G.R. No. 168464             January 23, 2006 siblings.

The partition was not registered but Deeds

of Sale were executed in favor of Rolando and
ZENAIDA RAMOS-BALALIO, Petitioner, Alexander.
vs.
ROLANDO RAMOS, EUSEBIO I. RAMOS Petitioner thereafter mortgaged her share;
EVANGELISTO GARCIA, Respondents. however, it came to her knowledge that
respondents Rolando and Eusebio had usurped her
DECISION share and deprived the mortgagees of possession
over the land. After settling the mortgage,
petitioner filed a case for recovery of inheritance,
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
possession and damages with a petition for
preliminary mandatory injunction.
This petition assails the Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals dated February 16, 2005 in CA-G.R. CV No.
The trial court had the land surveyed. Subdividing
58644 reversing the Decision2 of the Regional Trial
the land into Lots 204-A to 204-H5 based on the
Court (RTC) of Roxas, Isabela, Branch 23, dated
actual possessor or occupant, the survey plan
July 17, 1996, in Civil Case No. Br. 23-357 which
revealed the following:
ruled that herein petitioner Zenaida Ramos-Balalio
had a superior right to possess Lot No. 204, Pls-15,
situated at Muñoz, Roxas, Isabela, as well as its 1. Plaintiff Zenaida Ramos Balalio has no
Resolution3 dated June 14, 2005 denying the possession, occupation, and cultivation
motion for reconsideration. whatsoever of lot 204, Pls-15;

As culled from the records, petitioner Zenaida and 2. Rolando Ramos is in possession and
her brother Alexander (now deceased) are the cultivation of lot 204-F, lot 204-G and lot
children of spouses Susana Bueno and Abundio 204-C, with a total area of 43,957 sq. m.,
Ramos. The spouses started occupying Lot No. 204 more or less;
in 1938. Abundio died in 1944. Susana met her
second husband, respondent Eusebio Ramos in 3. Eusebio Ramos is occupying and
1946, with whom she had five children, one of cultivating lot 204-A with an area of 4,994
whom is respondent Rolando. sq. m., more or less;

In the interim, prior to 1958, Susana discovered 4. Lot 204-B consisting of 17,685 sq. m.,
that Felimon Domingo applied for a sales patent more or less, is possessed and cultivated by
over the subject parcel of land which she opposed. Evangelisto Garcia, another intervenor. His
The Bureau of Lands resolved the dispute, thus: occupation is very much less than the two
(2) hectares sold to him by Alexander
In the light of the foregoing facts, it is clear that Ramos. It is short by 2,311 sq. m., more or
Felimon B. Domingo has not entered, possessed or less;
cultivated the land in question and therefore he has
not acquired any preference right thereto. Upon the 5. The total area of the land in question,
other hand contestant Susana Bueno Vda. de after deducting one (1) hectare occupied by
Ramos and her children have sufficiently the cemetery is 73,150 sq. m., more or
established their right of preference over the land less.6
except the one hectare Cemetery site, on the basis
of their continuous occupation and cultivation and On July 17, 1996, the trial court rendered its
their valuable improvements introduced thereon. decision holding that petitioner was deprived of her
right to cultivation and possession of her share of
Wherefore, it is ordered that the Sales Application Lot No. 204 and thus ruled:
No. 21992 of Felimon B. Domingo be as hereby it is
rejected, forfeiting in favor of the Government AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ALL THE FOREGOING,
whatever amount have been paid on account judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff,
thereof. The land in question shall be subdivided so Zenaida Ramos and against Rolando Ramos,
as to exclude therefrom the one hectare portion in defendant, and Eusebio Ramos, intervenor.
the northwestern part of the land, which shall be
reserved as barrio cemetery site, while the
1. Ordering Eusebio Ramos to vacate lot
remaining area is hereby allocated to SUSANA
204-A and surrender it to Evangelisto
BUENO VDA DE RAMOS who shall file an
Garcia because he is not entitled to any
appropriate application therefore within sixty (60)
portion of the lot in question, it being the
days after the survey thereof at her own expense, it
conjugal property of the first marriage of
not appearing that this Office has received the
Susana Bueno to Abundio Ramos;
homestead (new) application allegedly filed by her
for the same land.
2. Evangelisto Garcia is adjudicated the first
two (2) hectares from the North and East of
SO ORDERED. 4
the cemetery, as he validly bought the area
from Alexander Ramos. He is presently
It was alleged that as Susana accompanied her occupying only 17,689 sq. m., more or less.
husband Eusebio, a soldier, wherever he was His possession now is increased to two (2)
assigned, Susana’s father, George Bueno, and hectares which includes the area being
daughter, petitioner Zenaida continued the possessed by Eusebio Ramos;
cultivation and possession of the subject land.
Sometime later, Susana sold the land to petitioner
3. The remaining portion of the share of
who, in turn, partitioned it among herself, her
Alexander Ramos is 4,410 sq. m., more or
brother, Alexander, and respondent Rolando and his
 less. This is adjudicated in favor of his homestead, her right never ripened to ownership
heirs. This portion now corresponds to the which she could have transmitted to her heirs. As to
area immediately South of the area of Evangelisto Garcia who supposedly purchased that
Evangelisto Garcia, the partition being from share of Alexander (an heir of Susana), since the
East to West; vendor never inherited anything from Susana there
was nothing which he (Evangelisto) could have
4. The middle portion consisting of 24,410 bought. In fine, neither of the intervenors could
sq. m., more or less, and immediately claim any right which they can enforce in court.
South of the cemetery, and also South of
the portion adjudicated to the heirs of WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial
Alexander is now given to Zenaida Ramos Court of Roxas, Isabela, Branch 23, in Civil Case
Balalio as her valid share of lot 204, the No. Br. 23-357 is REVERSED and the "Complaint"
partition being also East to West; filed by plaintiff-appellee as well as the respective
"Answer in Intervention" of Eusebio Ramos and
5. South of the share of Zenaida consisting Evangelisto Garcia are all hereby ordered
also of 24,410 sq. m., more or less, is the DISMISSED.
valid share of Rolando Ramos and his full
blooded brother and sisters namely Robin, SO ORDERED.8
Corazon, Myrna and Mila, all surnamed
Ramos; Hence, this petition on the following assigned
errors:
6. Rolando Ramos and Eusebio Ramos are
ordered jointly and severally to pay Zenaida 7.1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
Ramos: SERIOUSLY ERRED IN REVERSING THE
TRIAL COURT’S DECISION AND
a. Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) DISMISSING THE PETITIONER’S
Pesos as attorney’s fees; COMPLAINT.

b. One thousand Five Hundred 7.2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

(P1,500.00) Pesos as appearance GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
fees of her lawyer; PETITIONER IS NOT IN PRIOR POSSESSION
OF THE SAID LAND, AND DECLARING THAT
c. Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) SHE HAS NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO THE
Pesos as incidental expenses DISPUTED LAND.
relative to the case;
7.3. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
d. One Hundred Thousand Eight ERRED IN IGNORING THE ISSUE OF
Hundred (P100,800.00) Pesos as ACCION PUBLICIANA IN THE CASE AT BAR
the reasonable owner’s share of the AND CONFINED ITSELF TO THE CLAIM OF
produce of the land of Zenaida RECOVERY OF INHERITANCE.9
Ramos from 1975 to the present,
with an interest of 6% per annum The petition is partly meritorious.
until fully paid;
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public
7. The Clerk of Court and the Sheriff are domain belong to the State and those lands not
ordered to repair to the land in question appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
and partition said land in accordance with presumed to belong to the State.10 Lands of the
the tenor of this decision; public domain are classified into agricultural, forest
or timber, mineral lands, and national parks.
8. And to pay the cost. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited
to agricultural lands.11
SO ORDERED.7
Commonwealth Act No. 141 (1936), or the Public
Land Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that neither
1073 (1977), remains to be the general law
Zenaida nor Alexander complied with the
governing the classification and disposition of
homestead application requirements in order to
alienable lands of the public domain. It enumerates
acquire superior vested right. As a consequence, it
the different modes of acquisition of these lands
reversed the decision of the trial court, to wit:
and prescribes the terms and conditions to enable
private persons to perfect their title to them. It is,
As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court rules therefore, the applicable law to the case before us.
in favor of appellants as to the fourth error and
finds that the contract supposedly dividing that
A homestead patent, such as the subject of the
property among Zenaida, Rolando Ramos and
instant case, is one of the modes to acquire title to
Alexander Ramos cannot be enforced because
public lands suitable for agricultural purposes.
neither of the parties therein can claim any vested
Under the Public Land Act, a homestead patent is
right over the subject parcel land which is still part
one issued to any citizen of this country, over the
of the public domain.
age of 18 years or the head of a family, and who is
not the owner of more than 24 12 hectares of land in
Also, prescinding from the above ruling, the the country.13 To be qualified, the applicant must
intervention of Eusebio Ramos and Evangelisto show that he has resided continuously for at least
Garcia should likewise be dismissed. As to Eusebio, one year in the municipality where the land is
since Susana never filed an application for
situated and must have cultivated at least one-fifth As held by the Court of Appeals, none of the parties
of the land applied for.14 obtained a defensible title to the property which can
be upheld by the Court. Nonetheless,
In the case at bar, petitioner Zenaida asserts her the possession of the land is different from the
right to a parcel of agricultural land that her issue of its ownership. Petitioner argues that her
parents Susana and Abundio had possessed since petition may be treated as an accion publiciana and
1938. She claims that, for some time, the not merely an action for recovery of inheritance.
cultivation of this land was left to her and her
grandfather and that, following the death of her An accion publiciana is an action for the recovery of
father Abundio, the land was allegedly sold to her the right to possess and is a plenary action in an
by her mother Susana. ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better
right of possession of realty independently of
Zenaida’s argument is flawed because it assumes title.16 In this case, the issue is whether Zenaida, as
that her parents had perfected their title over the an applicant for public land, may be considered as
land and that they could validly convey the same to having any right to the land occupied, which may
third persons, whether by sale or by inheritance. entitle her to sue in courts for the return of the
However, a careful examination of the records possession thereof.
shows that petitioner has not satisfactorily
established that a valid application for homestead We find that Zenaida has proven prior possession of
patent was filed by her parents. The decision of the the portion of land she claims as her share, which
Bureau of Lands in 1958 only addressed Zenaida’s possession antedates the filing of the homestead
family’s right of preference over the land, in view of application. She produced evidence showing that
their possession and cultivation of the land. she has filed a verified application for the
Nonetheless, the Bureau of Lands ordered the filing registration of the land with the Bureau of Lands on
of an appropriate application  for its registration August 10, 1971,17 which is still pending. The
which indicates that as of that time, there was as documents remain uncontested and the application
yet no valid application filed.15 has not been assailed by any of the parties to the
case. She alleged that during the lifetime of her
The purported sale, therefore, between petitioner mother, she and her maternal grandfather
and her mother cannot be given effect, nor can it cultivated and occupied the land.
be a source of right for Zenaida, because Susana
did not have the authority to sell what did not Moreover, Zenaida presented tax declarations both
belong to her. The invalidation of the sale in her name and that of her predecessor-in-interest
consequently nullifies the partition of the property (mother Susana Bueno) covering the property.
among Zenaida, Alexander, and Rolando and his Time and again, we have held that although tax
siblings because Zenaida could not have disposed of declarations or realty tax payments of property are
the land which she did not own. not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless,
they are good indicia of possession in the concept
For the same reason, neither Eusebio nor Rolando of owner for no one in his right mind would be
can claim any right whatsoever as heirs of Susana. paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual
Their claim evidently relies on the provision of the or at least constructive possession. 18 They
Public Land Act which states: constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim
of title over the property. The voluntary declaration
of a piece of property for taxation purposes
Section 105. If at any time the applicant or grantee
manifests not only one’s sincere and honest desire
shall die before the issuance of the patent or the
to obtain title to the property and announces his
final grant of the land, or during the life of the
adverse claim against the State and all other
lease, or while the applicant or grantee still has
interested parties, but also the intention to
obligations pending towards the Government, in
contribute needed revenues to the Government. 19
accordance with this Act, he shall be succeeded
in his rights and obligations with respect to
the land applied for or granted or leased under All told, petitioner Zenaida’s uncontested and
this Act by his heirs in law, who shall be entitled to verified application for a homestead patent coupled
have issued to them the patent or final with her open and notorious occupation of the land
concession if they show that they have convinces us of her preferential right to possess the
complied with the requirements therefor, and land claimed, which entitles her to be protected by
who shall be subrogated in all his rights and the law in such possession.
obligations for the purposes of this Act.
(Emphasis added) WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
The reliance is misplaced because the cited dated February 16, 2005 is MODIFIED, insofar as
provision speaks of an applicant, grantee, to grant petitioner Zenaida Ramos-Balalio
or  lessee. Susana was not one of these. In her preferential possession of the portion of Lot 204,
lifetime, despite her possession and cultivation of Pls-15, situated in Muñoz, Roxas, Isabela, as
the land, she failed to apply for a homestead patent delineated in the Decision of the Regional Trial
and to acquire any vested right that Eusebio or Court of Roxas, Isabela, Branch 23, dated July 17,
Rolando can inherit. As such, the land remains part 1996.
of the public domain. Furthermore, Eusebio and
Rolando cannot invoke their prior possession and SO ORDERED.
occupation of the land because the same cannot be
considered as adverse, open, public, peaceful and
to the exclusion of all.

Hence, the subject land remains to be part of the

public domain and rightfully belongs to the State.