This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The subsequent issuance on 10 December 2003 of Free Patent No. 045802-03-4722 and OCT No. P-46 in respondent's name and of Free Patent No. 045802-03-4723 and OCT No. P-47 in Remedios' name, covering their respective subdivided portions of the 143,417-square-meter property, is of no moment. Noticeably, the free patents and titles of respondent and her assignee only came 12 years after those of petitioner. Faced with the two sets of free patents and OCTs, one in the names of petitioner and the other in the names of respondent and her assignee, covering the same two parcels of land, the Court is more inclined to uphold the validity of the former. The Court can no longer extend the presumption of regularity to respondent's free patents and OCTs since these were preceded by petitioner's free patents and OCTs. Well settled is the rule that once the patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property,[36] and the State can no longer award the same to another. The pronouncement of this Court in this case, however, on the validity of the free patents and OCTs of petitioner, on one hand, and those of respondent and her assignee, on the other, is made only in the course of the appreciation by the Court of the evidence submitted by the parties as regards prior possession of the parcels of land in dispute; and is to be regarded merely as provisional, hence, does not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the land. Further, Section 7, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that the judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer shall be effective with respect to the possession only and in no wise binds the title or affects the ownership of the land or building.[37] | |||||