Heirs of David Imperial represented

by Natividad Imperial,
Claimants-Protestants

-versus- RED CLAIM No.

Lot No. 5746, Cad 56
Arimbay, Legazpi City
FPA No. (V-1) 15179-D
Heirs of Teresa Romero-Santiago
represented by Grace Cayetano
,
Applicants-
Respondents
X--------------------------x

ORDER

This case arose from the Protest filed by the Heirs of David Imperial
represented by Natividad Imperial (Protestants for brevity) against the Free
Patent Application of Heirs of Teresa Romero-Santiago represented by Grace
Cayetano (Respondents)

The antecedents may be summarized as follows:

On December 13, 1995, Teresa Romero-Santiago filed her Free Patent

Application (FPA) with the CENR Office Legazpi City docketed as FPA (V-1) 15179-D.
It covers Lot No. 5746 Cad 56 located at Arimbay, Legazpi City with a total area of
3, 544 square meters more or less.

On February 3, 1999, during the pendency of the application, Teresa Romero-

Santiago died. Her application was amended to the Heirs of Teresa Romero-Santiago
represented by Grace S. Cayetano in the March 5, 2002 Order of Community
Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) Officer Rene P. Camacho.

On December 23, 2002, Provincial Environment and Natural Resources

(PENR) Officer Rodolfo M. Matusalem issued an Order of Approval of Application.
However, no patent was granted to the respondents until this date.

1
 October 5, 2015, the Heirs of David Imperial represented by Natividad
Imperial, filed a Protest against the FPA (V-1) 15179-D. Protestants claimed that
they are the absolute owners of the subject lot. They alleged further in substance as
follows: That when David Imperial died, his wife and children searched and scanned
through his files and discovered documents pertinent to the subject lot; that the
documents prove that the subject lot was originally owned by Rodolfo Fidela who
sold it to Jorge Imperial, uncle of David Imperial who in turn sold it to the latter;
that applicant merely presented photocopies of her document and not the original
copies thus, it cannot be proven valid or authentic; that said documents are
incomplete and lacks material details; that the extra –judicial settlement of estate
which applicant anchored her application from contained inconsistencies particularly
on the year of death of Valentin Amier and his marriage; and that the said
documents are fake, illegal, and false.

On the other hand, respondent argued in their Answer the following

allegations: That she is the only child and surviving heir of Teresa Romero-Santiago
thus the sole heir of the subject lot; that the disputed lot was acquired by her
mother through a Deed of Absolute Sale between Teresa Romero-Santiago and
Salvacion Rodriguez who, in turn, bought the lot from Fidela Amier, Cristeta Amier,
Leonila Amier, Mercedes Amier, and Felisberta Amier through an Extra-Judicial
Settlement of Estate and Sale; that the lot has been declared in the name of Teresa
Romero-Santiago from year 1958 until present; that they have religiously paid the
taxes due thereon; and that they have been in continuous possession of the lot in
the concept of an owner.

After a painful examination of the records as well as the appreciation and

evaluation of evidence of the parties, this Office rules for the respondents.

The bone of contention in lands claims and conflict cases is the preferential
right to apply and occupy the land. This case is no exception. The preferential right
in the acquisition of public land is based on the principle of “prior tempore potior
jure” which means, he, who is first in time is preferred in right. The priority refers
either to the filing of the application or in the occupation of the land. The rule
implies that the first person to apply for the land is actually occupied in good faith by
a person other than the applicant, the occupant shall have a preference right to
apply for the same.

The qualifications for the grant of the Patent is provided for in Section 44 of
the Public Land Act, to wit:

Section 44. Any natural born citizen of the Philippines

who is not the owner of more than twelve (12) hectares,
and for at least thirty (30) years prior to the effectivity of
this amendatory Act, has continuously occupied and

2
 cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-
interest, a tract or tracts of agricultural public land subject
to disposition, who shall have paid the real estate tax
thereon while the same has not been occupied by any
other person shall be entitled, under the provisions of this
Chapter, to have free patent issued to him for such tract or
tracts of such land not to exceed twelve (12) hectares.

In the instant case, the respondent has in her favor to first to apply and
occupy the land in question. And further, she satisfied the first and second
considerations of an applicant as the land is classified as alienable and disposable
and that she is a natural born citizen of the Philippines who does not own more than
twelve (12) hectares of land.
As to the question on possession, it was established in the course of the
investigation that the subject lot, a riceland, is cultivated by respondent thru her
present tenant farmer Nixon Ramirez and his father, Ruperto Ramirez. They
succeeded Alfredo Astillero who previously attended the land. Apart from it being a
riceland, a portion of the lot is utilized as a piggery owned by respondent. Further, it
was ascertained that protestants have never possessed the land. Protestants argued
in their protest that they only learned about the lot upon the demise of David
Imperial in 2015. It is noteworthy that on July 25, 2016, respondent filed a
complaint before the barangay against her tenant, Nixon Ramires for illegal
construction of fence. From the blotter issued by Punong Barangay, Rosalina O.
Cervero, Nixon Ramirez admitted the construction of fence which enclosed the
property per protestant’s order in consideration of P9,000. Nixon Ramirez claimed
that he agreed to do so because he needs the money and he was made to believe
that the protestant is the lawful owner of the lot and not the respondent. Upon
settlement, Nixon Ramirez agreed to remove the constructed concrete posts and
respondent withdrew the complaint. This claim is well-corroborated by the barangay
officials. Apparently, this unfortunate event occurred in the protestant’s attempt to
establish possession over the subject lot.
As to the real property tax due thereon, both respondent and protestant
presented tax declarations in support of their respective claims and defenses.
Respondent presented a series of tax declarations from Celedonia Garcia (1907-
1948), Salvacion Rodriguez (1951-1956) and Applicant Teresa R. Santiago (1958-
present) who are the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent from which her
acquisition of the land trailed from. Likewise, she presented a certification that the
taxes due thereon are paid until present time. On the other hand, Protestant
presented two sets of tax declaration, one under the name of Rodolfo Fidela and
another in the name of Jorge Imperial also the same persons whom she anchored
her claim from. As to the payment of taxes, there is no indication in the records that
David Imperial has paid the taxes after he allegedly purchased the lot from Jorge
Imperial in 1998; also, it appears that there was no attempt to declare the same
under his name until he died in 2015.

3
 Both parties presented tax declarations pertaining to the same lot to support
their right over the land. Protestant’s claim that respondent’s tax declaration lacks
the lot number is immaterial because in lieu of the same, one can simply rely on the
boundaries stated in the tax declaration in order to identify and locate the lot in
question. However, the Public Land Act requires payment of real property taxes
thereon and not merely tax declaration which are two distinct and separate things.
In the submitted evidence, it appeared that respondent has satisfactorily
complied with all the requirements provided for in Sec. 44 of the Public Land Act.

It is well discussed in the case of People of the Philippines vs ESRDG, G.R.

No. 186961 that the possession should be in the concept of an owner, public,
peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse. Possession is open when it is patent, visible,
apparent, notorious and not clandestine. It is continuous when uninterrupted,
unbroken and not intermittent or occasional; exclusive when the adverse possessor
can show exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use
and benefit; and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generally known and
talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood.
Respondent’s possession is in the concept of an owner and it has been that
way since their acquisition of the land in 1958. This is well-corroborated by her
submitted evidence as well as the residents and officials of the barangay.

Possession coupled with payment of realty taxes establishes bona fide intent
to have the subject lot registered in their favor. This principle is best explained in the
case of Spouses Gabriel and Maria Llanes vs. Republic of the Philippines. G.R. No.
177947, November 27, 2008 where the Court ruled:

xxx such an act strengthens one’ s bona fide claim of

acquisition of ownership. Tax declarations are good indicia
of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in
his right mind would be paying taxes for a property
that is not in his actual or constructive possession.”
(emphasis supplied)

Respondent religiously paid the real estate taxes of the subject lot for fifty-
nine (59) years. Although as a rule, payment of taxes or tax declarations are not
conclusive evidence of ownership, they are proof that the holder has a claim of title
over the property and serve as sufficient basis for inferring possession. Such
payment coupled with possession and cultivation of the land constitute a “well-nigh
incontrovertible’’ evidence of a claim of ownership.

WHEREFORE, the Protest of Heirs of David Imperial, represented by

Natividad Imperial is hereby ordered DROPPED, and the Free Patent Application of
Heirs of Teresa R. Santiago, represented by Grace Cayetano with FPA No. (V-1)
15179-D be given due course.

SO ORDERED.

4
 Legazpi City, Philippines,

CRISANTA MARLENE P. RODRIGUEZ

OIC, Regional Director
AAA/JVA/RATS/DBB/mags*

Copy Furnished:

The ARD for Technical Services

DENR V, Legazpi City

The PENR Officer

Lapu-Lapu St., Legazpi City

Atty. Danilo S. Azaña

235 Peñaranda St., Legazpi City

Grace Santiago-Cayetano
Purok 3, San Roque, Legazpi City

Atty. Amorex Rañeses

Peñaranda St., Legazpi City

Natividad Imperial
Sunrise Subd., Washington Drive, Legazpi City

Order-Imperial vs Cayetano (DBB)