Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE
PROVINCE OF BUKIDNON
Malaybalay City, Bukidnon

HEIRS OF EDEFONSO DENSING, PENRO CASE NO. _________

Rep. by
EDELYN C. DENSING
Petitioners,
-versus-
x-------------------------------------------
HEIRS OF ALEJANDRO CAILING
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------x

A certificate of title that is void may be ordered cancelled. And,

a title will be considered void if it is procured through fraud, as when
a person applies for registration of the land on the claim that he has
been occupying and cultivating it. In the case of disposable public
lands, failure on the part of the grantee to comply with the
conditions imposed by law is a ground for holding such title void. x
x x The lapse of one (1) year period within which a decree of title may
be reopened for fraud would not prevent the cancellation thereof for
to hold that a title may become indefeasible by registration, even if
such title had been secured through fraud or in violation of the law
would be the height of absurdity. Registration should not be a shield
of fraud in securing title.1

PETITION
COME NOW, Petitioners, by the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Office, most respectfully states and avers that:

THE PARTIES

1. The Petitioners HEIRS OF EDEFONSO DENSING namely: EDELYN

DENSING, LUCAS DENSING, ZENAIDA DENSING, are all of legal
ages, and residents of Bulua, Cagayan de Oro City, Poblacion, Don
Carlos, and Poblacion, Dangcagan, Bukidnon, respectively. The
Petitioners are represented by EDELYN DENSING and they executed
a Special Power of Attorney in her favor which is attached herein as
Annex “A” and shall form an integral part of this Petition.
1
Apuyan vs. Haldeman, G.R. No. 129980 September 20, 2004
2. The Petitioners may be served with summons and other processes of
this Honorable Office, through counsel LAGAMON AND ASSOCIATES
LAW OFFICE whose office address is at 2nd Floor, Jamstar Building,
Cor. Judge Carillo and San Isidro Sts., Barangay 5, Malaybalay City,
Bukidnon;

3. The Respondents HEIRS OF ALEJANDRO CAILING, namely: his

surviving spouse FLORENCIA CAILING and their children, are all of
legal ages, Filipino citizens, and residents of Poblacion, Dangcagan,
Bukidnon where they may be served with summons and other
processes of this Honorable Office;

4. In support of this Petition, the Petitioners attach the following

documents, to wit:

a. Certificate to File Action as Annex “B”;

b. Protest Fee Receipt as Annex “C”;
c. 2x2 photo of Edelyn Densing, the representative of the
as Annex “D”;
d. The photos of the subject property as Annex “E”;
e. Certification that the land is alienable and disposable as
Annex “F”;
f. Record/Land Disposition Status as Annex “G”;
g. Technical Description as Annex “H”;
h. Real Property Historical Ownership as Annex “I”;
i. Approved Subdivision Plan as Annex “J”;
j. Certified True Copy of OCT Blg. P-62597 as Annex “K”;

CAUSE OF ACTION

1. The land subject of this case is identified as Lot No. 708-A, Csd-10-
019199 (identical to Lot 8792, PLS 112) containing an area of 597 sq.
meters which is part and parcel of Lot 708, Pls-112 the original
claimant of which is Edefonso Densing. The earliest tax declarations
and the real property historical ownership (Records Verification
Form) reveal that it is Edefonso Densing who owns Lot 708, Pls-112;

2. Lot 708, Pls-112 was originally owned by Corazon Destura who is the
mother of Edefonso Densing. At one time, portions of Lot 708, Pls-
112 was leased by Edefonso Densing either for free or for some

3. The possession and occupation of the late Edefonso Densing is

verified by the Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons executed
by Diomedes P. Tagaliog and Romeo Encallado. A copy of the said
 Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons is attached herewith as
Annex “K” and will form an integral part hereof;

4. The late Alejandro Cailing and his heirs are just few of the temporary
occupants allowed through the late Edefonso Densing’s generosity
since the latter was a politician or they were allowed by him for some
very low rental;

5. This generosity was, however, abused by the respondents, and they

made it appear that they have been occupying the subject parcel of
land in the concept of an owner despite the fact of their knowledge
that the ownership, possession, and occupation are vested on
Edefonso Densing;

6. As the owner of the subject property, the late Edefonso Densing had
been paying real property taxes for the same and these payments
were later on continued by his heirs. Attached herewith is a copy of
the Certification issued by the Municipal Assessor’s Office of
Dangcagan, Bukidnon, the Real Property Tax (RPT) Payment
Information, and a Tax Payment Record for the year 2017 as Annexes
“L”, “M”, and “N”, respectively and shall form integral parts of this
Petition;

7. The respondents never possessed the subject property in the concept

of an owner since their occupation was not one contemplated by law
since they knew for a fact that it is Edefonso Densing who owns the
subject land and no one else. It was even only years after securing
the certificate of title in Alejandro Cailing’s name that the
respondents started paying real property taxes;

8. To further prove that it is Edefonso Densing who owns the subject

land, Nicolasa T. Durotan, executed an Affidavit, a copy of which is
attached herewith as Annex “O”, and shall form an integral part
hereof;

9. Worthy to mention, respondents’ actual possession (and this

possession was not in the concept of an owner) is only in the portion
of the alleged Lot. No. 708-A since several portions of the said lot are
possessed by several of the defendants;

10. Also, there was no showing that in the conduct of the survey of the
subject property was with the knowledge and information of the
present occupants of the adjacent properties of the subject parcel of
land. This is a clear case of fraud and misrepresentation which is a
ground for reversion of the land in favor of the government.
11. To strengthen the arguments, under the Revised Manual on Land
Surveying Regulations in the Philippines, Section 402 thereof
specifically provided as to who should be notified of the survey, thus:

“Sec. 402. The owners, tenants, actual occupants,

adverse claimants, barangay officials and in general,
anyone possessing or claiming interest on lands
adjoining or included in a tract of land to be surveyed
shall be duly notified of the survey.”2

12. The aforesaid provision for the notification of the actual occupants
and adverse claimants are mandatory in nature. This notification is
not without any purpose. Had the petitioners been notified, which
they should have, they would have protested to the surveying and the
eventual titling of the subject land.

13. The respondents made it sure that no one would be able to know
that they were applying for title. Respondents did not inform neither
Edefonso Densing nor his heirs. There was even no proof of receipt
of the alleged notification of the application for titling made by the
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office – Don Carlos
that indeed it was received by Edefonso Densing or anyone in his
behalf. This is patently in violation of the basic rule on due process.
This letter was allegedly sent to Edefonso since it was found that the
tax declarant for Lot 708, Pls-112 is him;

14. To continue, even the present occupants of the subject parcel of

land testifies that the true owner of the same is Edefonso Densing.
Attached in this Petition are the Affidavits of the present occupants
of the subject parcel of land Joseph S. Balandra, Jesus S. Balandra,
and Jovencio B. Andam as Annexes “P”, “Q”, and “R”, respectively,
and will form integral parts hereof;

15. Even Certifications from the Office of the Municipal Assessor of

Dangcagan, Bukidnon reinforces the claim of the Petitioners and the
present occupants that it is Edefonso Densing who is the actual
occupant of Lot 708, Pls-112 premised on the fact that at the time
when the actual ocular inspection was conducted on the subject
parcel of land, the same is occupied by Edefonso Densing either him
or by other occupants with his consent;

16. It is worthy to note that the plaintiffs declared for tax purposes the
subject land only on the year 2016 while that of Edefonso Densing
dated back as early as 1985 per Certification dated November 1, 2016.

2
Emphasis supplied.
 17. The Certification issued by the Edgar P. Cayanong only mentioned
that Alejandro Cailing is the actual occupant therein but as to how
many years was, he occupying the land there is none. It is also highly
questionable that Alejandro Cailing actually possesses the entirety of
the 597 square meters.

GROUNDS

I. THE HOLDER OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ALEJANDRO

CAILING DID NOT OCCUPY, POSSESS, AND CULTIVATED THE
SUBJECT LAND OPENLY, PUBLICLY, NOTORIOUSLY,
CONTINOUSLY, ADVERSELY, AND IN THE CONCEPT OF AN
OWNER THEREFORE REVERSION PROCEEDINGS IS PROPER;

II. THE PATENT AND THE RESULTING CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND
MISREPRESENTATION THEREFORE REVERSION
PROCEEDINGS IS PROPER;

ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENTS OCCUPIED,

POSSESSED, AND CULTIVATED THE SUBJECT LAND OPENLY,
PUBLICLY, NOTORIOUSLY, CONTINOUSLY, ADVERSELY, AND
IN THE CONCEPT OF AN OWNER;

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PATENT AND RESULTING

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD
AND MISREPRESENTATION;

III. WHETHER OR NOT REVERSION PROCEEDINGS IS IN ORDER.

ARGUMENTS

I. THE RESPONDENTS OCCUPIED, POSSESSED, AND

CULTIVATED THE SUBJECT LAND OPENLY, PUBLICLY,
NOTORIOUSLY, CONTINOUSLY, ADVERSELY, AND IN THE
CONCEPT OF AN OWNER;

II. THE PATENT AND RESULTING CERTIFICATE OF TITLE WAS

PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION;

III. REVERSION PROCEEDINGS IS IN ORDER.

 DISCUSSIONS

THE RESPONDENTS OCCUPIED,

POSSESSED, AND CULTIVATED
THE SUBJECT LAND OPENLY,
PUBLICLY, NOTORIOUSLY,
CONTINOUSLY, ADVERSELY, AND
IN THE CONCEPT OF AN OWNER

18. Under Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, which is

commonly known as Public Land Act, it is necessary that before a
patent can be issued in favor of an applicant, the following
requirements must be met:

a.
19. The alleged possession of Alejandro Cailing in the subject parcel of
land allegedly started sometime on 1970 as stated in this Application
for Free Patent3. Unfortunately, however, the said possession of
Alejandro Cailing is not what the law requires. The same possession
must be open, continuous, public, notorious, adverse, and more
importantly in the concept of an owner. This requirement has been
discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Canlas vs. Republic,
thus:

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.

20. Jurisprudence4 is also settled that [a]lthough adverse, open,

continuous, and notorious possession in the concept of an owner
is a conclusion of law to be determined by courts, it has more to
do with a person’s belief in good faith that he or she has just title
to the property that he or she is occupying. It is unrelated to the
declaration that land is alienable or disposable. A possessor or
occupant of property may, therefore, be a possessor in the
concept of an owner prior to the determination that the property

3
Attached as Annex “S” hereof
4
Republic vs. Sogod Development Corporation, G.R. No. 175760, February 17, 2016
 is alienable and disposable agricultural land. His or her rights,
however, are still to be determined under the law.

21. Applying the afore-cited cases in this present case, the possession
of Alejandro Cailing could not be considered as open, continuous,
public, notorious, adverse, and more importantly in the concept of
an owner as contemplated under the law because there have been
other claimants over the subject property and also Alejandro Cailing
is knowledgeable that there are other actual occupants over the land
which dismisses that his possession is notorious and adverse. There
is no exclusive dominion over the subject property since Alejandro
Cailing did not occupied the subject property in its entirety either
thru himself or thru others. Moreover, it is not notorious because it
is not conspicuous, and it is not generally known and talked of by the
public or the people in the neighborhood. What is conspicuous and
known and talked about of by the neighborhood is that it is Edefonso
Densing who is the owner of the subject property;

THE PATENT AND RESULTING

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE WAS
PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD
AND MISREPRESENTATION;

22. Section 915 of Property Registration Decree expressly provides that

any false statement in the application, which is an essential
condition of the patent or title, "shall ipso facto produce the
cancellation of the concession, title, or permit granted."

23. In the Application for Free Patent of Alejandro Cailing dated 02

February 2010, he specifically stated that the land described and
applied for in the said application is not claimed or occupied by any
other person. This is a misrepresentation and an utter falsity since
on 02 February 2010 and even prior to that, there have been several
occupants in the said area including Jovencio and Erlinda Andam,
Mary Ann Requiron and Michael Requiron, Victorio and Hazel delos
Reyes, Joseph and Liling Balandra, and Jesus and Lucena Balandra.
5
Section91. The statements made in the application shall be considered as essential conditions and parts of any
concession, title, or permit issued on the basis of such application, and any false statements therein or omission of
facts altering, changing, or modifying the consideration of the facts set forth in such statements, and any subsequent
modification, alteration, or change of the material facts set forth in the application shall ipso facto produce the
cancellation of the concession, title, or permit granted. It shall be the duty of the Director of Lands, from time to
time and whenever he may deem it advisable, to make the necessary investigations for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the material facts set out in the application are true, or whether they continue to exist and are maintained
and preserved in good faith, and for the purposes of such investigation, the Director of Lands is hereby empowered
to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum and, if necessary, to obtain compulsory process from the courts. In
every investigation made in accordance with this section, the existence of bad faith, fraud, concealment, or
fraudulent and illegal modification of essential facts shall be presumed if the grantee or possessor of the land shall
refuse or fail to obey a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum lawfully issued by the Director of Lands or his authorized
delegates or agents, or shall refuse or fail to give direct and specific answers to pertinent questions, and on the basis
of such presumption, an order of cancellation may issue without further proceedings.
 Also, on the said date of application the lot is claimed and owned by
Edefonso Densing. Alejandro Cailing failed to mention that the same
property subject of the application is claimed by Edefonso Densing
since he is the tax declarant of Lot 708, Pls-112, the mother lot of the
subject property.

24. Alejandro Cailing through deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, and

unlawful manipulations was able to secure the issuance of a free
patent title covering the subject parcel of land. The documents
presented by Alejandro Cailing in support of his free patent
application were all fraudulent and a complete misrepresentation of
facts;

25. As previously adverted to, these fraud and misrepresentation

consisted in intentionally concealing from the claimant Edefonso
Densing and the actual occupants of the land of the fact of the filing
of Alejandro Cailing of the subject parcel of land. No actual survey
was conducted and no notification for the conduct of the survey was
serve upon Edefonso Cailing and the actual occupants of the subject
land. Alejandro Cailing stated in his application for free patent that
“land described and applied for is not claimed or occupied by any
other person but is a public land” despite the fact and knowledge on
Alejandro Cailing’s part that the same parcel of land is claimed and
owned by Edefonso Densing, and the same land was occupied and is
occupied up to now by several persons. This is material
misrepresentation which is fraud and would result in the voidance
of the patent and its corresponding certificate of title;

26. Alejandro Cailing and his heirs chose not to inform Edefonso
Densing, his heirs, and the actual occupants about his application for
free patent since Alejandro Cailing know for a fact that should he tell
Edefonso Densing or his heirs, or any of the occupants about the
same, they would vehemently oppose his application. Alejandro
Cailing and his heirs made it sure that nobody would be able to know
about his intention to apply the said land and his eventual
application for titling of the subject land. No notice of the conduct of
the survey was given to the occupants and claimants as required
under the law. Even the alleged notification sent by the Community
and Environment and Natural Resources Office – Don Carlos to
Edefonso Densing does not have any proof that it was received by
Edefonso or any one in his behalf. Worthy to note is the fact that the
Tax Declaration of Lot 708, Pls-112 is still under in the name of
Edefonso Densing;
27. From the evidence extant on record, lest be accused of being
repetitive but only to prove the petitioners’ point, it is at once
apparent that appellant committed fraud and misrepresentation in
her application for free patent which later became the basis for the
issuance of the certificate of title in Alejandro Cailing’s name. His
fraudulent act consists essentially in misrepresenting before the
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of Don
Carlos, Bukidnon that no one is claiming, or occupying the subject
parcel of land at the time he made his free patent application on
February 02, 2020;

28. Doubtless, Alejandro Cailing’s failure to state in his free patent

application that Jovencio Andam, etc. are also in possession of the
land subject thereof clearly constitutes a concealment of a material
fact amounting to fraud and misrepresentation within the context of
Section 91 of C.A. 141, sufficient enough to cause ipso facto the
cancellation of their free patent and title;

29. Based on the foregoing badges of fraud, the free patent application
granted to Alejandro Cailing is void. Such fraud and
misrepresentation are grounds for impugning the validity of the
Certificate of Title. The invalidity of the patent is sufficient basis for
nullifying the Certificate of Title issued in consequence thereof, since
the latter is merely an evidence of the former;

PROPRIETY OF REVERSION
PROCEEDINGS

30. On the basis of the apparent fraud and misrepresentation

committed by Alejandro Cailing and his heirs, the law is clear that
reversion proceedings could be filed by the State.

31. Jurisprudence is unambiguous in the propriety of reversion

proceedings in case of fraud and misrepresentation of the applicant.
Thus:

[A] reversion proceeding is the manner through which the

State seeks to revert land to the mass of the public domain;
it is proper when public land is fraudulently awarded and
disposed of in favor of private individuals or corporations, or
when a person obtains a title under the Public Land Act.
 32. Moreover, case law is settled that [i]t is true that under
Section 122 of the Land Registration Act, a Torrens title issued
on the basis of a free patent or a homestead patent is as
indefeasible as one judicially secured. And in repeated previous
decisions of this Court that indefeasibility has been emphasized
by Our holding that not even the Government can file an action
for annulment, but at the same time, it has been made clear that
an action for reversion may be instituted by the Solicitor
General, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. It is
to the public interest that one who succeeds in fraudulently
acquiring title to a public land should not be allowed to
benefit therefrom, and the State should, therefore, have an
ever existing authority, thru its duly authorized officers, to
inquire into the circumstances surrounding the issuance of
any such title, to the end that the Republic, thru the Solicitor
General or any other officer who may be authorized by law,
may file the corresponding action for the reversion of the
land involved to the public domain, subject thereafter to
disposal to other qualified persons in accordance with law.
In other words, the indefeasibility of a title over land
previously public is not a bar to an investigation by the
Director of lands as to how such title has been acquired, if
the purpose of such investigation is to determine whether or
not fraud had been committed in securing such title in order
that the appropriate action for reversion may be filed by the
Government. It is, therefore, clear that a certificate of title,
issued on the basis of a free patent, that is procured through
fraud or in violation of the law may be cancelled, and
indefeasibility of the title is no defense. It is true that under the
law, it is the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead
who is authorized under Section 101of Commonwealth Act No.
141, as amended, to institute an action for reversion in the name
of the Republic of the Philippines. 6

33. Lastly, the principle of indefeasibility of title is unavailing where

there was fraud that attended the issuance of the free patents and
titles.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

unto this Honorable Office that after an investigation is conducted,
recommend the filing of reversion proceedings by the Republic of the
Philippines for the eventual cancellation of OCT No. P-65297.

6
Apuyan vs. Haldeman, G.R. No. 129980 September 20, 2004
 OTHER RELIEFS just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.

City of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, 06 February 2020.

LAGAMON AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

2nd Floor, Jamstar Building
Corner San Isidro-Judge P. Carillo Streets
Barangay 5, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon
Telephone Number (088) 813 3349
Counsel for the Petitioners

by:

DENCE CRIS L. RONDON

Member of the Bar
Roll of Attorneys’ No. 67495
PTR No. 9648618/03-JAN-2020/BUK.
IBP O.R. No. 089767/28-DEC-2019/BUK.
Tax Identification No. 496-556-017-000
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0011647
issued on 18 August 2018
0917-703-8190