Abejaron Vs Nabasa (Property Law Case Digest)

Abejaron vs. Nabasa G.R. No.
84831, June 20, 2001 (359 SCRA 47)
Facts:
Petitioner Abejaron avers that he is the actual and lawful possessor and
claimant of a 118-square meter portion of a 175-square meter residential lot in
Silway, General Santos City. In 1945, petitioner Abejaron and his family started
occupying the 118-square meter land. At that time, the land had not yet been
surveyed. They fenced the area and built thereon a family home with nipa roofing
and a small store. In 1949, petitioner improved their abode to become a two-
storey house made of round wood and nipa roofing. Abejaron also introduced
several improvements on the land including a store, 5 coconut trees on the
property of controversy, and avocado and banana trees. All this time that the
Abejarons introduced these improvements on the land in controversy, respondent
Nabasa did not oppose or complain about the improvements. Knowing that the
disputed land was public in character, petitioner declared only his house, and
not the disputed land, for taxation purposes.
Petitioner stated that beginning 1955, respondent Nabasa resided on the

remaining 57-square meter portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953. Nabasa built his
house about four (4) meters away from petitioner Abejaron’s house.
Before 1974, employees of the Bureau of Lands surveyed the area in
controversy. Abejaron merely watched them do the survey and did not thereafter
apply for title of the land on the belief that he could not secure title over it
as it was government property. Without his (Abejaron) knowledge and consent,
however, Nabasa “clandestinely, willfully, fraudulently, and unlawfully applied
for and caused the titling in his name” of the entire Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953,
including petitioner Abejaron’s 118-square meter portion. Petitioner imputes bad
faith and fraud on the part of Nabasa because in applying for and causing the
titling in his name of Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953, Nabasa represented himself to
be the actual and lawful possessor of the entire Lot 1, Block 5, including
petitioner Abejaron’s 118-square meter portion despite knowledge of Abejaron’s
actual occupation and possession of said portion.
On September 24, 1974, Nabasa was issued Original Certificate of Title No.
P-4140 pursuant to Free Patent No. (XI-4) 2877 covering Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-
154953 including therein the lot occupied by the petitioner.
On March 12, 1982 an action for reconveyance with damages against respondent
Nabasa before Branch 22, Regional Trial Court of General Santos City.
Issue:
Whether the allegation of fraud has been proven for the action for
reconveyance to prosper.
Held:
No. An action for reconveyance of a property is the sole remedy of a
landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in
another’s name after one year from the date of the decree so long as the property
has not passed to an innocent purchaser for value. The action does not seek to
reopen the registration proceeding and set aside the decree of registration but
only purports to show that the person who secured the registration of the
property in controversy is not the real owner thereof. Fraud is a ground for
reconveyance. For an action for reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, it is
essential for the party seeking reconveyance to prove by clear and convincing
evidence his title to the property and the fact of fraud. Such was not performed
by the petitioner.
Abejaron’s 30-year period of possession and occupation required by the Public

Land Act, as amended by R.A. 1942 ran from 1945 to 1975, prior to the effectivity
of P.D. No. 1073 in 1977, the requirement of said P.D. that occupation and
possession should have started on June 12, 1945 or earlier, does not apply to
him. Petitioner claims that he started occupying the disputed land in 1945. At
that time, he built a nipa house, a small store, and a fence made of wood to
delineate his area. This nipa house was improved in 1949 into a two-storey house.
The small store was also made bigger in 1950. The wooden fence was also changed
to a fence made of hollow blocks. The two-storey house, bigger store, and hollow-
block fence all stand to this day. In 1951, petitioner planted coconut trees near
his house. While the petitioner has shown continued existence of these
improvements on the disputed land, they were introduced later than January 24,
1947. He has failed to establish the portion of the disputed land that his
original nipa house, small store and wooden fence actually occupied as of January
24, 1947. In the absence of this proof, we cannot determine the land he actually
possessed and occupied for thirty years which he may acquire under Sec. 48(b) of
the Public Land Act. Worthy of notice is the fact that the disputed land was
surveyed, subdivided into and identified by lots only in the 1970’s. Therefore,
prior to the survey, it would be difficult to determine the metes and bounds of
the land petitioner claims to have occupied since 1947 in the absence of specific
and incontrovertible proof.
Also, as admitted by the petitioner, he has never declared the disputed land
for taxation purposes. While tax receipts and tax declarations are not
incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they become strong evidence of ownership
acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the
property or supported by other effective proof. Even the tax declarations and
receipts covering his house do not bolster his case as the earliest of these was
dated 1950.
Petitioner’s evidence does not constitute the “well-nigh incontrovertible”
evidence necessary to acquire title through possession and occupation of the
disputed land at least since January 24, 1947 as required by Sec. 48(b) of the
Public Land Act, as amended by R.A. 1942. The basic presumption is that lands of
whatever classification belong to the State and evidence of a land grant must be
“well-nigh incontrovertible.” As petitioner Abejaron has not adduced any evidence
of title to the land in controversy, whether by judicial confirmation of title,
or homestead, sale, or free patent, he cannot maintain an action for
reconveyance.

Abejaron Vs Nabasa (Property Law Case Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abejaron Vs Nabasa (Property Law Case Digest)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abejaron Vs Nabasa (Property Law Case Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abejaron vs. Nabasa G.R. No.

84831, June 20, 2001 (359 SCRA 47)

Petitioner stated that beginning 1955, respondent Nabasa resided on the

Abejaron’s 30-year period of possession and occupation required by the Public

You might also like