G.R. No. 223763 - ADORACION L. BASILIO AND LOLITA P. LUCERO, VS. PERLA CALLO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, ordered respondent to reconvey and peacefully surrender possession of the subject lot to petitioners, and to pay P50,000.00 attorney's fees and the costs of suit. [25] Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [26] dated September 30, 2015, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC Decision, holding that petitioners tailed to show clear and convincing evidence of their title to the subject lot and the fact of fraud on the part of respondent in registering the same, and thereby dismissed the complaint. [27] Dissatisfied, petitioners sought reconsideration, which was, however, denied in a Resolution [28] dated March 18, 2016; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly dismissed the complaint. The Court's Ruling The petition is partly meritorious. At the time respondent filed her free patent application before the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office III-3, Olongapo City (CENRO) on February 9, 2006, [29] the governing law was Section 44, Chapter VII of Commonwealth Act No. (CA) 141, [30] as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 6940, [31] which laid down the requirements an applicant must satisfy before a free patent is granted , thus: SECTION 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is not the owner of more than twelve (12) hectares and who, for at least thirty years (30) prior to the effectivity of this amendatory Act , has continuously occupied and cultivated , either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest a tract or tracts of agricultural public lands subject to disposition, who shall have paid the real estate tax thereon while the same has not been occupied by any person shall be entitled, under the provisions of this Chapter to have a free patent issued to him for such tract or tracts of such land not to exceed twelve (12) hectares. (Emphases supplied). The case of Taar v. Lawan [32] summarized the concurring requirements a free patent applicant must satisfy, namely: (1) the applicant must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines; (2) the applicant must not own more than 12 hectares of land; (3) the applicant or his or her predecessor-in-interest must have continuously occupied and cultivated the land; (4) the continuous occupation and cultivation must be for a period of at least 30 years before April 15, 1990, which is the date of effectivity of RA 6940; and (5) payment of real estate taxes on the land while it has not been occupied by other persons. [33] In the present case, respondent admitted having come into possession and cultivation of the subject lot only by virtue of the mortgage executed by the Luceros . [34] Hence her possession fell short of the legal requisites considering that: ( a ) possession was not ( i ) in the concept of owner since she had effectively affirmed petitioners' ownership when she and her husband filed the DARAB petition for security of tenure as tenants in 19