Alex A. Jaucian vs. Marlon De Joras and Quintin De Joras

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 221928. September 05, 2018 ]

ALEX A. JAUCIAN, PETITIONER, VS. MARLON DE JORAS AND QUINTIN DE JORAS, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition for review to set aside the 6 November 2015 Decision1'of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101285 which reversed and set aside the 24 September 2012 Joint Decision2'of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 21, in consolidated Civil Case Nos. RTC 2000-0086 and RTC 2000-00141 for'Recovery of Possession and Damages, and'Reconveyance and Quieting of Title with Damages, respectively. The subject properties are parcels of land situated in Del Carmen, Minalabac, Camarines Sur covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 130193'registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur in the name of Alex A. Jaucian (Jaucian), identified as Lot No. 306, Pcadm 524-D, Case 1, with an area of 1,359 square meters, and Lot No. 430, Pcadm 524-D, Case 1, with an area of 466 square meters, pursuant to Free Patent No. 051722-95-3973.4

The Facts

On 23 May 2000, Jaucian filed a Complaint5'against Quintin De Joras (Quintin) and his nephew, Marlon De Joras6'(Marlon), for recovery of possession of the properties and damages.

In his Complaint, Jaucian alleged that the properties had been declared in his name with the Municipal Assessor's Office of Minalabac, Camarines Sur as shown by Tax Declaration Nos. A.R.P. 97-007-0473 and A.R.P. 97-007-0464.7'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 Jaucian on 7 July 1986.8'Jaucian further claimed that sometime in 1992, Quintin and Marlon, claiming ownership of the said lots and without knowledge of Jaucian, occupied the properties. On 15 July 1992, Jaucian sent Marlon a demand letter9'to vacate the properties. Despite Jaucian's oral and written demands, Quintin and Marlon refused to vacate the properties up to the present time, thereby depriving Jaucian of his continuous possession over the same.

Jaucian explained that the filing of the complaint was delayed because of the previously filed Civil Case No. 527 with the Municipal Trial Court of Minalabac, Camarines Sur, entitled'Alex Jaucian v. Marlon De Joras'for ejectment; and Special Civil Action No. 93-2844 with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Naga City, entitled'Alex Jaucian v. Hon. Beatriz Contreras Arroyo, the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Sur and Marlon De Joras for certiorari. Both cases were dismissed.

Jaucian prayed that judgment be rendered in his favor and that Quintin and Marlon be ordered to vacate the premises. Jaucian further prayed that:

[Quintin and Marlon] be ordered to pay the plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P50,000.00 for [actual] damages; P96,000.00 [as rental for the occupancy of the land], plus P1,000.00 per month from the filing of this complaint until the possession of the property is [returned] to the plaintiff; P10,000.00, plus P1,000.00 per counsel's attendance in court as Attorney's fees; P10,000.00 as litigation expenses; costs of suit[.] Plaintiff further prays for such other relief[s] [as may be] just and equitable under the premises.10

Quintin and Marlon filed their Answer with Counterclaim,11'dated 4 July 2000, mostly denying Jaucian's claims for want of knowledge thereof. Quintin and Marlon 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.£A⩊phi£ Such purchase was later confirmed by the surviving spouse of Vicente Abajero through a Confirmatory Deed of Sale12'dated 29 December 1981. They also claimed that, even assuming that the lots in question were registered in the name of Jaucian, such registration was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud because Quintin, who is the absolute owner in fee simple of the properties, was deliberately not notified of Jaucian's application for registration. Thus, Quintin and Marlon failed to file their opposition.

On 18 September 2000, Quintin filed a Complaint13'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." Quintin alleged that there was a "complete absence of notice of such application for registration" from Jaucian, and there was "active connivance" with the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office Land Investigator "who was supposed to conduct an actual inspection and investigation of the subject properties as essential condition'sine qua non'for the processing of free patent application to determine whether or not 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."14

Quintin prayed that judgment be rendered as follows:

a. Ordering the defendant to reconvey to the plaintiff the subject properties described x x x covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 13019 in the name of the defendant;

b. Declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the subject properties and is entitled to exercise all the attributes of ownership thereon;

c. Ordering the defendant to forever refrain from laying claim of ownership over the subject properties and from disturbing the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the same;

d. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the following amounts:

d.1. P200,000.00 for moral damages;

d.2. P100,000.00 for exemplary damages;

d.3. P40,000.00 for attorney's fees and P2,000.00 per court appearance fee;

d.4. P50,000.00 for various expenses of litigation; and

e. Granting the plaintiff such other reliefs as may be just and equitable.15

On 17 October 2001, Jaucian filed his Answer with Counterclaim,16'reiterating his previous allegations and claims. Jaucian claimed that the remedy of reconveyance is not the proper proceeding in the case.

Quintin died during the pendency of the case on 18 December 2008. He 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.17

The Ruling of the RTC

In its Joint Decision dated 24 September 2012, the RTC ordered Quintin, substituted by his heirs, and Marlon to vacate the subject lots and turn over the peaceful possession over the properties to Jaucian. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered x x x as follows:

1. ORDERING Marlon Dejoras and Quintin Dejoras substituted by his heirs; namely, Sylvana Dejoras-Alimango, Merril Angelo Dejoras, Magdalena Mylene Dejoras, Quintin Dejoras, Jr. and Melvin Dejoras and all persons claiming right or interest under them to VACATE the subject lots covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 13019 pursuant to Free Patent No. 051722-95-3973 in the name of Alexander Jaucian or Alex Jaucian and to TURN OVER THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION thereof to the latter or to his duly authorized representative;

2. ORDERING Marlon Dejoras and Quintin Dejoras substituted by his heirs; namely, Sylvana Dejoras-Alimango, Merril Angelo Dejoras, Magdalena Mylene Dejoras, Quintin Dejoras, Jr. and Melvin Dejoras to PAY, jointly and severally, Alex Jaucian the amount of Five hundred pesos (P500.00) as monthly rental [for] the subject lots from May 23, 2000 until they completely surrender and vacate said premises;

3. DISMISSING the counterclaim of Marlon Dejoras and Quintin Dejoras in Civil Case No. RTC 2000-0086;

4. DISMISSING the complaint for reconveyance and quieting of title with damages docketed as Civil Case No. RTC 2000-0141 filed by Quintin Dejoras against Alex Jaucian; and

5. ORDERING the Regional Director of the Land Management Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Regional Office No. 5, Legaspi City, to CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION on the application and grant of free patent to Alex Jaucian over the subject properties in the light of the revelation of witness Salve Florendo that her signature appearing in the Joint Affidavit in Support of Free Patent Application (Exhibit 3-E) of Alex Jaucian is not hers, which is indicative of possible fraud and misrepresentation thereon. Said Regional Director is likewise directed to INFORM this Court of the action taken within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Joint Decision.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.18

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and declared Quintin the true owner of the subject properties. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, the Joint Decision, dated 24 September 2012, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Naga City in consolidated Civil Case Nos. RTC 2000-0086 and RTC 2000-00141 for Recovery of Possession and Damages, and Reconveyance and Quieting of Title with Damages, respectively, ordering Marlon Dejoras and Quintin Dejoras to (1) vacate the subject property and turn over its possession to Alex Jaucian; (2) pay P500.00 as monthly rental from 23 May 2000; and ordering the Land Management Bureau of DENR to conduct an investigation on the grant of free patent to Alex Jaucian over the subject property is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

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.

Quintin Dejoras is DECLARED the true owner of the subject property covered by OCT No. 13019, which should be canceled. The Register of Deeds is ORDERED to issue a new title in favor of Quintin Dejoras as the true and absolute owner of the subject property.

Alex Jaucian is ORDERED to forever refrain from laying any claim of ownership over the subject property, and/or from disturbing the peaceful possession of Quintin and Marlon Dejoras.

Alex Jaucian is further ORDERED to pay P100,000.00 as moral damages; P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P50,000.00 as attorney's fees, plus costs of litigation.

SO ORDERED.19

Hence, this petition for review filed by Jaucian.

The Issue

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

The Ruling of the Court

We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. 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.

Plaintiff's allegations determine the nature of the action.

Before going into the issue itself, it is necessary to explain that the allegations in plaintiff's complaint determine the nature of plaintiff's action.

Quintin's original complaint against Jaucian was an action for reconveyance and quieting of title with damages. The RTC found that Quintin's action for reconveyance and quieting of title is really one for reversion of land to the State because Quintin seeks the annulment of title issued pursuant to a free patent, implying that the land is public land. Thus, the RTC held that Quintin had no legal standing to institute an action for reversion; only the Office of the Solicitor General can bring an action for reversion on behalf of the Republic.

On the other hand, the Court of Appeals found that the case may be filed by Quintin and his heirs as the real parties-in-interest because the allegations in Quintin's complaint pertaining to the ownership of the land refer to an action for reconveyance and declaration of nullity of the free patent and certificate of title over the subject properties. The Court of Appeals relied on the case of'Heirs of Kionisala v. Heirs of Dacut20'which differentiated an action for declaration of nullity of free patent from an action for reversion. Citing the case, the Court of Appeals held that:

In an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. On the other hand, in an action for declaration of nullity of free patents, what is required are allegations of (1) the plaintiff's ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title, and (2) the defendant's fraud or mistake, as the case may be, in successfully obtaining these documents of title over the parcel of land claimed by the plaintiff.

Thus, in'Heirs of Kionisala, the Supreme Court held:

An ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of free patents and certificates of title is not the same as an action for reversion.'The difference between them lies in the allegations as to the character of ownership of the realty whose title is sought to be nullified.'In an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. Hence in'Gabila v. Barrigal'where the plaintiff in his complaint admits that he has no right to demand the cancellation or amendment of the defendant's title because even if the title were canceled or amended[,] the ownership of the land embraced therein or of the portion affected by the amendment would revert to the public domain, we ruled that the action was for reversion and that the only person or entity entitled to relief would be the Director of Lands.

On the other hand,'a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the plaintiff's ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title as well as the defendant's fraud or mistake[,]'as the case may be, in successfully obtaining these documents of title over the parcel of land claimed by plaintiff. In such a case,'the nullity arises strictly not from the fraud or deceit but from the fact that the land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow, and whatever patent or certificate of title obtained therefor is consequently void ab initio. The real party in interest is not the State but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-existing right of ownership over the parcel of land in question even before the grant of title to the defendant.21'(Emphasis supplied)

We agree with the Court of Appeals that Quintin's original complaint could not have been an action for reversion because the allegations did not admit State ownership. The Court of Appeals 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."22'Quintin's allegations refer to (1) his pre'existing right of ownership over the contested lots prior to the issuance of the free patent and certificate of title to Jaucian and (2) Jaucian's use of fraudulent schemes and gross misrepresentation to obtain the documents of title.

First of all, Quintin's allegations of a pre-existing right of ownership over the disputed lots prior to the issuance of the free patent and the OCT to Jaucian were clear in Quintin's complaint:

2. Herein plaintiff is the absolute owner in fee simple of the following described two (2) parcels of land together with all the improvements existing thereon:

x x x x

which two (2) parcels of residential lots together with the improvements thereon had been acquired by the plaintiff by way of purchase from the late Vicente Abajero on May 13, 1976;

3.'Plaintiff has been in open[,] continuous, peaceful, public and in actual physical possession of the above-described properties from the time of their acquisition up to the present time in [the] concept of absolute owner thereof;23'(Emphasis supplied)

Secondly, Quintin alleged that Jaucian used fraudulent schemes and gross misrepresentation to obtain the free patent registration and the OCT over the disputed lots. These allegations were also clear in his complaint:

4. Through fraudulent scheme and gross misrepresentation, the defendant was able to register the above-described properties in his name under a Free Patent registration on April 11, 1995, for which plaintiff was issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Original Certificate of Title No. 13019;

5. The'defendant'knowing for a fact that the plaintiff has been in open, continuous, public, peaceful and in actual physical possession of the above-described properties in [the] concept of an owner prior to the filing of his application for registration nevertheless'filed said application by concealing such fact in his said application for registration, thus, depriving the plaintiff of his right to file a formal opposition'to such application for registration by reason of complete absence of notice of such application for registration'and such fraud and misrepresentation was carried out with the active connivance of the CENRO Land Investigator who was supposed to conduct an actual inspection and investigation of the subject properties as essential condition sine qua non for the processing of free patent application'to determine whether or not 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;

x x x x24'(Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the Court of Appeals 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."25

The free patent under Jaucian's name is null and void.

Paragraph 1, Section 44, Chapter VII of Commonwealth Act No. 141,26'as amended by Republic Act No. 6940,27'enumerates the requirements an applicant must satisfy before a free patent is granted to him, to wit:

SECTION 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is not the owner of more than twelve (12) hectares and who, for at least thirty years prior to the effectivity of this amendatory Act [April 15, 1990, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest a tract or tracts of agricultural public lands subject to disposition, who shall have paid the real estate tax thereon while the same has not been occupied by any person shall be entitled, under the provisions of this Chapter, to have a free patent issued to him for such tract or tracts of such land not to exceed twelve (12) hectares.

Republic Act No. 78228'similarly states the same requirements:

Section 1. x x x. The application shall be accompanied with a map and the technical description of the land occupied along with affidavits proving his occupancy from two disinterested persons residing in the municipality or barrio where the land may be located.

Section 2. The Director of Lands upon receipt of the application shall cause notices of the same to be posted in conspicuous places in the capital of the province, the municipality and the barrio where the land applied for is situated for a period of two consecutive weeks, requiring in said notices everyone who has any interest in the matter to present his objections or adverse claims, if any, before the application is granted.

Section 3. At the expiration of the time provided in the preceding section, the Director of Lands, if satisfied of the truth of the statements contained in the application and in the affidavits attached thereto and that the applicant comes within the provisions of this Act, shall issue the corresponding title in favor of the applicant for the tract of land applied for if there had not been any objections or adverse claims registered in his office.

The case of'Taar v. Lawan'summarized the requirements a free patent applicant must satisfy:

The applicant for a free patent should comply with the following requisites: (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.29

The case of'Republic v. Spouses Lasmarias'added:

Moreover, the application must be accompanied by a map and the technical description of the land occupied, along with affidavits proving his occupancy from two disinterested persons residing in the municipality or barrio where the land may be located.30

In the present case, Jaucian applied for a free patent only in August 1992, and the free patent was granted only in 1995. Jaucian claimed that his predecessors-in-interest were in possession of the properties since 1945 when Vicente Abajero sold the properties to Eriberta dela Rosa. However, Jaucian did not present any evidence to prove the sale in 1945. Jaucian only presented the Deed of Sale executed between him and Eriberta dela Rosa on 7 July 1986.

In short, 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.1'шphi1

Moreover, the free patent application was not accompanied by a map and technical description of the land, along with affidavits of two disinterested persons proving Jaucian's occupancy. At the very least, Jaucian only attached the Deed of Sale and tax declarations both dated 7 July 1986.

The facts are uncontested that before 1992 and 1995, Quintin, Marlon, and their predecessors-in-interest were already in actual and physical possession of the properties in the concept of owners since 1976. Quintin occupied and possessed the lots 10 years earlier than Jaucian and 16 years earlier than the free patent application, clearly indicating that Jaucian was not in exclusive possession and occupation of the lots when he applied for a free patent in 1992. Quintin's ownership and possession since 1976 was proven by the Confirmatory Deed of Sale signed by the surviving spouse of the lot owner and seller Vicente Abajero. The pertinent portion of the Confirmatory Deed of Sale reads:

WHEREAS; On May 13, 1976, in Naga City,'VICENTE ABAJERO, of legal age, married to Maria Alano, resident of Dinaga St., Naga City,'agreed to sell to his nephew, QUINTIN DEJURAS y BARCENAS,'of legal age, married to Lydia Macarilay, resident of Minalabac, Camarines Sur, his "two lots # 4805 & 4801 - including house & improvements" x x x; and'this transaction was known to me, MARIA ALANO ABAJERO, wife of the vendor, to whom my said husband turned over the P25,000.00 cash which in turn deposited in our joint account; and which proceeds he used in his business;

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the final payment of the remaining balance of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) only, the receipt of which is, by these presents, hereby acknowledged,'I, MARIA ALANO, the surviving spouse of VICENTE ABAJERO and the Administratix of his intestate estate, hereby, cede, transfer, and convey, by way of this confirmatory absolute deed of sale, x x x:

x x x x31'(Emphasis supplied)

In'Heirs of Spouses De Guzman v. Heirs of Bandong,32'we held that "a free patent that purports to convey land to which the Government did not have any title at the time of its issuance does not vest any title in the patentee as against the true owner." We further held that:

Private ownership of land x x x is not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same land, because the Public Land Law applies only to lands of the public domain. The'Director of Lands has no authority to grant to another free patent for land that has ceased to be a public land and has passed to private ownership. x x x.33'(Emphasis supplied)

In this case, the subject lands, at the time Jaucian applied for a free patent registration, were already in the possession of Quintin. However, Quintin has not shown, in this case at least, that he or his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the subject lands for a period of at least 30 years prior to 15 April 1990. 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.

Quintin may apply for a free patent registration under his name.

Nevertheless, Quintin and his heirs may, on their own, apply for free patent registration of the subject lands under their name, provided they can satisfy the requirements in'Taar v. Lawan34'and'Republic v. Spouses Lasmarias35'as discussed above. Their application must, among others, be accompanied by a map and the technical description of the land occupied, along with affidavits proving their occupancy from two disinterested persons residing in the municipality or barrio where the lands are located. Of course, the subject lands must first be shown to have been classified by a positive act as alienable and disposable in accordance with law.36

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.

Petitioner Alex A. Jaucian is further'ORDERED'to pay P100,000.00 as moral damages; P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; plus costs of litigation.

SO ORDERED.

Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., and'J. Reyes, Jr.,*'JJ., concur.

Footnotes

*'Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2587 dated 28 August 2018.

1'Rollo, pp. 64-71. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Melchor Quirino C. Sadang concurring.

2'Id. at 44-59. Penned by Judge Pablo Cabillan Formaran III.

3'Id. at 18-19.

4'Id.

5'Id. at 24-26.

6'De Joras also appears in the records as "Dejoras" or "Dejuras."

7'Rollo, pp. 20-21.

8'Id. at 22.

9'Id. at 23.

10'Id. at 25.

11'Id. at 27-30.

12'Id. at 31-32.

13'Id. at 33-37.

14'Id. at 34-35.

15'Id. at 36.

16'Id. at 40-43.

17'Id. at 45.

18'Id. at 58-59.

19'Id. at 70.

20'428 Phil. 249 (2002).

21'Rollo, pp. 67-68.

22'Heirs of Kionisala v. Heirs of Dacut, supra note 20, at 260.

23'Rollo, pp. 33-34.

24'Id. at 34-35.

25'Id. at 69.

26'The Public Land Act.

27'An Act Granting a Period Ending on December 31, 2000 for Filing Applications for Free Patent and Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title to Alienable and Disposable Lands of the Public Domain Under Chapters VII and VIII of the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141, As Amended).

28'An Act to Grant Free Patents to Occupants of Public Agricultural Land Since or Prior to July Fourth, Nineteen Hundred and Forty-Five.

29'G.R. No. 190922, 11 October 2017.

30'G.R. No. 206168, 26 April 2017, 825 SCRA 43, 54.

31'Rollo, p. 31.

32'G.R. No. 215454, 9 August 2017.

33'Id., citing'De la Concha v. Magtira, 124 Phil. 961, 964-965 (1966).

34'Supra note 29.

35'Supra note 30.

36'Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap, 589 Phil. 156, 182-183 (2008);'Heirs of the late Spouses Palanca v. Republic of the Philippines, 531 Phil. 602, 616-617 (2006).