CELSO AMARANTE HEIRS, NAMELY:  FELOMINA, FERNANDA, GENARO, CARMELITA, CRISPIN, CORAZON, ISIDRA, LYDIA, ANTONIO, BIENVENIDO, NATHALIA, DEGUILO, DOMINADOR, ZOSIMA, HUGO AND LORNA,…

Celso Amarante Heirs versus Bolo

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the heirs of Celso Amarante against Gregorio Bolo and the heirs of Felix Malonis. The petitioners seek to recover a twenty hectare parcel of unregistered agricultural land in the mountains of Bindoy, Negros Oriental, which they claim was taken from them by fraud and intimidation. The case matters because the Court confronts two questions of lasting importance: how pleadings are characterized by their substance rather than their caption, and how long possession of public agricultural land ripens into private ownership in favor of a vulnerable ethnic minority, the Aetas.

Procedural History

The petitioners first filed a complaint for recovery of the land in August 1954. That complaint was dismissed in January 1962 for failure of counsel to appear, but the dismissal was without prejudice. The petitioners refiled in December 1962 before the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental.

On 17 September 1984, Branch 42 of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City dismissed the complaint, declared the sale between the heirs of Felix Malonis and Gregorio Bolo valid, and declared Bolo owner of the land. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in full in a decision dated 3 April 1986. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied the motion on the ground that it was filed late, and ordered entry of judgment.

The Supreme Court set aside that resolution and the entry of judgment, and the petition for review proceeded. On 26 October 1987, the Supreme Court set aside the trial court decision and remanded the case for reception of additional evidence, directing the trial court to submit a report on the evidence and its findings of fact. After the trial court rendered its report, the Supreme Court resolved both the petition and the underlying case on the merits.

Facts

Lot 1236 was originally occupied and cultivated by Malonis Infiel, a native Aeta, long before the Second World War. He planted three hundred coconut trees, nineteen mango trees, and thirty-three bamboo groves on the land. Upon his death, Lot 1236 was inherited by his six children by his two wives: Silverio Amarante, Bohemia Infiel, Belta Infiel, Apolonia Infiel, and Inojaria Infiel on one side, and Felix Malonis on the other. A separate five hectare lot, Lot 1237, went to Felix Malonis alone.

The petitioners, grandchildren and descendants of Malonis Infiel through Elena Infiel, remained in peaceful possession of Lot 1236, declared it for taxation in the name of the heirs of Malonis Infiel in September 1953, and paid the taxes. In 1953, Gregorio Bolo, the common law husband of a granddaughter of Felix Malonis, caused the survey of both lots and occupied Lot 1236, claiming he had bought it from the heirs of Felix Malonis. He relied on a tax declaration in the name of the heirs of Felix Malonis issued in August 1948.

To drive the petitioners off the land, Bolo filed a criminal case for qualified theft and another for light threats. Both were dismissed. He then threatened to kill Celso Amarante, and the family abandoned the land, with Celso the last to leave. The trial court, after remand, found that the petitioners and their predecessors had possessed and cultivated Lot 1236 long before the war, that tax declarations are not evidence of ownership, and that the deed of sale was executed by illiterate Aetas in a language they did not understand and without the required approval.

Issues

• Whether or not the action should be treated as one for quieting of title rather than merely for recovery of possession, based on the facts alleged rather than the caption of the complaint.
• Whether or not the petitioners had acquired ownership of Lot 1236 through long possession of public agricultural land.
• Whether or not the Absolute Deed of Sale in favor of Gregorio Bolo is valid and enforceable.

Applicable Provisions

Article 476 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title. An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.

This provision supplies the correct characterization of the petitioners' action, since the deed of sale cast a cloud on their title.

Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 1942, the Public Land Act, provides:

Section 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such land or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit: x x x (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of the title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant, and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.

This provision is the basis for holding that the petitioners became owners of Lot 1236 by operation of law once the thirty year period of possession was complete.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the caption of a pleading does not control. What gives meaning to a pleading is the facts alleged in it. Courts are not bound by a false description, and they look to the substance of the averments. On that basis, the action was not merely for recovery of possession but also for quieting of title under Article 476 of the Civil Code, because the deed of sale was apparently valid but in truth invalid and prejudicial to the petitioners' title.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioners had acquired ownership of Lot 1236. The coconut trees were about seventy years old and the mango trees had trunks of great circumference, showing that Malonis Infiel had occupied the land long before the war. Tacking his possession to theirs, the possession exceeded thirty years, the period of extraordinary prescription. More importantly, under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, the petitioners had complied with the requirements of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of public agricultural land for at least thirty years. The Court quoted its own ruling that such land is converted to private property by the mere lapse of the period, by operation of law, and that registration merely recognizes a title already vested.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Absolute Deed of Sale was null and void insofar as it covered Lot 1236. The vendors were illiterate Aetas, the sale was in a language they did not understand, and it lacked the required approval. At most, the sale could convey only the one sixth share of Felix Malonis.

Doctrine

First, the nature of an action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint, not by its caption. A court may treat a complaint as one for quieting of title when the averments show a cloud cast on the plaintiff's title under Article 476 of the Civil Code.

Second, open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of alienable public agricultural land for at least thirty years, personally or through predecessors in interest, converts the land to private property by operation of law. Confirmation proceedings do not confer title but merely recognize a title already vested under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.

Third, tax declarations and tax receipts are not evidence of ownership and cannot overcome proof of prior possession and cultivation.

Disposition

The Court set aside the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, declared the petitioners the owners of Lot 1236, and held the deed of sale null and void as to that lot.

Remember This

Memorize this line: possession of public agricultural land for thirty years converts it to private property by operation of law, and registration only confirms a title already vested. Examiners use this case to test the rule that the caption does not control the nature of an action, and the doctrine that long possession is equivalent to a government grant.