G.R. No. 190922 October 11, 2017
FRANCISCA TAAR, JOAQUINA TAAR, LUCIA TAAR and HEIRS OF OSCAR L. GALO, Petitioners vs. CLAUDIO LAWAN, MARCELINO L. GALO, ARTEMIO ABARQUEZ, AUGUSTO B. LAWAN, ADOLFO L. GALO and EDUARDO R. ERMITA, Respondents

FACTS

The case involves conflicting free patent applications over a 71,014-square-meter parcel of land in Tarlac. Petitioners, heirs of Pantaleon Taar, Alipio Duenas, and Fortunata Duenas, based their claim on a 1948 Court of First Instance decision approving a partition agreement concerning inherited lands. In 2000, they prepared a subdivision plan over the property, which was approved in 2001, and subsequently applied for free patents. Respondents, Claudio Lawan et al., filed a verified protest, asserting their own and their predecessors’ actual, physical, and exclusive possession since 1948. The DENR Regional Executive Director, after an ocular inspection finding respondents as the actual occupants with no traces of petitioners’ possession, cancelled the subdivision plan and denied petitioners’ applications in a May 29, 2002 Order. This order attained finality as no appeal was taken. Respondents then secured free patents and titles in 2004.
Petitioners later filed a petition with the DENR Secretary to annul the 2002 Order, alleging extrinsic fraud and deprivation of due process. A new investigating team found evidence of petitioners’ possession, leading the Secretary to order the cancellation of respondents’ patents. On appeal, the Office of the President reversed this, reinstating the final 2002 DENR Order. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ subsequent certiorari petition, deeming it an inappropriate remedy. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the President committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the DENR Regional Director’s 2002 Order which denied petitioners’ free patent applications.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the rulings of the Office of the President and the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that a judgment approving the subdivision of a parcel of land, such as the 1948 partition decree, does not automatically confer ownership or preclude other parties with a better right from applying for free patents. The 1948 decision merely partitioned properties among the heirs; it did not constitute a titling decree or a declaration of ownership over the specific public land in question. Entitlement to agricultural lands of the public domain requires strict compliance with the Public Land Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 141 ), which mandates open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.
The DENR Regional Director’s 2002 Order, which found that respondents were the actual occupants and that petitioners failed to prove such requisite possession, had already attained finality. The Office of the President correctly held that the DENR Secretary erred in revisiting and reversing this final order. The principle of finality of judgment bars its re-litigation. Furthermore, the remedy of certiorari was correctly dismissed by the Court of Appeals as it is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Petitioners’ failure to appeal the 2002 Order within the reglementary period rendered it final and executory. The subsequent issuance of free patents and titles to respondents, who demonstrated compliance with the legal requirements for possession, was thus proper.