Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Regional Office No.
___________________________
Protestant, Residential Free Patent No.
_____________________
___________________
(Address)
-versus-
___________________________
Protestee.
x----------------------------------------------------/
DECISION
BEFORE THIS OFFICE is a Motion for Reconsideration dated September
22, 2016 assailing the decision rendered on July 29, 2016 disposing thusly:
Facts
___________________________ filed a protest dated November 4, 1993 against
Free Patent No. ______________ and the corresponding Original Certificate of
Title No. __________________issued to concerning Lot No.
______________________ situated in La Suerte, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. The
subject land consist an area of twenty thousand five hundred fifty nine
(20,559) square meters or approximately 2.5 hectares.
Thus, an Order of Investigation was issued on January 17, 1994 by the
OIC Regional Executive Director of DENR Region X, Cagayan de Oro City
directing the PENR Officer of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur to conduct an
investigation regarding the case. Notice for preliminary conference dated May
12, 1994 dated was sent _________________________ and _____________________.
It was followed by another notice for formal conference dated July 26, 1994..
On October 27, 1994, an Order was sent to both parties directing them
to submit their respective position papers.
The Case for Protestant
Protestant in her position paper alleged that she and her husband
_________________________ bought 5.5 hectares of land from
_____________________in 1970. A Deed of Sale was duly executed in
consequence thereof which was unfortunately missing. For many years they
cleared and cultivated the area. They applied for title over the 3 hectares of
land because they were prevented by the government authorities from filing
land application over the remaining 2.5 hectares.
In addition thereto, they contended that Protestee had never been in the
subject land as an owner nor did she actually occupied the same. They averred
E-Mail: r10@denr.gov.ph
that they did not know that the subject land was already titled on June 10,
1986 in the name of ________________________ and that they only knew about it
from ____________________ (the buyer of the subject land). She therefore prays
for the cancellation of the free patent issued to _______________________ and
allow her application be processed and if found in order, a free patent be
issued in her favor.
The Case for Protestee
Protestee ________________ in her position paper alleged that the subject
land was originally owned by ____________________ since 1950’s and that after
he died, protestee as his daughter, took possession over the land. She filed a
free patent application and was granted Free Patent No. (X-14) 2789.
Eventually, an Original Certificate of Title No. _____________________ was issued
in her favor on June 10, 1986.
She further alleged that on 1993, she decided to sell her land to
_____________________ to which a Deed of Sale was executed. She therefore
parays for the dismissal of the case.
Issues
The main issue for resolution is whether or not there is merit on the
instant motion for reconsideration of protestees that would warrant reversal of
the ruling of this Office.
Ruling
This Office denies the protest.
Both parties, in their respective pleadings, claimed that they are in
possession of the land. Otherwise stated, both alleged to have acquired
preferential right over the subject lot.
In reviewing the assailed decision, this Office considers to be imperative
to review how lands are acquired and the corresponding legal requisites for
land application under the pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 730
otherwise known as “An Act permitting Sale without public auction of
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain for residential
purpose”, which states:
1. A Filipino citizen of lawful age, married; if single, applicant
must be the head or breadwinner of the family;
2. He is not the owner of a home lot in the municipality/city
where the land applied for is located;
3. He must have occupied in good faith the land
applied for and constructed a house thereon where
he/she and family is actually residing. (emphasis ours)
as well as the pertinent provisions Republic Act No. 10023 otherwise known
as “An Act Authorizing the Issuance of Free Patents to Residential Lands”
which states:
E-Mail: r10@denr.gov.ph
“Section 1. Qualifications. – Any Filipino citizen who is
the actual occupant of a residential land may apply for a
Free Patent Title under this Act: Provided; That in highly
urbanized cities, the land should not exceed two hundred
(200) square meters; in other cities, it should not exceed five
hundred (500) square meters; in first class and second class
municipalities, it should not exceed one thousand (1,000)
square meters; Provided, further, That the land applied for is
not needed for public service and/or public use.”
In view of the foregoing, this Office finds no reason to modify or reverse
its decision rendered on July 29, 2016.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant motion for
reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
OIC, Regional Director
Copy furnished:
E-Mail: r10@denr.gov.ph
