JAUCIAN v.

DE JORAS

RE: Action for Reversion/Action for Declaration of Nullity of Free Patent & Certificate of Title

FACTS:

o On May 3, 2000, Alex Jaucian filed a complaint against Quintin De Joras and his nephew, Marlon
De Joras for recovery of possession of the properties and damages. Jaucian claimed that the
properties were sold by Vicente Abajero to Eriberta dela Rosa in 1945, and Eriberta dela Rosa
subsequently sold the properties to him on 7 July 1986.
o Quintin and Marlon filed their answer with counterclaim and alleged that they have been in
continuous, peaceful, open, actual, and physical possession of the properties in the concept of
owners since 1976, when Quintin purchased the lots from Vicente Abajero, up to the present.
Such purchase was later conrmed by the surviving spouse of Vicente Abajero through a
Confirmatory Deed of Sale dated December 29, 1981.
o On September 18, 2000, Quintin filed a complaint against Jaucian for reconveyance and quieting
of title with damages. Quintin reiterated his claims in his Answer with Counterclaim, adding that
Jaucian was able to register the properties in his name under a Free Patent registration on 11
April 1995 through "fraudulent schemes and gross misrepresentation."
o Quintin also alleged that there was a "complete absence of notice of such application for
registration" from Jaucian, and that there was no actual inspection and investigation of the
subject properties which is a condition sine qua non for the processing of free patent application
to determine whether there are adverse claimants on the properties subject of the free patent
application and that the properties are in the possession of third parties other than the
applicant.
o Quintin died during the pendency of the case on December 18, 2008 and was substituted by his
heirs namely, Ma. Sylvana De Joras-Alimango, Merril Angelo De Joras, Magdalena Mylene De
Joras, Quintin De Joras, Jr., and Melvin De Joras.

RTC RULING: RTC, in its joint decision, ordered Quintin, substituted by his heirs, and Marlon to vacate
the subject lots and turn over the peaceful possession over the properties to Jaucian.

CA RULING: The CA reversed the RTC and declared Quintin the true owner of the subject properties.

ISSUE: Whether Jaucian is entitled to possession of the subject properties and to recover damages.

SC RULING: SC affirmed the decision of the CA. With modifications.

o Jaucian is not entitled to the possession of the properties and to recover damages because the
free patent registered under his name is null and void. However, the subject properties cannot
be awarded to Quintin and his heirs.
o Plaintiff’s allegations determine the nature of the action.
 Quintin’s original complaint against Jaucian was an action for reconveyance and quieting
of title with damages. SC held that CA was correct when it held that the proper action is
reconveyance and declaration of nullity of title because of Quintin's allegations as to the
"character of ownership of the realty whose title is sought to be nullified. Quintin's
original complaint could not have been an action for reversion because the allegations
did not admit State ownership.
  The CA was correct when it held that what controls in determining the nature of the
action are plaintiff's allegations in the complaint, and not the RTC’s presumption that
“the character of the disputed lot was public land simply from the proposition that it
was acquired by virtue of a free patent.”
o The free patent under Jaucian’s name is null and void.
 The requirements an applicant must satisfy before a free patent is granted to him is
enumerated in Par. 1, Sec. 44, Chapter VII of CA. 141.
(1) the applicant must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
(2) the applicant must not own more than 12 hectares of land;
(3) the applicant or his or her predecessor-in-interest must have continuously
occupied and cultivated the land;
(4) the continuous occupation and cultivation must be for a period of at least 30
years before April 15, 1990, which is the date of effectivity of Republic Act No.
6940; and
(5) payment of real estate taxes on the land while it has not been occupied by
other persons.
 Jaucian failed to establish that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in
continuous possession of the subject lands for at least 30 years prior to 15 April 1990, or
at least since 15 April 1960, as required in Section 44 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended by Republic Act No. 6940. For this reason alone, Jaucian is not entitled to a
free patent to the subject lands.
 While the Director of the Land Management Bureau had no authority to vest any title to
Jaucian who was not qualified for a free patent, the subject lands cannot also be
awarded in this case to Quintin and his heirs. In any event, the free patent issued to
Jaucian was null and void.
o Quintin may apply for a free patent registration under his name.
 Quintin and his heirs may apply for a free patent registration provided they satisfy the
requirements under CA 141.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review. Petitioner Alex A. Jaucian is not entitled to the
possession of the subject properties or to recover damages. We AFFIRM the 6 November 2015 Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101285 with MODIFICATION to read, as follows:

Free Patent No. 051722-95-3973 over the subject property is hereby CANCELLED and INVALIDATED for
having been obtained by means of fraud and misrepresentation.

Petitioner Alex A. Jaucian is ORDERED to forever refrain from laying any claim of ownership over the
subject property, and/or from disturbing the peaceful possession of respondents Quintin De Joras and
Marlon De Joras, and their heirs.