Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 186487 : August 15, 2011]

ROSITO BAGUNU, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES FRANCISCO AGGABAO & ROSENDA ACERIT, RESPONDENTS.

R E S O L U T I O N


BRION, J.:

We resolve the motion for reconsideration1 filed by Rosito Bagunu (petitioner) to reverse our April 13, 2009 Resolution2 which denied his petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS


R.L.O. Claim No. 937/DENR Case No. 5177

The present controversy stemmed from a protest filed by the spouses Francisco Aggabao and Rosenda Acerit (respondents) against the petitioner's free patent application over a parcel of unregistered land located in Caniogan, Sto. Tomas, Isabela (subject land), pending before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region II, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan (DENR Regional Office).

The subject land was previously owned by Marcos Binag, who later sold it (first sale) to Felicisimo Bautista (Bautista). In 1959, Bautista, in turn, sold the subject land (second sale) to Atty. Samson Binag.

On December 12, 1961, Atty. Binag applied for a free patent3 over the subject land with the Bureau of Lands (now Lands Management Bureau).4 On November 24, 1987, Atty. Binag sold the subject land (third sale) to the petitioner,5 who substituted for Atty. Binag as the free patent applicant. The parties’ deed of sale states that the land sold to the petitioner is the same lot subject of Atty. Binag's pending free patent application.6

The deeds evidencing the successive sale of the subject land, the Bureau of Lands’ survey,7 and the free patent applications uniformly identified the subject land as Lot 322. The deeds covering the second and third sale also uniformly identified the boundaries of the subject land.8

On December 28, 1992, the respondents filed a protest against the petitioner's free patent application. The respondents asserted ownership over Lot 322 based on the Deeds of Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale, dated June 23, 1971 and April 15, 1979, executed in their favor by the heirs of one Rafael Bautista.9

The Office of the Regional Executive Director of the DENR conducted an ocular inspection and formal investigation. The DENR Regional Office found out that the petitioner actually occupies and cultivates the area in dispute including the area purchased by [the respondents].
Top of Page