Gotico vs Leyte
Government
Facts:
This case involves controversy regarding
ownership of a lot of the Tacloban Cadastre
In July 13 1961, Plaintiff obtained an Original
certificate of title covering the ENTIRETY of the
lot.
The plaintiff then proceeded to file a case for
ejectment ( Civil case no. 3088 ) against
defendant on the strength of the formers title
on August 8, 1962. The allegation of the plaintiff
as contained in the complaint is as follows:
That he is the owner and possessor
since time immemorial tacked by
purchase from his predecessors
That defendant without any color of
right utilized the disputed portion as a
private cemetery
ordering defendant to pay the
amount of P200,000.00 in rentals of
the premise in question, to be
computed from 1928 to the filing of
the complaint
Defendant on the other hand, claimed that
it had been in possession of the
disputed portion since 1928 when it
built a public cemetery therein with the
approval of the Bureau of Health.
That plaintiff had obtained title thereto
by means of fraud and false statements
of fact.
That prior to the institution of the
complaint defendant had already
petitioned the Bureau of Lands to
cancel plaintiffs title.
In 1965, the Bureau of Lands filed a Civil Case (
No. 3618 ) entitled Republic of the Philippines
vs Bonifacio Gotico and the Deeds of Tacloban
City for
Reversion of the disputed land to the
Cancellation of the plaintiffs title.
Both parties agreed that the 2 civil cases be
heard jointly. In the pretrial they agreed that
stipulations and admissions made in Civil case
no. 3168 shall be taken into consideration in
Civil case 3088 and vice-versa
The plaintiff then sought to amend the
date of the commencement of the
occupancy of the defendant from 1926
to 1962 ( as stated in pre-trial
agreement )
to amend the prayer of the complaint,
again, as to the date of the
commencement of occupancy.
The title of the petitioner was cancelled and
ownership was reverted to the government.
TC dismissed the complaint for ejectment. On
the basis of plaintiffs admission that defendant
had been in possession of the land since 1928.
Issue : Whether or not the trial court erred in
not allowing the amendment being sought by
the petitioner.
Ruling:
No.
The amendment sought is a substantial one. A
claim of possession by either or both parties
involving a span of 33 years is surely a
substantial element of the cause of action.
Besides, even if the amendment were allowed,
there is preponderant evidence proving
possession by defendant-appellee since 1928. It
had filed the application for the conversion of
the Disputed Portion into a cemetery on
February 20, 1928. Its application was approved
on May 17, 1928 by the Bureau of Health. Since
then, that portion had remained part of a
Chinese cemetery. Its possession since 1928
was also recognized in the Reversion Case. All of
which disprove plaintiff-appellant's allegations
in his application for a Free Patent that:

4. The land described and applied for is not

claimed or occupied by any other person, but is
a public land. I entered upon and began
cultivation of the same on the 28th day of
January, 1961, and since that date I have made
thereon the following improvements, viz:
bamboos, bananas and coconut.