Republic of the Philippines

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
OFFICE
Province of Cagayan
Tuguegarao City

CECILIA L. DUQUE,
Protestant,

- versus

JAYSON MAMAUAG and

JAM KEIRAN G. MAMAUAG
Respondents.

x---------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
(of the protestant)

UNTO THIS HONORABLE OFFICE, Protestant through the

undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this Position paper and in
support thereof, state:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The case at bar springs from respondent’s Free Patent

Application, covering the entire Lot 1385 PLS-612-D under CSD-af-
02-011542-D which the protestant believes exceeded and
overlapped the southern portion of their Lot 1391 duly titled under
her father’s name as evidenced by TCT No. T-350. This protest
sought to cancel and deny any plan that may be issued in favor of
the respondents on Lot No. Lot 1385, PLS-612-D located at
Sinicking, Rizal, Cagayan and to deny the application for titling of
the respondents over the portion of the lots owned by herein
protestant.

THE PARTIES

Page 1 of 7
 Protestant CECILIA L. DUQUE is a Filipino, of legal age,
widow and a resident of Barangay Duyun, Rizal, Cagayan where she
may be served with office orders and other processes.

While respondents are JAYSON MAMAUAG and JAM KEIRAN

G. MAMAUAG, both are Filipinos, of legal age and residents of
Sinicking, Rizal, Cagayan.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Federico Ladera, the father of herein protestant is the

registered owner of Lot No. 1391, Pls-612-D covered by TCT
No. T-350 containing an area of Eighty One Thousand Three
Hundred Sixty Six (81,366) square meters located in the barrio
of Sinicking, Rizal, Cagayan1;

2. FEDERICO LADERA died sometime in the year 1985, hence

the petitioner as one of the legal heirs of the former became a
co-owner of said lot;

3. That the said parcel of land has been under the possession of
the protestant and his predecessor-in-interest as early as in
the year 19672;

4. That the claim of ownership by the protestant as a co-owner of

the Lot 1391 is evidenced by the following:

a. A document dated 06 June 2017 executed by Lovely G.

Mamauag recognizing that she was hired by the owner
of the subject lot to till the southern portion of subject
land3;

b. Tax declaration of real property4 under the name of

Federico Ladera which was provisionally marked by
the protestant and attached herewith;

c. A document dated 10 March 2018 executed by herein

protestant and Pepe Pascual as evidence that the latter
1
Annex “A” is a copy of TCT No. T-350, and Annex “F and series” are copies of Real Property Tax Receipts .
2
Annex “M” is a copy of Extrajudicial Partition and Cession of Right in favor of FredericoLadera.
3
Annex “G” is a copy of a document dated 06 June 2017 executed by Lovely G. Mamauag.
4
Annex “E” is a copy ot Tax declaration of real property with PIN 002-21-0006-001-53.

Page 2 of 7
 received from the former Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000) as a return of amount borrowed by
protestant and the return of the lot as a consideration
of the amount borrowed5; and
d. A certification dated 22 September 2004 from the
Office of the Municipal Agriculturist of Rizal, Cagayan
certifying that the protestant is one of the actual
farmers/tillers of Lot No. 1391 with title No. T-350 6.

5. Adjoining the southern portion of Lot 1391 is Lot 1385 Pls-

612-D7;

6. Respondents Jayson Mamauag and Jam Keiran G. Mamauag

filed their Free Patent Application claiming rights over the
entire Lot 1385 Pls-612-D under CSD-af-02-011542-D;

7. Protestant, believing that the area that the respondents

applied for free patent exceeded and has overlapped the
southern portion of their Lot 1391, wrote a letter sometime in
September 2016 addressed to DENR Regional Office to hold in
abeyance the free patent application of the respondents until
their issue of overlapping of lots will be resolved. Her letter
complaint was later referred to CENRO Solana Office for
further investigation ad proper evaluation;

8. On May 23, 2017 a dialogue between the protestant and

respondent was held at the Office of the ARD for Management
Services, DENR Regional Office (RO2) together with some
officials of DENR Regional Office 8;

9. During the dialogue, it was revealed that Lot 1391, Pls-612-D

covered by TCT No. T-350 and Lot 1385, Pls-612-D subdivided
under approved survey plan no. Csd-af-02-011542-D
overlapped each other and that it was recommended that the
Free Patent Application of the respondents covering the said
plan Csd-af-02-011542-D be held pending until the
discrepancies be settled;
5
Annex “H” is a copy of a document dated 10 March 2018 executed by herein protestant and
Pepe Pascual.
6
Annex “J” is a copy of certification dated 22 September 2004 from the Office of the Municipal
Agriculturist of Rizal, Cagayan.
7
Annex “B” is a copy the sketch plan of land of Lot 1391 Pls-612-D and Annex “F” is a copy of
sketch plan showing the overlapped portion of protestant’s registered lot.
8
Annex “C and series” are copies of the minutes of the dialogue held at DENR Regional Office
between the parties.

Page 3 of 7
 10. The presiding officer during the dialogue advised the
parties to amicably settle their issues since they are close
relatives. However, despite earnest efforts on the part of the
protestant to reach out the respondents, the latter still refused
to communicate with the former9;

11. Preliminary hearing was terminated on 04 May 2018

where both parties offered and marked their respective
documentary exhibits. Thereafter, ocular inspection was
conducted and after which both parties were ordered to file
their position papers.

ISSUE

I. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS’ FREE PATENT

APPLICATION MAY INCLUDE A PORTION OF A PARCEL
OF LAND ALREADY COVERED BY A TORRENS TITLE

ARGUMENT

RESPONDENTS’ FREE PATENT

APPLICATION SHOULD NOT
INCLUDE A PARCEL OF LAND
COVERED BY A TORRENS TITLE

The Government is required under the Torrens system of

registration to issue an official certificate of title to attest to the fact
that the person named in the certificate is the owner of the property
therein described, subject to such liens and encumbrances as
thereon noted or what the law warrants or reserves. 10 The objective
is to obviate possible conflicts of title by giving the public the right
to rely upon the face of the Torrens certificate and to dispense, as a
rule, with the necessity of inquiring further. The Torrens system
gives the registered owner complete peace of mind, in order that he
will be secured in his ownership as long as he has not voluntarily
disposed of any right over the covered land. 11
9
Annex “D and series” are copies of endorsement from the Office of the Punong Barangay of
Sinicking, Rizal, Cagayan and the minutes of the confrontation between herein protestant and
respondents.
10
Republic v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 133168, March 28, 2006,485 SCRA 424; citing Noblejas, Land
Titles and Deeds, 1986 ed., p. 32.
11
Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-46626-27, December 27, 1979, 94 SCRA 865, 874.

Page 4 of 7
 The Government has adopted the Torrens system due to its
being the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land
titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership
is established and recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land
on the assurance that the sellers title thereto is valid, he should not
run the risk of being told later that his acquisition was ineffectual
after all, which will not only be unfair to him as the purchaser, but
will also erode public confidence in the system and will force land
transactions to be attended by complicated and not necessarily
conclusive investigations and proof of ownership. The further
consequence will be that land conflicts can be even more abrasive,
if not even violent. The Government, recognizing the worthy
purposes of the Torrens system, should be the first to accept the
validity of titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid down by
the law are satisfied.12

In fact during the dialogue between the herein parties held on

23 May 2017 at the Office of the ARD for Management Services,
DENR Region 02, the Presiding Officer had the chance to explain
that the title issued over lot 1391 Pls-612-D be honored and
respected.13

The Torrens certificate of title is merely an evidence of

ownership or title in the particular property described therein. 14

Nonetheless, it is essential that title registered under the

Torrens system becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible. 15

In addition, Section 48 of Presidential Decree (PD) 1529 states

that:

“A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It

cannot be altered, modified or canceled except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law.”

12
Tenio-Obsequio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107967, March 1, 1997, 230 SCRA 550.
13
Annex “C-2” of the records.
14
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129471, April 28, 2000, 331
SCRA 267; Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133140, August 10, 1999, 312 SCRA 180,
190; Rosario v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127005, July 19, 1999, 310 SCRA 464; Republic of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 11611, January 21, 1999, 301 SCRA 366; Strait Times,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126673, August 28, 1998, 294 SCRA 714, 726.
15
Natalia Realty Corporation v. Vallez, G.R. Nos. 78290-94, May 23, 1989, 173 SCRA 534, 542.

Page 5 of 7
 In a case decided by the Supreme Court, Tancuntian vs
Gempesaw, et al. (G.R. No. 149097, October 18, 2004), it was
stated that:

“On the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of

nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require
allegations of the plaintiffs ownership of the contested lot prior
to the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title as well
as the defendant’s fraud or mistake; as the case may be, in
successfully obtaining these documents of title over the parcel
of land claimed by plaintiff. In such a case, the nullity arises
strictly not from the fraud or deceit but from the fact that the
land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow
and whatever patent or certificate of title obtained therefore is
consequently void ab initio (Ramirez vs Court of Appeals, No. L-
28591, 31 October 1969, 30 SCRA 297, 301). The real party in
interest is not the State but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-
existing right of ownership over the parcel of land in question
even before the grant of title to the defendant. Xxx xxx”

The court stated further that “[t]he jurisdiction of the

Director of Lands is limited to public land and does not extend
to land already privately owned. A free patent which purports
to convey land to which the Government no longer has title at
the time of its issuance does not vest any title in the patentee as
against the registered owner.”

Based on the foregoing, since the Lot 1391 is a private land

covered by the Torrens Title, the southern portion of which should
not be part of the respondents’ Free Patent Application considering
that DENR has no jurisdiction to issue a free patent title over a
private land.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that after due

notice and hearing, this Honorable Office will render judgment:

A. CANCELLING AND DENYING ANY PLAN THAT MAY BE

ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENTS;

B. DENYING, CANCELLING AND RECALLING ANY PATENT THAT

MAYBE ISSUED IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS WHICH

Page 6 of 7
 INCLUDES A PORTION OF THE PARCEL OF LAND COVERED
BY TCT NO. T-350 OWNED BY HEREIN PROTESTANT.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. – 22 August 2018.

Copy furnished:

ATTY. ROLANDO C. ACACIO

Counsel for Respondents
24 Caggay Highway
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

EXPLANATION

The foregoing pleading was filed to the Honourable PENR

Officer by personal service and served on the respondent by
registered mail due to distance and manpower constraints.

Page 7 of 7