G.R. No. 183606 - CHARLIE T. LEE, VS. ROSITA DELA PAZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , In Light of All Foregoing Considerations, it is hereby resolved, as it is resolved, that the claim of [herein respondent] Rosita dela Paz over Lot 10008, Mcad 585, situated in Brgy. San Juan, Antipolo City, BE GIVEN DUE COURSE . Consequently, the Order of Transfer of [Homestead] Rights issued on [1 December 1989] by then Director, Abelardo Palad, and the subsequent Homestead Application of Josefina delos Reyes, is hereby declared CANCELLED and without force and effect. [Respondent] Rosita dela Paz, is hereby ORDERED to file her Homestead Application over said Lot 10008, within sixty (60) days upon approval of the Order of Transfer of Rights by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources. [14] (Emphases supplied.) Since no appeal or motion for reconsideration of the foregoing DENR Region IV Resolution had been filed, it became final and executory per Order [15] of DENR Region IV dated 22 June 2001. Following the directive of the DENR Region IV in the said Resolution, respondent, after being issued a Transfer of Homestead Rights [16] on 20 March 2002, filed her homestead application, [17] still under Danga's original Homestead Application No. V-38136 (E-V-33129). The Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of DENR Region IV, however, issued on 15 July 2003 an Order [18] rejecting and/or canceling from the records respondent's homestead application because respondent assigned a portion of the property covered thereby in favor of Remedios dela Paz (Remedios) and Emiliana M. Camino. Respondent then filed a Free Patent Application covering the 143,417-square-meter property. However, considering respondent's assignment of a portion of her property to Remedios, respondent submitted a request for the subdivision of said property, together with the proposed Subdivision Plan. On 23 September 2003, the DENR Regional Technical Director approved respondent's Subdivision Plan. Subsequently, on 10 December 2003, Free Patent No. 045802-03-4722 and the corresponding OCT No. P-46 [19] were issued in respondent's name, while Free Patent No. 045802-03-4723 and the resulting OCT No. P-47 [20] were issued in Remedios' name, covering their respective subdivided portions of the property. On 3 May 2004, the MTCC rendered its Decision in favor of petitioner and other defendants in Civil Case No. 68-00. The MTCC dismissed respondent's Complaint for Forcible Entry on the ground that respondent failed to prove prior physical possession of the parcels of land in question. Prior physical possession of the property by the plaintiff is an indispensable requirement in the successful prosecution of a forcible entry case. Respondent's appeal of the aforesaid MTCC Decision before the RTC was docketed as Civil Case No. 04-361. Respondent presented before the RTC the free patent and certificate of title issued in her name for the property. The RTC, in its Decision dated 4 April 2005, favored respondent and, in effect, reversed and set aside the app