FRANCISCA TAAR vs. CLAUDIO LAWAN

FACTS: The present case involves two (2) free patent applications over a 71,014 square-meter parcel of land (the Property) located in Barangay Parsolingan, Genova, Tarlac. 

Narcisa Taar (Narcisa), Alipio Duenas (Alipio), Fortunata Duena (Fortunata), and Pantaleon Taar (Pantaleon) inherited two (2) vast tracts of land situated in Tarlac. One (1) parcel of land was adjudicated exclusively in favor of Pantaleon while the other parcel of land was given to Pantaleon, Narcisa, Alipio, and Fortunata. 

Narcisa sold her share to Spouses Primitivo T. Adaoag and Pilar Tandoc (the Adaoag Spouses) and to Spouses Ignacio Gragasin and Genoveva Adaoag (the Gragasin Spouses). 

Later, Pantaleon, and others executed an agreement to partition the second parcel of land. This agreement was approved by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac 

Pantaleon, Alipio, and Fortunata were the predecessors-in-interest of Francisca, Joaquina, Lucia, and Oscar L. Galo. Based on the February 18, 1948 Decision, petitioners prepared a subdivision plan over the Property in 2000. The subdivision plan, denominated as Subdivision Plan No. Ccs-03-000964-D, was approved on February 6, 2001. 

Petitioners then applied for free patents over the Property. 

Sometime 2001, Claudio, Marcelino, Artemio, Augusto, and Adolfo (herein private respondents) filed a verifed protest alleging that their predecessors-ininterest had been in "actual, physical, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land since 1948. 

 

Petitioners countered that private respondents occupied the property as tenants. 

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by Francisca Taar, Joaquina Taar, Lucia Taar, and the Heirs of Oscar L. Galo. 

2.           Whether or not the free patents and certificates of title issued in favor of Claudio Lawan, Marcelino L. Galo, Artemio Abarquez, Augusto B. Lawan, and Adolfo L. Galo are valid and were secured through fraud and misrepresentation. 

3.           Whether or not free patents and certificates of title issued in favor of respondents are valid and were secured through fraud and misrepresentation. 

HELD: 1. Anent the first issue: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary remedy. Its scope of review is narrow, limited only to errors of jurisdiction. Errors of judgment can only be reviewed through an appeal. 

2.           As to the second issue: Res Judicata states that a final judgment or decree rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other subsequent actions or suits and on all points and matters determined in the first suit.

3.           As to the third issue: Lastly, Section 91 of the Public Land Act provides the automatic cancellation of the applications filed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. Only extrinsic fraud may be raised as a ground to "review or reopen a decree of registration.