates issued pursuant to the two free patents and ordering the defendants to reconvey her one third share. The defendants moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and they appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals granted the appeal. It reversed and set aside the trial court's decision and dismissed the amended complaint, holding on procedure that the trial court erred in not dismissing the amended complaint for failure to append a certification against forum shopping, and on the merits that the free patents could no longer be assailed under the rule of indefeasibility of the certificate of title after one year, that fraud was not substantiated, and that the petitioner failed to establish her title to the one third portion. The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

Perfecto Atienza died intestate on June 1, 1978. He left two lots in Budiong, Odiongan, Romblon, with a combined area of 574 square meters. His surviving children were Araceli Mayuga, Benjamin Atienza, Senior, and Armando Atienza. In 1992, free patents were issued in favor of Antonio Atienza, son of Armando, and Benjamin Atienza, each covering one of the two lots.

Araceli alleged that the patents were obtained through manipulation and misrepresentation, that she was never notified of the applications or of any hearing, and that the respondents took advantage of her absence in the United States. The respondents answered that their application rested on a Confirmation Affidavit of Distribution of Real Estate executed by Perfecto himself on June 22, 1973, a notarized document confirming a partition made in 1960, and that they and their predecessors had possessed the land for decades.

The trial court found fraud because the applications were processed without the petitioner's knowledge and without notice to her, and it ordered cancellation of the certificates and reconveyance of her one third share. The Court of Appeals reversed, giving weight to the presumption of regularity in the issuance of the patents, to the posted notice of application, and to the notarized confirmation affidavit, and finding that the petitioner had not established her ownership of the disputed portion.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court and dismissing the amended complaint for cancellation of the free patents and reconveyance.
• Whether or not the action for declaration of nullity of the free patents may be pursued simultaneously with the action for reconveyance.
• Whether or not fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining the free patents were proved by clear and convincing evidence.
• Whether or not the petitioner established the two essential facts required to sustain an action for reconveyance.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1080 of the Civil Code provides:

Should a person make a partition of his estate by an act inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall be respected, insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs.

This provision bears on the case because the Court assumed that the notarized confirmation affidavit executed by Perfecto during his lifetime could operate as a valid partition of his estate, which the petitioner could not overturn by mere self-serving allegations.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition lacks merit and that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error. It followed the appellate court's approach of treating the amended complaint as raising two distinct causes of action, one for declaration of nullity of the free patents and one for reconveyance, and it assessed each on its own merits.

On the second issue, the Court held that the two actions cannot be pursued simultaneously. An action for declaration of nullity of a free patent and certificate of title requires allegations that the plaintiff owned the contested lot prior to the issuance of the patent and that the defendant committed fraud or mistake, and the nullity arises not from the fraud but from the fact that the land lies beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow. An action for reconveyance, by contrast, respects the free patent and the certificate of title as incontrovertible and seeks only the transfer of property wrongfully or erroneously registered in the defendant's name. Because the former does not recognize the indefeasibility of the title while the latter does, they may be pursued only alternatively.

On the third issue, the Court held that the action for declaration of nullity must fail because the respondents satisfactorily complied with the requirements for the issuance of a free patent, and the grant enjoys the presumption of regularity. The Court laid down the governing standard:

Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, with mere preponderance of evidence not being adequate.

The petitioner's claim that she was not notified was bare and self-serving, and the records showed that a notice of application for free patent was posted in a conspicuous place on the land, on the bulletin board of the barrio, and at the door of the municipal building. The notarized confirmation affidavit executed by Perfecto carried the presumption of validity.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the petitioner likewise failed to prove her cause of action for reconveyance. Two facts must be alleged and proved: that the plaintiff was the owner of the land or possessed it in the concept of owner, and that the defendant illegally divested him of ownership and dispossessed him. These were not alleged, and the petitioner did not prove her entitlement to one third of the lots by succession. She overlooked that Perfecto executed the confirmation affidavit almost five years before his death, and under Article 1080 a partition made by an act inter vivos during the owner's lifetime is respected insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs.

Doctrine

An action for declaration of nullity of a free patent and certificate of title is distinct from an action for reconveyance. The first asserts the plaintiff's pre-existing ownership and attacks the patent as void because the land was beyond the jurisdiction of the land bureau to grant; the second respects the certificate of title as incontrovertible and seeks only to transfer property wrongfully registered in another's name. They cannot be pursued simultaneously, only alternatively.

Fraud and misrepresentation as grounds for cancellation of a patent and annulment of title must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, not by mere preponderance, and are never presumed. A free patent issued in the regular performance of official duty enjoys the presumption of regularity.

To sustain reconveyance, the complaint must allege and the plaintiff must prove that the plaintiff owned the land or possessed it in the concept of owner, and that the defendant illegally divested him of ownership and dispossessed him.

Under Article 1080 of the Civil Code, a person may partition his estate during his lifetime by an act inter vivos, and such partition is respected insofar as it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court and dismissing the amended complaint was affirmed; the respondents prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line that fraud in obtaining a patent is never presumed and must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and that nullity of a free patent and reconveyance are alternative, not simultaneous, remedies. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between the two actions and the quantum of proof required to overturn a free patent.