By Rey E. Requejo

An aquaculture company has prodded the Supreme Court to uphold its ownership of 1.7 hectares of prime land in Lapu-Lapu City, which it bought in 1988 as a fourth transferee of the property since 1970 from a homestead patent issued in 1936.

Aqualab Philippines Inc. stressed that the court?s second division erred in affirming a 2007 Court of Appeals? decision that reversed the 1997 ruling of the Lapu-Lapu City regional trial court upholding its titles over the property, which the company is using for its aquaculture business.

The Sept. 30, 2007 decision of the Lapu-Lapu City RTC dismisses the ownership claim of the heirs of Marcelino Pagobo, successor of Juan Pagobo, over the property on the ground of lack of cause of action and prescription.

?Inasmuch as the petitioner is evidently a purchaser in good faith, the regional trial court?s dismissal of respondents? complaint on ground of prescription should have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals and this Honorable Court,? Aqualab said, in seeking a reversal of the court?s second division resolution issued on Sept. 29, 2008.

Although the Pagobo heirs merely wanted the CA to remand the case to the RTC for further proceedings like the reception of evidence to prove their claim, the appellate court ordered the cancellation of Aqualab?s title over the property.

Aqualab admitted that it is the fourth transferee of the 1.7 hectares of land in Lapu-Lapu City. It acquired the titled property in 1988 from Anthony Gaw Kache who purchased the land from Rene Espina, former assemblyman. Espina, in turn, bought the land from Tarcela de Espina who acquired her title in 1970.

Citing previous SC rulings, the firm noted that as early as 1977, the high court had validated certain conveyances of portions of the property from where its land used to be a part of ?and which decisions have not been questioned by the government since 1977 and until the present, such that no reasonable conclusion can be had that the government has already recognized the validity of the ownership and title of the transferors.?

Aqualab appealed that a reversal of the SC?s second division ruling ?would not only uphold the truth based on the evidence, but would also redeem the CA?s erroneous and unprecedented ruling, which, if affirmed with finality, would deeply erode the public faith in the judiciary.?

In asserting its lawful ownership of the disputed property, Aqualab cited the following grounds:

1. that the original certificate of Title (OCT) no. RO-1227, and the subsequently issued OCT no. RO-2246, covering Homestead Patent no. 128470 in the name of Juan Pagobo was issued as early as Dec. 4, 1936 and was reconstituted as a lost or destroyed title on orders of the Director of Lands on Nov. 14, 1969.

?In other words, Juan Pagobo?s application for Homestead Patent over Lot 6727, of which the disputed property [Aqualab?s land] is a part, was granted as early as Dec. 4, 1936 and not on Dec. 18, 1969 as found by the CA, nor on Feb. 10, 1970 as claimed by the heirs,? the firm explained.

2. Since Lot 6227 was already privately owned in 1936, then Juan Pagobo could not have filed an application for and could not have been granted a Homestead Patent over the same property after 1936.

3. The fact that Juan Pagobo died on Jan. 18, 1947 even bolstered the documented fact that the Homestead Patent covering the disputed property was issued to him in 1936 and not in 1970 as claimed by the heirs.