inotherpersonsnamestoitsrightfulandlegalowners,ortothosewhoclaimtohaveabetter

right;thereisnospecialgroundforanactionforreconveyance.(HeirsofValerianoS.Concha,
Sr.vs.Lumocso,540SCRA1[2007])

o0o

G.R.No.176474.November27,2008.*
HEIRS OF ARTURO REYES, represented by Evelyn R. San Buenaventura,
petitioners,vs.ELENASOCCOBELTRAN,respondent.

CivilLaw;Sales;Thelawspecificallyrequiresthatthevendormusthaveownershipofthepropertyat
thetimeitisdelivered.UnderArticle1459oftheCivilCodeoncontractsofsale,Thethingmustbelicit
andthevendormusthavearighttotransferownershipthereofatthetimeitisdelivered.Thelaw
specificallyrequiresthatthevendormusthaveownershipofthepropertyatthetimeitisdelivered.
Petitionersclaimthatthepropertywasconstructivelydeliveredtothemin1954byvirtueoftheContract
toSell.However,asalreadypointedoutbythisCourt,itwasexplicitintheContractitselfthat,atthe
timeitwasexecuted,MiguelR.Soccowasnotyettheownerofthepropertyandwasonlyexpectingto
inherit it. Hence, there was no valid sale from which ownership of the subject property could have
transferredfromMiguelSoccotoArturoReyes.Without acquiringownershipof thesubjectproperty,
ArturoReyesalsocouldnothaveconveyedthesametohisheirs,hereinpetitioners.
Same;PublicLands;LandRegistration;InSanMiguelCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals(185SCRA
722[1990]),theCourtreiteratedtherulethattheopen,exclusive,andundisputedpossessionofalienable
publiclandfortheperiodprescribedbylawcreatesthelegalfictionwherebylandceasestobepublicland
and is, therefore, private property.InSan Miguel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA 722
(1990),theCourtreiteratedtherulethattheopen,
_______________

*THIRDDIVISION.

212

21 SUPREME
2 COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
exclusive,andundisputedpossessionofalienablepubliclandfortheperiodprescribedbylawcreates
thelegalfictionwherebylandceasestobepubliclandandis,therefore,privateproperty.Itstressed,
however,thattheoccupationofthelandfor30yearsmustbeconclusivelyestablished.Thus,theevidence
offered by petitioner thereintax declarations, receipts, and the sole testimony of the applicant for
registration,petitionerspredecessorininterestwhoclaimedtohaveoccupiedthelandbeforesellingitto
the petitionerwere considered insufficient to satisfy the quantum of proof required to establish the
claimofpossessionrequiredforacquiringalienablepublicland.
Same;Sales;LandTitles;Bythenatureofacontractoragreementtosell,thetitleoverthesubject
propertyistransferredtothevendeeuponthefullpaymentofthestipulatedconsideration.Itisonly
properthatrespondentsclaimoverthesubjectpropertybeupheld.ThisCourtmust,however,notethat
theOrderoftheDARSecretary,dated9November2001,whichgrantedthepetitionersrighttopurchase
the property, is flawed and may be assailed in the proper proceedings. Records show that the DAR
affirmedthatrespondentspredecessorsininterest,MarceloLaquianandConstanciaSocco,havingbeen
identified as the original allocatee, have fully paid for the subject property as provided under an
agreementtosell.Bythenatureofacontractoragreementtosell,thetitleoverthesubjectpropertyis
transferredtothevendeeuponthefullpaymentofthestipulatedconsideration.Uponthefullpaymentof
thepurchaseprice,andabsentanyshowingthattheallocateeviolatedtheconditionsoftheagreement,
ownershipofthesubjectlandshouldbeconferredupontheallocatee.Sincetheextrajudicialpartition
transferringConstanciaSoccosinterestinthesubjectlandtotherespondentisvalid,thereisclearlyno
needfortherespondenttopurchasethesubjectproperty,despitetheapplicationforthepurchaseofthe
propertyerroneouslyfiledbyrespondent.Theonlyactwhichremainstobeperformedistheissuanceofa
titleinthenameofherlegalheirs,nowthatsheisdeceased.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
SanBuenaventuraLawOfficesforpetitioner.213

VOL. 572, 213

NOVEMBER 27, 2008
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
RolandoBondocMirandaforrespondent.

CHICONAZARIO,J.:
ThisisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,assailingthe
Decision1dated31January2006renderedbytheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.87066,
whichaffirmedtheDecision2dated30June2003oftheOfficeofthePresident,inO.P.CaseNo.
02A007,approvingtheapplicationofrespondentElenaSoccoBeltrantopurchasethesubject
property.
The subject property in this case is a parcel of land originally identified as Lot No. 6B,
situatedinZamoraStreet,Dinalupihan,Bataan,withatotalareaof360squaremeters.Itwas
originally part of a larger parcel of land, measuring 1,022 square meters, allocated to the
SpousesMarceloLaquianandConstanciaSocco(SpousesLaquian),whopaidforthesamewith
Japanese money. When Marcelo died, the property was left to his wife Constancia. Upon
Constanciassubsequentdeath,shelefttheoriginalparcelofland,alongwithherotherproperty,
withherheirshersiblings,namely:FilomenaElizaSocco,IsabelSoccodeHipolito,MiguelR.
Socco,andElenaSoccoBeltran.3PursuanttoanunnotarizeddocumententitledExtrajudicial
SettlementoftheEstateoftheDeceasedConstanciaR.Socco,executedbyConstanciasheirs
sometimein1965,theparceloflandwaspartitionedintothreelotsLotNo.6A,LotNo.6B,
andLotNo.6C.4Thesubjectproperty,LotNo.6B,wasadjudicatedtorespondent,butnotitle
hadbeenissuedinhername.
_______________

1PennedbyAssociateJusticeBienvenidoL.ReyeswithAssociateJusticesArturoD.Brion(nowanAssociateJustice
oftheSupremeCourt)andMariflorPunzalanCastillo,concurring.Rollo,pp.3240.
2PennedbySeniorDeputyExecutiveSecretaryWaldoQ.Flores.Rollo,pp.8182.
3Records,p.113.
4Rollo,pp.5558.

214
214 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
On25June1998,respondentElenaSoccoBeltranfiledanapplicationforthepurchaseofLot
No.6BbeforetheDepartmentofAgrarianReform(DAR),allegingthatitwasadjudicatedinher
favorintheextrajudicialsettlementofConstanciaSoccosestate. 5
Petitioners herein, the heirs of the late Arturo Reyes, filed their protest to respondents
petition before the DAR on the ground that the subject property was sold by respondents
brother,MiguelR.Socco,infavoroftheirfather,ArturoReyes,asevidencedbytheContractto
Sell,dated5September1954,stipulatingthat:6
That I am one of the coheirs of the Estate of the deceased Constancia Socco; and thatI am to
inheritassuchaportionofherlotconsistingofFourHundredSquareMeters(400)moreorlesslocated
onthe(sic)ZamoraSt.,MunicipalityofDinalupihan,ProvinceofBataan,boundedasfollows:
xxxx
ThatfororinconsiderationofthesumofFIVEPESOS(P5.00)persquaremeter,herebysell,convey
andtransferbywayofthisconditionalsalethesaid400sq.m.moreorlessuntoAtty.ArturoC.Reyes,
hisheirs,administratorandassignsxxx.(Emphasissupplied.)
Petitionersaverredthattheytookphysicalpossessionofthesubjectpropertyin1954andhad
beenuninterruptedintheirpossessionofthesaidpropertysincethen.
LegalOfficerBrigidaPinlacoftheDARBataanProvincialAgrarianReformOfficeconducted
aninvestigation,theresultsofwhichwerecontainedinherReport/Recommendationdated15
April1999.Otherthanrecountingtheaforementionedfacts,LegalOfficerPinlacalsomadethe
followingfindingsinherReport/Recommendation:7
_______________

5Records,p.26.
6Rollo,p.54.
7Records,pp.112113.

215
VOL. 572, 215
NOVEMBER 27, 2008
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
Further investigation was conducted by theundersigned and based onthe documentary evidence
presented by both parties, the following facts were gathered: that the house of [the] Reyes family is
adjacenttothelandholdinginquestionandportionofthesubjectpropertyconsistingofabout15meters
[were]occupiedbytheheirsofArturoReyeswereakitchenandbathroom[were]constructedtherein;on
theremainingportionaskeletalformmadeofhollowblock[s]iserectedandaccordingtotheheirsoflate
ArturoReyes,thiswasconstructedsincetheyear(sic)70sattheirexpense;thatconstructionofthesaid
skeletal building was not continued and left unfinished which according to the affidavit of Patricia
Hipolito the Reyes family where (sic) prevented by Elena Socco in their attempt of occupancy of the
subjectlandholding; (affidavitofPatriciaHipolito is heretoattachedasAnnexF); thatElenaSocco
cannotphysicallyandpersonallyoccupythesubjectpropertybecauseoftheskeletalbuildingmadebythe
Reyesfamilywhohavebeenrequestingthattheybepaidforthecostoftheconstructionandthesamebe
demolishedattheexpenseofElenaSocco;thataccordingtoElenaSocco,[she]iswillingtowaiveher
rightontheportionwhere[the]kitchenandbathroomis(sic)constructedbutnotthewholeofLot[No.]6
Badjudicatedtoher;thattheReyesfamilyincludedthesubjectpropertytotheswornstatementofvalue
ofrealpropertiesfiledbeforethemunicipalityofDinalupihan,Bataan,copiesofthedocumentsarehereto
attachedasAnnexesGandH;thatlikewiseElenaSoccohasbeencontinuouslyandreligiouslypaying
therealtytaxdueonthesaidproperty.

In the end, Legal Officer Pinlac recommended the approval of respondents petition for
issuance of title over the subject property, ruling that respondent was qualified to own the
subjectpropertypursuant toArticle1091oftheNewCivilCode. 8ProvincialAgrarianReform
Officer(PARO)RaynorTaroyconcurredinthesaidrecommendationinhisIndorsementdated22
April1999.9
_______________

8Id.,atp.112.Art.1091oftheCivilCodeprovidesthat:
Art.1091.Apartitionlegallymadeconfersuponeachheirtheexclusiveownershipofthepropertyadjudicated
tohim.
9Id.,atp.114.

216
216 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
InanOrderdated15September1999,DARRegionalDirectorNestorR.Acosta,however,
dismissedrespondentspetitionforissuanceoftitleoverthesubjectpropertyonthegroundthat
respondentwasnotanactualtillerandhadabandonedthesaidpropertyfor40years;hence,she
hadalreadyrenouncedherrighttorecoverthesame.10ThedispositivepartoftheOrderreads:
1.DISMISSING the claims of Elena SoccoBeltran, duly represented by Myrna Socco for lack of
merit;
2.ALLOCATINGLotNo.6BunderPsd003008565withanareaof360squaremeters,moreorless,
situatedZamoraStreet,Dinalupihan,Bataan,infavoroftheheirsofArturoReyes.
 3.ORDERINGthecomplainanttorefrainfromanyacttendingtodisturbthepeacefulpossessionof
hereinrespondents.
4.DIRECTING the MARO of Dinalupihan, Bataan to process the pertinent documents for the
issuanceofCLOAinfavoroftheheirsofArturoReyes. 11

RespondentfiledaMotionforReconsiderationoftheforegoingOrder,whichwasdeniedby
DARRegionalDirectorAcostainanotherOrderdated15September1999. 12
RespondentthenappealedtotheOfficeoftheDARSecretary.InanOrder,dated9November
2001,theDARSecretaryreversedtheDecisionofDARRegionalDirectorAcostaafterfinding
that neither petitioners predecessorininterest, Arturo Reyes, nor respondent was an actual
occupantofthesubjectproperty.However,sinceitwasrespondentwhoappliedtopurchasethe
subjectproperty,shewasbetterqualifiedtoownsaidpropertyasopposedtopetitioners,whodid
notatallapplytopurchasethesame.Petitionerswerefurtherdisqualifiedfrompurchasingthe
subjectpropertybecausetheywerenotlandless.Finally,duringtheinvestiga
_______________

10Rollo,pp.5961.
11Id.,atpp.6061.
12Id.,atpp.6566.

217
VOL. 572, 217
NOVEMBER 27, 2008
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
tion of Legal Officer Pinlac, petitioners requested that respondent pay them the cost of the
constructionoftheskeletalhousetheybuiltonthesubjectproperty.Thiswasconstruedbythe
DARSecretaryasawaiverbypetitionersoftheirrightoverthesubjectproperty. 13Inthesaid
Order,theDARSecretaryorderedthat:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theSeptember15,1999OrderisherebySETASIDEandanew
OrderisherebyissuedAPPROVINGtheapplicationtopurchaseLot[No.]6BofElenaSoccoBeltran. 14

PetitionerssoughtremedyfromtheOfficeofthePresidentbyappealingthe9November2001
DecisionoftheDARSecretary.TheirappealwasdocketedasO.P.CaseNo.02A007.On30
June 2003, the Office of thePresident rendered its Decision denying petitioners appeal and
affirmingtheDARSecretarysDecision.15ThefallooftheDecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment appealed from isAFFIRMEDand the instant
appealDISMISSED. 16

PetitionersMotionforReconsiderationwaslikewisedeniedbytheOfficeofthePresidentina
Resolutiondated30September2004. 17InthesaidResolution,theOfficeofthePresidentnoted
thatpetitionersfailedtoallegeintheirmotionthedatewhentheyreceivedtheDecisiondated30
June2003.SuchdatewasmaterialconsideringthatthepetitionersMotionforReconsideration
wasfiledonlyon14April2004,oralmostninemonthsafterthepromulgationofthedecision
sought to be reconsidered. Thus, it ruled that petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, filed
beyondfifteendaysfrom
_______________

13CARollo,pp.4246.
14Id.,atp.46.
15Rollo,pp.8182.
16Id.,atp.82.
17Id.,atpp.8688.

218
218 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
receiptofthedecisiontobereconsidered,renderedthesaiddecisionfinalandexecutory.
Consequently,petitionersfiledanappealbeforetheCourtofAppeals,docketedasCAG.R.SP
No. 87066. Pending the resolution of this case, the DAR already issued on 8 July 2005 a
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) over the subject property in favor of the
respondents niece and representative, Myrna SoccoBeltran.18Respondent passed away on 21
March2001,19buttherecordsdonotascertaintheidentityofherlegalheirsandherlegatees.
ActingonCAG.R.SPNo.87066,theCourtofAppealssubsequentlypromulgateditsDecision,
dated31January2006,affirmingtheDecisiondated30June2003oftheOfficeofthePresident.
Itheldthatpetitionerscouldnothavebeenactualoccupantsofthesubjectproperty,sinceactual
occupancyrequiresthepositiveactofoccupyingandtillingtheland,notjusttheintroductionof
anunfinishedskeletalstructurethereon.TheContracttoSellonwhichpetitionersbasedtheir
claimoverthesubjectpropertywasexecutedbyMiguelSocco,whowasnottheownerofthesaid
propertyand,therefore,hadnorighttotransferthesame.Accordingly,theCourtofAppeals
affirmed respondents right over the subject property, which was derived form the original
allocateesthereof.20ThefalloofthesaidDecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instantPETITION FOR REVIEWisDISMISSED.
Accordingly,theDecisiondated30June2003andtheResolutiondated30December2004bothissuedby
theOfficeofthePresidentareherebyAFFIRMEDintoto. 21

_______________

18CARollo,pp.153,160161.
19Id.,atp.64.
20Rollo,pp.3638.
21Id.,atp.40.

219
VOL. 572, 219
NOVEMBER 27, 2008
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
The Court of Appeals denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of its Decision in a
Resolutiondated16August2006.22
Hence,thepresentPetition,whereinpetitionersraisethefollowingissues:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT THAT THE SUBJECT LOT IS VACANT AND
THAT PETITIONERS ARE NOT ACTUAL OCCUPANTS THEREOF BY DENYING THE LATTERS
CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN IN OPEN, CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE, NOTORIOUS AND
AVDERSEPOSSESSIONTHEREOFSINCE1954ORFORMORETHANTHIRTY(30)YEARS.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONERS
CANNOT LEGALLY ACQUIRE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED
LANDLESSASEVIDENCEDBYATAXDECLARATION.
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT WHATEVER
RESERVATIONWEHAVEOVERTHERIGHTOFMYRNASOCCOTOSUCCEEDWASALREADY
SETTLED WHEN NO LESS THAN MIGUEL SOCCO (PREDECESSORININTEREST OF HEREIN
PETITIONERS)EXECUTEDHISWAIVEROFRIGHTDATEDAPRIL19,2005OVERTHESUBJECT
PROPERTYINFAVOROFMYRNASOCCO.
IV
WHETHERORNOTTHECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDWHENITDENIEDPETITIONERSMOTION
FOR NEW TRIAL THEREBY BRUSHING ASIDE THE FACT THAT MYRNA V. SOCCOARIZO
GROSSLY MISREPRESENTED IN HER INFORMATION SHEET OF BENEFICIARIES AND
APPLICATION TO PURCHASELOT IN LANDED ESTATES THAT SHEIS A FILIPINO CITIZEN,
WHEN
_______________

22Id.,atpp.4143.
220

220 SUPREME COURT

REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
INTRUTHANDINFACT,SHEISALREADYANAMERICANNATIONAL. 23

Themainissueinthiscaseiswhetherornotpetitionershaveabetterrighttothesubject
propertyovertherespondent.Petitionersclaimoverthesubjectpropertyisanchoredonthe
Contract to Sell executed between Miguel Socco and Arturo Reyes on 5 September 1954.
Petitionersadditionallyallegethattheyandtheirpredecessorininterest,ArturoReyes,have
beeninpossessionofthesubjectlotsince1954foranuninterruptedperiodofmorethan40
years.
TheCourtisunconvinced.
PetitionerscannotderivetitletothesubjectpropertybyvirtueoftheContracttoSell.Itwas
unmistakablystatedintheContractandmadecleartobothpartiestheretothatthevendor,
MiguelR.Socco,wasnotyettheownerofthesubjectpropertyandwasmerelyexpectingto
inheritthesameashisshareasacoheirofConstanciasestate. 24Itwasalsodeclaredinthe
ContractitselfthatMiguelR.Soccosconveyanceofthesubjecttothebuyer,ArturoReyes,wasa
conditionalsale.Itis,therefore,apparentthatthesaleofthesubjectpropertyinfavorofArturo
ReyeswasconditionedupontheeventthatMiguelSoccowouldactuallyinheritandbecomethe
ownerofthesaidproperty.Absentsuchoccurrence,MiguelR.Socconeveracquiredownershipof
thesubjectpropertywhichhecouldvalidlytransfertoArturoReyes.
UnderArticle1459oftheCivilCodeoncontractsofsale,Thethingmustbelicitandthe
vendormusthavearighttotransferownershipthereofatthetimeitisdelivered.The
_______________

23Id.,atp.16.
24IntheContractToSell,MiguelR.Soccostatesthat,ThatIamoneofthecoheirsoftheEstateofthedeceased
ConstanciaSocco;andthatIamtoinheritassuchaportionofherlotconsistingofFourHundredSquareMeters(400)
moreorlesslocatedonthe(sic)ZamoraSt.,MunicipalityofDinalupihan,ProvinceofBataan.(Rollo,p.54.)

221
VOL. 572, 221
NOVEMBER 27, 2008
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
lawspecificallyrequiresthatthevendormusthaveownershipofthepropertyatthetimeitis
delivered.Petitionersclaimthatthepropertywasconstructivelydeliveredtothemin1954by
virtueoftheContracttoSell.However,asalreadypointedoutbythisCourt,itwasexplicitin
theContractitselfthat,atthetimeitwasexecuted,MiguelR.Soccowasnotyettheownerofthe
property and was only expecting to inherit it. Hence, there was no valid sale from which
ownershipofthesubjectpropertycouldhavetransferredfromMiguelSoccotoArturoReyes.
Withoutacquiringownershipofthesubjectproperty,ArturoReyesalsocouldnothaveconveyed
thesametohisheirs,hereinpetitioners.
Petitioners,nevertheless,insistthattheyphysicallyoccupiedthesubjectlotformorethan30
years and, thus, they gained ownership of the property through acquisitive prescription,
citingSandovalv.InsularGovernment25andSanMiguelCorporationv.CourtofAppeals.26
InSandoval,petitionersthereinsoughttheenforcementofSection54,paragraph6ofActNo.
926, otherwise known as the Land Registration Act, which requiredfor the issuance of a
certificateoftitletoagriculturalpubliclandstheopen,continuous,exclusive,andnotorious
possessionandoccupationofthesameingoodfaithandunderclaimofownershipformorethan
ten years. After evaluating the evidence presented, consisting of the testimonies of several
witnessesandproofthatfenceswereconstructedaroundtheproperty,theCourtintheafore
statedcasedeniedthepetitiononthegroundthatpetitionersfailedtoprovethattheyexercised
actsofownershiporwereinopen,continuous,andpeacefulpossessionofthewholeland,and
hadcausedittobeenclosedtotheexclusionofotherpersons.Itfurtherdecreedthatwhoever
claimssuchpossessionshallexerciseactsofdominion
_______________

2512Phil.648(1909).
26G.R.No.57667,28May1990,185SCRA722.

222
222 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
andownershipwhichcannotbemistakenforthemomentaryandaccidentalenjoymentofthe
property.27
InSan Miguel Corporation, the Court reiterated the rule that the open, exclusive, and
undisputedpossessionofalienablepubliclandfortheperiodprescribedbylawcreatesthelegal
fictionwherebyland ceases tobe publiclandandis, therefore,privateproperty.It stressed,
however,thattheoccupationofthelandfor30yearsmustbeconclusivelyestablished.Thus,the
evidenceofferedbypetitionerthereintaxdeclarations,receipts,andthesoletestimonyofthe
applicantforregistration,petitionerspredecessorininterestwhoclaimedtohaveoccupiedthe
landbeforesellingittothepetitionerwereconsideredinsufficienttosatisfythequantumof
proofrequiredtoestablishtheclaimofpossessionrequiredforacquiringalienablepublicland. 28
Asinthetwoaforecitedcases,petitionershereinwereunabletoproveactualpossessionofthe
subject property for the period required by law. It was underscored inSan Miguel
Corporationthattheopen,continuous,exclusive,andnotoriousoccupationofpropertyformore
than30yearsmustbenolessthanconclusive,suchquantumofproofbeingnecessarytoavoid
theerroneousvalidationofactualfictitiousclaimsofpossessionoverthepropertythatisbeing
claimed.29
Inthepresentcase,theevidencepresentedbythepetitionersfallsshortofbeingconclusive.
Apartfromtheirselfservingstatementthattheytookpossessionofthesubjectproperty,the
onlyproofofferedtosupporttheirclaimwasageneralstatementmadeintheletter 30dated4
February 2002 ofBarangayCaptain Carlos Gapero, certifying that Arturo Reyes was the
occupantofthesubjectpropertysincepeace
_______________

27Sandovalv.InsularGovernment,supranote25atpp.654656.
28SanMiguelCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,supranote26atpp.724726.
29Id.
30Rollo,p.117.

223
VOL. 572, 223
NOVEMBER 27, 2008
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
timeandatpresent.Thestatementisrendereddoubtfulbythefactthatasearlyas1997,when
respondentfiledherpetitionforissuanceoftitlebeforetheDAR,ArturoReyeshadalreadydied
andwasalreadyrepresentedbyhisheirs,petitionersherein.
Moreover,thecertificationgivenbyBarangayCaptainGaperothatArturoReyesoccupiedthe
premisesforanunspecifiedperiodoftime,i.e.,sincepeacetimeuntilthepresent,cannotprevail
overLegalOfficerPinlacsmoreparticularfindingsinherReport/Recommendation.LegalOfficer
Pinlac reported that petitioners admitted that it was only in the 1970s that they built the
skeletalstructurefoundonthesubjectproperty.Shealsoreferredtotheavermentsmadeby
PatriciaHipolitoinanAffidavit,31dated26February1999,thatthestructurewasleftunfinished
becauserespondent preventedpetitioners from occupying the subject property. Such findings
disprovepetitionersclaimsthattheirpredecessorininterest,ArturoReyes,hadbeeninopen,
exclusive,andcontinuouspossessionofthepropertysince1954.Theadvertedfindingswerethe
resultofLegalOfficerPinlacsinvestigationinthecourseofherofficialduties,ofmatterswithin
herexpertisewhichwerelateraffirmedbytheDARSecretary,theOfficeofthePresident,and
the Court of Appeals. The factual findings of such administrative officer, if supported by
evidence,areentitledtogreatrespect.32
Incontrast,respondentsclaimoverthesubjectpropertyisbackedbysufficientevidence.Her
predecessorsininterest,thespousesLaquian,havebeenidentifiedastheoriginalallocateeswho
havefullypaidforthesubjectproperty.The
_______________

31Records,p.105.
32SpousesCalvov.SpousesVergara,423Phil.939,947;372SCRA650,657(2001);DulosRealtyandDevelopment
Corporationv.CourtofAppeals,422Phil.292,304;370SCRA709,718(2001);Advinculav.Dicen,G.R.No.162403,16
May2005,458SCRA696,712;Balbastrov.Junio,G.R.No.154678,17July2007,527SCRA680,693.

224
224 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
subject property was allocated to respondent in the extrajudicial settlement by the heirs of
Constancias estate. The document entitled Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the
DeceasedConstanciaSoccowasnotnotarizedand,asaprivatedocument,canonlybindthe
parties thereto. However, its authenticity was never put into question, nor was its legality
impugned.Moreover,executedin1965bytheheirsofConstanciaSocco,ormorethan30years
ago, it is an ancient document which appears to be genuine on its face and therefore its
authenticitymustbeupheld.33Respondenthascontinuouslypaidfortherealtytaxdueonthe
subjectproperty,afactwhich,thoughnotconclusive,servedtostrengthenherclaimoverthe
property.34
From theforegoing,it is onlyproperthat respondentsclaim overthesubject propertybe
upheld.ThisCourtmust,however,notethattheOrderoftheDARSecretary,dated9November
2001, which granted the petitioners right to purchase the property, is flawed and may be
assailed in the proper proceedings. Records show that the DAR affirmed that respondents
predecessorsininterest,MarceloLaquianandConstanciaSocco,havingbeenidentifiedasthe
originalallocatee,havefullypaidforthesubjectpropertyasprovidedunderanagreementto
sell.Bythenatureofacontractor
_______________

33Sec.22,Rule132oftheRevisedRulesofCourtstatesthat:
SEC.22.How genuineness of handwriting proved.The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
witnesswhobelievesittobethehandwritingofsuchpersonbecausehehasseenthepersonwrite,orhasseen
writingpurportingtobehisuponwhichthewitnesshasactedorbeencharged,andhasthusacquiredknowledgeof
thehandwritingofsuchperson.Evidencerespectingthehandwritingmayalsobegivenbyacomparison,madeby
thewitnessorthecourt,withwritingsadmittedortreatedasgenuinebythepartyagainstwhomtheevidenceis
offered,orprovedtobegenuinetothesatisfactionofthejudge.(Manongsongv.Estimo,452Phil.862,878;404
SCRA683,694[2003].)
34Records,p.112.

225
VOL. 572, 225
NOVEMBER 27, 2008
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
agreementtosell,thetitleoverthesubjectpropertyistransferredtothevendeeuponthefull
payment of the stipulated consideration. Upon the full payment of the purchase price, and
absentanyshowingthattheallocateeviolatedtheconditionsoftheagreement,ownershipofthe
subject land should be conferred upon the allocatee. 35Since the extrajudicial partition
transferringConstanciaSoccosinterestinthesubjectlandtotherespondentisvalid,thereis
clearlynoneedfortherespondenttopurchasethesubjectproperty,despitetheapplicationfor
thepurchaseofthepropertyerroneouslyfiledbyrespondent.Theonlyactwhichremainstobe
performedistheissuanceofatitleinthenameofherlegalheirs,nowthatsheisdeceased.
Moreover, the Court notes that the records have not clearly established the right of
respondentsrepresentative,MyrnaSoccoArizo,overthesubjectproperty.Thus,itisnotclearto
thisCourtwhytheDARissuedon8July2005aCLOA 36overthesubjectpropertyinfavorof
Myrna SoccoArizo. Respondents death does not automatically transmit her rights to the
property to Myrna SoccoBeltran. Respondent only authorized Myrna SoccoArizo, through a
SpecialPowerofAttorney37dated10March1999,torepresentherinthepresentcaseandto
administerthesubjectpropertyforherbenefit.ThereisnothingintheSpecialPowerofAttorney
totheeffectthatMyrnaSoccoArizocantakeoverthesubjectpropertyasownerthereofupon
respondentsdeath.ThatMiguelV.Socco,respondentsonlynephew,thesonofthelateMiguel
R. Socco, and Myrna SoccoArizos brother, executed a waiver of his right to inherit from
respondent,doesnotautomaticallymeanthatthesubjectpropertywillgotoMyrnaSoccoArizo,
absentanyproofthatthereisnootherqualifiedheirtorespondentsestate.Thus,thisDecision
doesnotinanywayconfirmthe
_______________

35SpousesTuazonv.Hon.Garilao,415Phil.62,69and72;362SCRA654,659660and663(2001).
36CARollo,pp.160161.
37Records,p.100.

226
226 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Heirs of Arturo Reyes vs.
Socco-Beltran
issuance of the CLOA in favor of Myrna SoccoArizo, which may be assailed in appropriate
proceedings.
INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,theinstantPetitionisDENIED.TheassailedDecisionof
theCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.87066,promulgatedon31January2006,isAFFIRMED
withMODIFICATION.ThisCourtwithholdstheconfirmationofthevalidityoftitleoverthe
subjectpropertyinthenameofMyrnaSoccoArizopendingdeterminationofrespondentslegal
heirsinappropriateproceedings.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
YnaresSantiago(Chairperson),AustriaMartinez,NachuraandReyes,JJ.,concur.

Petitiondenied,assaileddecisionaffirmedwithmodification.

Notes.Theburdenofprooftoovercomethepresumptionofstateownershipoflandsofthe
public domain lies on the person applying for registrationthe evidence to overcome the
presumption must be wellnigh incontrovertible. (Republic vs. Barandiaran, 538 SCRA 705
[2007])
Theapplicantforconfirmationofimperfecttitlemustprovethata)thelandformspartofthe
disposableandalienableagriculturallandsofthepublicdomain;andb)hehasbeeninopen,
continuous,exclusiveandnotoriouspossessionandoccupationofthelandunderabonafideclaim
ofownershipeithersincetimeimmemorialorsinceJune12,1945.(Republicvs.Sarmiento,518
SCRA250[2007])
o0o