Manalastas vs. CAFebruary 8, 1993 | Nocon

Facts: On December 1949, Patricio Manalastas and Belen Manalastas bough a parcel of land from the Magat spouses which is approximately 64,060 sq meters. The Bureau of Lands approved two survey plans over the said land. One of the survey plans contained lots 4160 and 750. Lot 4160 was in the name of Patricio Manalastas. Its adjacent lot, Lot 750, belonged to Moises Cao. A fence of concrete hollow blocks was put up by Moises Cao to separate his lot from that of Manalastas.

Lot 4160 was used for residential and agricultural purposes. The residential portion is occupied by four householders, while the agricultural portion is cultivated by Felicisimo Balmeo, tenant of Patricio Manalastas.

Sometime in February 1985, Manalastas was informed by his tenant that, while he was cutting bamboo on Lot 4160, he was stopped by the heirs of Moises Cao and claimed that the property belonged to them. Manalastas went to verify their claims. He discovered that when Moises Cao was still alive, he filed an application for free patent title with Bureau of Lands which Manalastas did not receive any notice. It turns out that Moises Cao’s application for free patent contained only an area of 1,050 sq. meters but the original certificate of title issued to him contained about 4,114 sq meters. Patricio Manalastas discovered that said title embraced and covered certain portions of Lot 4160. He went to the farm and talked to the wife and children of the late Moises Cao and told them about the mistake. Patricio offered to settle the case but the wife and children refused, saying that they have already title under their name.

Petitioners filed an action for reconveyance against respondents. RTC dismissed the case due to prescription.

Issue: Which has better right over the property: the disposition of public agricultural land by a deed of sale over the same or its disposition by free patent?

Held: FREE PATENT. Since what is at stake here was public agricultural land, the procedure to obtain such land must be followed. Said

procedure is spelled out in Section 11, CA 141, as amended, which reads as follows:Sec. 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be disposed of only as follows, and not otherwise:

1. For homestead settlement.2. By sale.3. By lease.4. By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles (judicial OR administrative legislation)

Obviously, petitioners did not follow the procedure mandated by law. Even if petitioners could trace their deed of sale back to Adam and Eve, fill in every square inch of the land with agricultural tenants, have residential houses built every few meters here and there, pay the realty taxes religiously every year and have an approved Bureau of Lands Survey yearly, they will NOT become the owners of said parcel of land IF THEY WILL NOT follow the procedures above indicated.

Since private respondents' father, the deceased Moises Cao did follow the procedure outlined in the law, Moises Cao became the owner of the disputed parcel of land, as in fact, he was awarded title to all 3,134 square meters of it by no less than the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Arturo R. Tanco, Jr.

Petitioners could have tacked on to their length of possession of the Magat spouses and any predecessors-in-interest and then apply for judicial confirmation of their imperfect title. Sad to say, they did not.