, VS. HEIRS OF FLORENCIO F. ENRIQUEZ, REPRESENTED BY ARMANDO ENRIQUEZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, declared: (i) petitioners as the true and absolute owners of Lot Nos. 3564, 3566, and 3567: and (ii) the free patent and OCT No. P-3,588 issued in Florencio's name covering Lot No. 3564 null and void. [33] The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [petitioners] and against [respondents]: 1) Declaring [petitioners] as the true and absolute owners of Lot Nos. 3564, 3566, and 3567; 2) Declaring Free Patent No. 097332-97-5432P, and [OCT P-5,388] issued pursuant thereto, null and void; 3) Declaring the Writ of Preliminary injunction previously issued in so far as it enjoined [respondents] from entering and occupying the subject premises, permanent; and 4) Declaring Special Civil Action No. 6256-571 pending before the [MTC] academic. SO ORDERED . [34] The RTC ruled that petitioners convincingly established their ownership over the subject lots through the Escritura de Venta and Affidavit executed by Florencio in 1952 and 1956, respectively, to recognize and acknowledge that said lots were purchased by Faustino for petitioners. In this regard, the RTC noted that Joaquin Enriquez (Joaquin), the youngest brother of Florencio, testified that the arrangement concerning the ownership of the subject lots was known to their siblings and that he in fact called respondents' attention to it when he heard that respondents were claiming ownership over them. The RTC added that as further narrated by Joaquin, Florencio merely administered said lots because petitioners were still young then. In this regard, the RTC highlighted that based on the evidence, petitioners have been in open, continuous, and exclusive possession of the subject lots for more than 30 years which, thus, vested them ownership through acquisitive prescription. [35] In contrast to petitioners, the RTC held that respondents only presented OCT No. P-3,588 covering Lot No. 3564 and the tax declarations covering Lot Nos. 3566 and 3567, all of which, at most, constituted only as evidence of ownership but did not prove their actual ownership of the subject lots. Since the ownership over the subject lots had already been conveyed to petitioners at the latest in 1956, the RTC held that the DENR no longer had jurisdiction over the same. Hence, the issuance of the free patent and OCT No. P-3,588 on July 18, 1997 in the name of Florencio was erroneous, rendering the same null and void ab initio . [36] Aggrieved, respondents sought reconsideration, [37] which was denied in an Order [38] dated October 5, 2009. Determined, they appealed before the CA. Meanwhile, in view of the RTC Decision, the ejectment case was dismissed by the MTC in a Decision dated April 4, 2005, which attained finality on April 29, 2005. [39] The CA Ruling In a Decision [40] dated January 8, 2014, the CA granted respondents' appeal, and accordingly, reversed and set aside the RTC's ruling. According to the CA, assuming that Faustino was the one who actually bought the subject lots from O