Third Assignment Cases LTD

7/24/2019 Third Assignment Cases LTD

1/63

1

[G.R. No. 117734. February 22, 2001]

VICENTE G. DIVINA, petto!er, "#. $%N. C%&RT %F A''EA() a!* VI(+A GA%-), re#po!*e!t#.

D E C I ) I % N

/&I)&+ING, .

Before us is a petition for review of the decision [1]dated October 27, 1994 of the Court ofAppeals in CA!" C# $o% &'&() reversin* and settin* aside the +ud*ent dated -ul. 7, 1979 ofthe Court of /irst 0nstance of orso*on, Branch 00, in "C Case $o% $147%

3he facts of this case are as follows

ot $o% 1)9' located at !ubat, orso*on, was ori*inall. owned b. Antonio Berosa% On -ul. 22,19(&, he sold it to 3eotio Berosa% 3he portion is particularl. described as

A parcel of land unirri*ated situated in an 0*nacio, !ubat, orso*on, 5hilippines, with an area of

36$38 3O:A$; uare eters and bounded on the $orth b. ot ?14(4 /austoA.son and ot ?1))) !loria /a+ardo on the ast, b. ot ? 144( ilverio !arcia on the outh,b. ot ?1)91 Antonio scobedo and on the 6est, b. ot ?1))& /ederico /aronas and ot?1)9& u*enia spedido% Cadastral concrete posts are the visible si*ns of boundar.% 0t has noperanent iproveent thereon% ;esi*nated as ot 1)9' of Antonio Berosa% ;eclared under 3a@$o% 1'&'), valued at 57(&%&& for the current .ear in the nae of A$3O$0O B"OA[2]

On arch 2', 19(1, the Berosa spouses sold the sae ot 1)9' to -ose 5% !aos% 0n the deedof sale to !aos, the lot was ore particularl. described as

A parcel of "0C land situated in an 0*nacio, !ubat, orso*on, 5hilippines, with an area of36$38 3O:A$; uare eters and bounded on the $orth, b. ot ?14(2 /austo

A.son and ot ?1))) !loria /% stonante on the ast, b. ot ?14(4 acarias spadilla and ot?14(( /eli@ Ariado on the outh, b. ot ?1)9) ilverio !arcia and on the 6est, b. ot?1)9& u*enia spedido and ot ?1)92 Antonio scobedo% Concrete ceents posts are thevisible si*ns of boundar.% $o peranent iproveents thereon% Covered b. ot ?1)9' of

3eotio % Berosa, and declared under 3a@ $o% 1'&'9, valued at 57(&%&& for the present .ear inthe nae of 3O30O % B"OA%[']

On April 2(, 19(&, !aos ac>uired fro the heirs of /eli@ Ariado, a boundar. owner of ot1)9', a 2&,()7 s>% % parcel of land identiDed as ot 14((, also in !ubat% 0t ad+oins ot 1)9'% Onarch 2), 19(1, !aos had these two parcels of land under 3a@ ;eclaration $o% 1'2'7 anddeclared it had a total area of 4%&)(7 hectares% e also had the propert. resurve.ed b. privateland surve.or Antonio 3iotan*co% 0n 19(7, 3a@ ;eclaration $o% 1'2'7 was cancelled b. 3a@

;eclaration $o% 9&'2 in !aos nae%

3he resurve. plan % % 3his plan wasapproved on -ul. 12, 19(1 b. the Actin* ;irector of ands%

On $oveber 2', 19(), 3a@ ;eclaration $o% 12927 which cancelled 3a@ ;eclaration $o% 9&'2was secured b. !aos and declared therein that the area of the consolidated propert. was1&%&&'4 hectares with 2E&& s>% % planted to coconut, '%)1)7 irri*ated for rice plantin* andE%9'47 were thicFets%
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn1


2/63

2

On -anuar. 19, 19(7, 3eotio Berosa conve.ed to #icente !% ;ivina, herein petitioner, aportion of ot 1)9' referred to as ot 1)9'B% 0t is described as follows

A parcel of dr. and thicFet land situated in an 0*nacio, !ubat, orso*on, 5hilippines, havin* anarea of E4,)1) s>uare eters and bounded on the $%, b. ot 1))) % % conve.ed to hi b. 3eotio Berosa on

-anuar. 19, 19(7 that he was unaware of the re*istration proceedin*s on ot 1)9' due toprivate respondents failure to *ive hi notice and post an. notice in the sub+ect lot and thatprivate respondent fraudulentl. isrepresented herself as the owner of the disputed portiondespite her Fnowled*e that another person had ac>uired the sae%

5rivate respondent opposed the petition alle*in* that the re*istration case had lon* becoeDnal and the court no lon*er had an. +urisdiction thereon and that lacF of personal notice to thepetitioner of the re*istration proceedin*s did not constitute actual fraud%

3he trial court, in its ;ecision[(]dated -une 7, 1979, found that the petition for review wastiel. Dled% 0t also ruled that the failure of private respondent to include a Fnown claiant in herapplication for re*istration constituted deliberate isrepresentation that the lot sub+ect of herapplication is not contested when in fact it was% 5rivate respondent, accordin* to the trial court,should have included in her application at least the person of petitioners cousin, lena ;oalaonwho had, before respondent Dled her application for re*istration, ade Fnown to the latters
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn6


3/63

'

sister her apprehension of their land bein* included in respondents application forre*istration% 3his isrepresentation, accordin* to the court, aounted to fraud within theconteplation of ection ') of Act 49(%[7]3he trial court in its decision disposed as follows

6"/O", +ud*ent is hereb. rendered

uo to be untouched and thicFl. plantedwith bi*aho% A fortiori, there was no need to ention in the application for re*istration theapprehension or clai of at least petitionerappellees cousin vel.n


4/63

4

not the area but the boundaries therein laid down uirin* that in the application for re*istration of landtitles, the application shall also state the full naes and addresses of all occupants of the landand those of the ad+oinin* owners if Fnown, and if not Fnown, it shall state the e@tent of thesearch ade to Dnd the% As earl. as /rancisco vs% Court of Appeals, 97 C"A 22 [19)&] weephasiGed that a ere stateent of the lacF of Fnowled*e of the naes of the occupants andad+oinin* owners is not suHcient but what search has been ade to Dnd the is necessar.% 3hetrial court was correct when it tooF notice that respondents sister .dia !a+oAnonuevo adittedthat she had a conversation with petitioners cousin lena ;ualaon about the lattersapprehension that their land a. have been included in respondents application for re*istrationof the disputed land%[1']"espondents oission of this aterial inforation prevented petitioner
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117734.htm#_edn13


5/63

E

fro havin* his da. in court% 3he trial court in its decision ore than apl. supported itsconclusion with +urisprudence to the eKect that it is fraud to Fnowin*l. oit or conceal a factupon which beneDt is obtained to the pre+udice of a third person% [14]uch oission can not but bedeliberate isrepresentation constitutin* fraud, a basis for allowin* a petition for review of

+ud*ent under ection ') of Act $o% 49(, 3he and "e*istration Act%

Additionall., it should be noted that petitioner ac>uired the bi**er portion of ot 1)9' lon*

after the initial surve. of Barrio an 0*nacio% 3eotio Berosa sold ot 1)9' to -ose 5% !aos whoin turn sold it to respondent in 197&% Clearl., *oin* b. the records, petitioners nae would notbe found on the said surve. plan approved b. the Bureau of ands in 19(1, .ears before hispurchase of the portion of ot 1)9'% 5etitioners clai is clearl. eritorious%

$EREF%RE, the petition is !"A$3;% 3he assailed decision of the Court of Appeals datedOctober 24, 1994 is "#"; and 3 A0;% 3he +ud*ent in "C Case $o% $147 of the thenCourt of /irst 0nstance, Branch 00 in !ubat, orso*on is "0$3A3;% Costs a*ainst privaterespondent%

)% %RDERED.

G.R. No. (-207 u!e 10, 171

A''(ICATI%N F%R REGI)TRATI%N %F TIT(E, E(DRED FE5E), applicantappellant,vs%NACITA VA)/&E6, D%+ING% VA)/&E6, TRINIDAD GERARTE, $EIR) %F A&G&)T%ARA+&R%, )I+E%N ARA+&R%, RA+%N VE(A)C%, %)EFINA VE(A)C% I)AAC, E+I(IAVE(A)C% )A+)%N, $EIR) %F &AN VE(A)C%, )EG&ND% CERDENIA, +A&RICI% )A)%N,'ACITA )A+)%N a!* F(%RENCI% DC%C%, oppositorsappellees%

0*nacio Calle+a, +r% L "afael ucila for applicantappellant% #ictoriano Abrera for oppositorappellee

/lorencio ;.coco%

Antonio Alfane, L C% Bautista for oppositorsappellees "aon #elasco, et al%

;elDn de #era for oppositorsappellees $acita #as>ueG, et al%

REE), ..(., .

Appeal uare eters, situated in barrio Bubulusan


6/63

(

the two deeds of absolute sale dated 2& -une 19(( and 27 -anuar. 19(7, e@ecuted b. the#elascos in favor of applicant%

On '1 arch 19(7, Dndin* that the application did not contain the plans and technicaldescription of the parcels of land sou*ht to be re*istered and the surve.orMs certiDcate, the courtre>uired the applicant to subit the sae% :pon copliance with the fore*oin* re>uireent, theapplicant then subitted a otion pra.in* the court that the ;irector of ands andIor the and

"e*istration Coission be directed to approve subdivision plan 5su(147&, wherein it appearedthat the lots sou*ht to be re*istered are parts of a bi**er lot identiDed in said subdivision plan asot $o% 21%

0n its order of 2) April 19(7, the court denied the otion reasonin* that the application bein* forre*istration of land, it had nothin* to do with the approval of the subdivision plan% On 2 Au*ust19(7, the court issued another order, this tie for aendent of the application in order toinclude the respective postal addresses of the ad+oinin* owners naed therein%

On 2' /ebruar. 19(), after the initial hearin* of case, the court issued an order disissin* theapplication for warrant of +urisdiction, based on the Dndin* that the properties sou*ht to bere*istered onl. fored part of a bi**er tract, of land which was described in the plan attached to

the application, and that the notice of initial hearin* did not delineate accuratel. the portions ofthe land involved in the re*istration proceedin*% 6hen the otion for reconsideration of theaforesaid disissalorder was denied, applicant Dled the present appeal%

AppellantMs coplaint in this instance actuall. is directed a*ainst the outri*ht disissal of theapplication% 0t is not denied that what was published in the OHcial !aGette at applicantMse@pense,1was not the description of the two lots sub+ect of the re*istration proceedin* but thatof a bi**er parcel of land identiDed as ot $o% 1')' of ibon 5ls7('; referred to as ot $o% 21 of5su(147&=% 0t is here contended, however, that since the published description includes theotions bein* re*istered, then the court below erred in declarin* itself without +urisdiction overthe proceedin*% 0n other words, accordin* to appellant, as the description of the bi**er parcel,1')' of 5ls7(4;, of which the properties sou*ht to be re*istered fored part, was alread.

published, then there would have been no necessit. for further publication of the aforesaid sallportions in order to vest +urisdiction on the land re*istration court% 3he Jaw in this ar*uent liesin the assuption that b. the publication of the bi**er tract of land, +urisdiction over the saidpropert. was ac>uired b. the court below% 3hat is not correct%

:nder ection 21 of the and "e*istration Act an application for re*istration of land is re>uired tocontain, aon* others, a description of the land sub+ect of the proceedin*, the nae, status andaddress of the applicant, as well as the naes and addresses of all occupants of the land and ofall ad+oinin* owners, if Fnown, or if unFnown, of the steps taFen to locate the% 6hen theapplication is set b. the court for initial hearin*, it is then that notice


7/63

7

portions thereof desi*nated b. applicantappellant as ots $os% 21A and 21B% 0t is the technicaldescription of these 2 saller lots, therefore, that ust be published in order that the personswho a. be aKected b. their re*istration a. be notiDed thereof% /or, considerin* that thead+oinin* owners of ot $o% 21 would not be the sae as the owners of the properties ad+oinin*ots $os% 21A and 21B, the notiDcation of the ad+oinin* owners of the bi* lot would not be thenotice to the ad+oinin* owners or occupants of the solder lots re>uired b. law% 0n short, it is thepublication of the speciDc boundaries of ots $os% 21A and 21B that would actuall. put theinterested parties on notice of the re*istration proceedin*, and would confer authorit. on theland re*istration court to pass upon the issue of the re*isterabilit. of said lots in favor of theapplicant%

Appellant insists, however, that the lower court should have erel. directed the aendent ofthe application or the approval b. the ;irector of ands of the subdivision plan, instead of issuin*an order of disissal% 3here is no erit in this contention% Considerin* that it has been dull.apprised of the absence of the re>uisite surve. plan and the technical description of the lotsbein* re*istered% and of the inade>uac. of the necessar. publication and notice to the interestedparties, and conse>uentl. of the e@istence of +urisdictional defects in the application, the lowercourt could not have taFen an. other course of action than to order the disissal of the case%0n scueta vs% ;irector of ands, 1( 5hil% 4)2, this Court ruled

M0t is not perissible to aFe aendents or alterations in the description of the land after itspublication in the newspapers and after the re*istration of the propert. has been decreed,without the publication of new notiDcations and advertiseents aFin* Fnown to ever.one thesaid alterations and aendents% Otherwise, the law would be infrin*ed with respect to thepublicit. which characteriGes the procedure, and third parties who have not had an opportunit.to present their clais, i*ht be seriousl. aKected in their ri*hts, throu*h failure of opportunenotice%M

$or was the court below technicall. >ualiDed to declare the subdivision plan true and correct,and copel its approval b. the land authorities%

0t a. even be pointed out that on two occasions, the lower court had alread. directedappellantMs counsel to subit necessar. anne@es and aend the application% 0t can not reall. bechar*ed, therefore, that said court had been unfair or undul. harsh on the applicantappellantwhen, Dndin* the application to be still fatall. defective, it ordered the disissal of the case%

6"/O", Dndin* no error in the order appealed fro, the sae is hereb. aHred, with costsa*ainst the appellant% 3he disissal of the application here is understood to be without,pre+udice to the Dlin* of a proper application in conforit. with the le*al re>uireents%

G.R. No. 73002 Dee8ber 2, 19:

T$E DIRECT%R %F (AND), petitioner,vs%INTER+EDIATE A''E((ATE C%&RT a!* AC+E '(%%D ; VENEER C%. INC.,ETC., respondents%


8/63

)

;% $acion aw OHce for private respondent%

NARVA)A, .

3he ;irector of ands has brou*ht this appeal b. certiorari fro a +ud*ent of the 0nterediate

Appellate Court aHrin* a decision of the Court of /irst 0nstance of 0sabela, which orderedre*istration in favor of Ace 5l.wood L #eneer Co%, 0nc% of Dve parcels of land easurin* 4)1,'9& s>uare eters, ore or less, ac>uired b. it fro ariano and Acer 0nDel, ebers of the;ua*at tribe%

3he re*istration proceedin*s were for conDration of title under ection 4) of CoonwealthAct $o% 141


9/63

9

aconacon 0sabela


10/63

1&

3he >uestion turns upon a deterination of the character of the lands at the tie of institution ofthe re*istration proceedin*s in 19)1% 0f the. were then still part of the public doain, it ust beanswered in the ne*ative% 0f, on the other hand, the. were then alread. private lands, theconstitutional prohibition a*ainst their ac>uisition b. private corporations or associationsobviousl. does not appl.%

0n this re*ard, attention has been invited to anila lectric Copan. vs% CastroBartoloe, et

al, 1where a siilar set of facts prevailed% 0n that case, anila lectric Copan., a doesticcorporation ore than (& of the capital stocF of which is /ilipinoowned, had purchased in 1947two lots in 3ana., "iGal fro the 5i*uin* spouses% 3he lots had been possessed b. the vendorsand, before the, b. their predecessorininterest, Olipia "aos, since prior to the outbreaF ofthe 5aciDc 6ar in 1941% On ;eceber 1, 197(, eralco applied to the Court of /irst 0nstance of"iGal, aFati Branch, for conDration of title to said lots% 3he court, assuin* that the lots werepublic land, disissed the application on the *round that eralco, a +uridical person, was not>ualiDed to appl. for re*istration under ection 4)


11/63

11

ownership actuall. *ained would be lost% 3he eKect of the proof, wherever ade, was not toconfer title, but sipl. to establish it, as alread. conferred b. the decree, if not b. earlier law% %%%

3hat rulin* assued a ore doctrinal character because e@pressed in ore cate*oricallan*ua*e, in usi

%%%% 0n favor of #alentin usi, there is, oreover, the presuption +uris et de +ure established in

para*raph uireents for a *rant b. the !overnent were coplied with, for he has been in actual andph.sical possession, personall. and throu*h his predecessors, of an a*ricultural land of thepublic doain openl., continuousl., e@clusivel. and publicl. since -ul. 2(, 19)4, with a ri*ht to acertiDcate of title to said land under the provisions of Chapter #000 of said Act% o that whenAn*ela "aGon applied for the *rant in her favor, #alentin usi had alread. ac>uired, b. operationof law not onl. a ri*ht to a *rant, but a *rant of the !overnent, for it is not necessar. that acertiDcate of title should be issued in order that said *rant a. be sanctioned b. the courts, anapplication therefore is suHcient, under the provisions of section 47 of Act $o% 2)74% 0f b. a le*alDction, #alentin usi had ac>uired the land in >uestion b. a *rant of the tate, it had alread.ceased to be of the public doain and had becoe private propert., at least b. presuption, of#alentin usi, be.ond the control of the ;irector of ands% Conse>uentl., in sellin* the land in

>uestion of An*ela "aGon, the ;irector of ands disposed of a land over which he had no lon*eran. title or control, and the sale thus ade was void and of no eKect, and An*ela "aGon did notthereb. ac>uire an. ri*ht% :

ucceedin* cases, of which onl. soe need be entioned, liFeof acaste vs% ;irector ofands, 7esina vs% #da% de onGa, 9anarpac vs% Cabanatuan, i*uel vs% Court ofAppeals 10and erico vs% ;ar, supra, b. invoFin* and aHrin* the usi doctrine have Drl.rooted it in +urisprudence%

erico, in particular, appears to be s>uarel. aHrative 11

%%%% econdl., under the provisions of "epublic Act $o% 1942, which the respondent Court held to

be inapplicable to the petitionerMs case, with the latterMs proven occupation and cultivation forore than '& .ears since 1914, b. hiself and b. his predecessorsininterest, title over the landhas vested on petitioner so as to se*re*ate the land fro the ass of public land%3hereafter, it isno lon*er disposable under the 5ublic and Act as b. free patent% %%%%

@@@ @@@ @@@

As interpreted in several cases, when the conditions as speciDed in the fore*oin* provision arecoplied with, the possessor is deeed to have ac>uired, b. operation of law, a ri*ht to a *rant,a *overnent *rant, without the necessit. of a certiDcate of title bein* issued% 3he land,therefore, ceases to be of the public doain and be.ond the authorit. of the ;irector of ands todispose of% 3he application for conDration is ere foralit., the lacF of which does not aKect

the le*al suHcienc. of the title as would be evidenced b. the patent and the 3orrens title to beissued upon the stren*th of said patent% 12

$othin* can ore clearl. deonstrate the lo*ical inevitabilit. of considerin* possession of publicland which is of the character and duration prescribed b. statute as the e>uivalent of an e@press*rant fro the tate than the dictu of the statute itself 13that the possessoruired character andlen*th of tie and re*istration thereunder would not confer title, but sipl. reco*niGe a title


12/63

12

alread. vested% 3he proceedin*s would notori*inall. convert the land fro public to private land,but onl. conDr such a conversion alread. aKected b. operation of law fro the oent there>uired period of possession becae coplete% As was so well put in Carino, Q%%% uired it fro saidowners, it ust also be conceded that Ace had a perfect ri*ht to aFe such ac>uisition, therebein* nothin* in the 19'E Constitution then in force uirin* interests in public landto which the vendor had alread. ac>uired that t.pe of socalled QincopleteQ or QiperfectQ title%

3he onl. liitation then e@tant was that corporations could not ac>uire, hold or lease publica*ricultural lands in e@cess of 1,&24 hectares% 3he purel. accidental circustance thatconDration proceedin*s were brou*ht under the ae*is of the 197' Constitution which forbidscorporations fro ownin* lands of the public doain cannot defeat a ri*ht alread. vested beforethat law cae into eKect, or invalidate transactions then perfectl. valid and proper% 3his Courthas alread. held, in analo*ous circustances, that the Constitution cannot ipair vested ri*hts%

6e hold that the said constitutional prohibition 14has no retroactive application to the salesapplication of Binan ;evelopent Co%, 0nc% because it had alread. ac>uired a vested ri*ht to theland applied for at the tie the 197' Constitution tooF eKect%

3hat vested ri*ht has to be respected% 0t could not be abro*ated b. the new Constitution% ection

2, Article N000 of the 19'E Constitution allows private corporations to purchase public a*riculturallands not e@ceedin* one thousand and twent.four hectares% 5etitionerM prohibition action isbarred b. the doctrine of vested ri*hts in constitutional law%

@@@ @@@ @@@

3he due process clause prohibits the annihilation of vested ri*hts% MA state a. not ipair vestedri*hts b. le*islative enactent, b. the enactent or b. the subse>uent repeal of a unicipalordinance, or b. a chan*e in the constitution of the tate, e@cept in a le*itiate e@ercise of thepolice powerM


13/63

1'

3he fact, therefore, that the conDration proceedin*s were instituted b. Ace in its own naeust be re*arded as sipl. another accidental circustance, productive of a defect hardl. orethan procedural and in nowise aKectin* the substance and erits of the ri*ht of ownershipsou*ht to be conDred in said proceedin*s, there bein* no doubt of AceMs entitleent to theland% As it is un>uestionable that in the li*ht of the undisputed facts, the 0nDels, under either the19'E or the 197' Constitution, could have had title in theselves conDred and re*istered, onl.a ri*id subservience to the letter of the law would den. the sae beneDt to their lawfulsuccessorininterest b. valid conve.ance which violates no constitutional andate%

3he Court, in the li*ht of the fore*oin*, is of the view, and so holds, that the a+orit. rulin*in eralco ust be reconsidered and no lon*er deeed to be bindin* precedent% 3he correctrule, as enunciated in the line of cases alread. referred to, is that alienable public land held b. apossessor, personall. or throu*h his predecessorsininterest, openl., continuousl. ande@clusivel. for the prescribed statutor. period


14/63

14

cases% 0ndeed, it is worth notin* that the a+orit. opinion, as well as the concurrin* opinions ofChief -ustice /ernando and -ustice Abad antos, in eralco rested chieJ. on the proposition thatthe petitioner therein, a +uridical person, was dis>ualiDed fro appl.in* for conDration of aniperfect title to public land under ection 4)uo in *rantin* the application ofrespondent spouses for re*istration over the lots in >uestion%

On -une 17, 197), respondent spouses bou*ht ots '47 and '4), Cad% s');, as their residencewith a total area of 91%77 s>% % situated in an 5ablo Cit., fro one Cristeta ;aGo Belen


15/63

1E

but now Canadian citiGens b. naturaliGation and residin* at 14 A% abini treet, an 5ablo Cit.andIor 2&1117&124 treet, donton, Alberta 3EOT9, Canada%

Once this ;ecision becoes Dnal, let the correspondin* decree of re*istration be issued% 0n thecertiDcate of title to be issued, there shall be annotated an easeent of %2(E eters road ri*htofwa.%

O O";";% ualiDed fro ac>uirin* the land in >uestion uired proprietar. ri*htsover the sub+ect properties before the. ac>uired Canadian citiGenship throu*h naturaliGation to

+ustif. the re*istration thereof in their favor% 0t aintains that even privatel. owned unre*isteredlands are presued to be public lands under the principle that lands of whatever classiDcationbelon* to the tate under the "e*alian doctrine% 3hus, before the issuance of the certiDcate oftitle, the occupant is not in the +urisdical sense the true owner of the land since it still pertains tothe tate% 5etitioner further ar*ued that it is onl. when the court ad+udicates the land to theapplicant for conDration of title would the land becoe privatel. owned land, for in the saeproceedin*, the court a. declare it public land, dependin* on the evidence%

As found b. the trial court

3he evidence thus presented established that applicants, b. theselves and their predecessorsininterest, had been in open, public, peaceful, continuous, e@clusive and notorious possessionand occupation of the two ad+acent parcels of land applied for re*istration of title under a bonaDde clai of ownership lon* before -une 12, 194E% uch bein* the case, it is conclusivel.presued that all the conditions essential to the conDration of their title over the two ad+acentparcels of land are sou*ht to be re*istered have been coplied with thereb. entitlin* the tothe issuance of the correspondin* certiDcate of title pursuant to the provisions of 5residential;ecree $o% 1E29, otherwise Fnown as the 5ropert. "e*istration ;ecree%


16/63

1(

"espondent court echoed the court a >uoMs observation, thus

3he land sou*ht to be re*istered has been declared to be within the alienable and disposableGone established b. the Bureau of /orest ;evelopent


17/63

17

As aended b. 5; 1&7'

ec% 4% 3he provisions of ection 4)uireents for conDration of title has been coplied with b. his predecessorininterest, thesaid period is tacFed to his possession% 0n the case at bar, respondentsM predecessorsininteresthave been in open, continuous, e@clusive and notorious possession of the disputed land not onl.since -une 12, 194E, but even as earl. as 19'7% 5etitioner does not den. this e@cept thatrespondent spouses, in its perception, were in possession of the land sou*ht to be re*istered onl.in 197) and therefore short of the re>uired len*th of tie% As aforesaid, the disputed parcels ofland were ac>uired b. private respondents throu*h their predecessorsininterest, who, in turn,

have been in open and continued possession thereof since 19'7% 5rivate respondents steppedinto the shoes of their predecessorsininterest and b. virtue thereof, ac>uired all the le*al ri*htsnecessar. to conDr what could otherwise be deeed as an iperfect title%

At this +uncture, petitionerMs reliance in "epublic v% #illanueva


18/63

1)

the le*al suHcienc. of the title as would be evidenced b. the patent and the 3orrens title to beissued upon the stren*th of said patent%

$othin* can ore clearl. deonstrate the lo*ical inevitabilit. of considerin* possession of publicland which is of the character and duration prescribed b. the statute as the e>uivalent of ane@press *rant fro the tate than the dictu of the statute itself uired period of possession becae coplete% As was so well put inCariSo, Q% % %


19/63

19

0n Bu.co, the applicants therein were liFewise forei*n nationals but were naturalborn /ilipinocitiGens at the tie of their supposed ac>uisition of the propert.% But this is where the siilarit.ends% 3he applicants in Bu.co sou*ht to re*ister a lar*e tract of land under the provisions of theand "e*istration Act, and in the alternative, under the provisions of the 5ublic and Act% 3heland re*istration court decided in favor of the applicants and was aHred b. the appellate courton appeal% 3he ;irector of ands brou*ht the atter before us on review and we reversed%

3his Court, speaFin* throu*h -ustice ;avide, -r%, stated

As could be *leaned fro the evidence adduced, the private respondents do not rel. on feesiple ownership based on a panish *rant or possessor. inforation title under ection 19 ofthe and "e*istration Act the private respondents did not present an. proof that the. or theirpredecessorsininterest derived title fro an old panish *rant such as


20/63

2&

possession of which no an livin* has seen the be*innin*, and the e@istence of which he haslearned fro his elders uired no vested ri*hts over the parcel of land%

0n the case at bar, private respondents were undoubtedl. naturalborn /ilipino citiGens at the

tie of the ac>uisition of the properties and b. virtue thereof, ac>uired vested ri*hts thereon,tacFin* in the process, the possession in the concept of owner and the prescribed period of tieheld b. their predecessorsininterest under the 5ublic and Act% 0n addition, private respondentshave constructed a house of stron* aterials on the contested propert., now occupied b.respondent apiSas other%

But what should not be issed in the disposition of this case is the fact that the Constitutionitself allows private respondents to re*ister the contested parcels of land in their favor% ections7 and ) of Article N00 of the Constitution contain the followin* pertinent provisions, to wit

ec% 7% ave in cases of hereditar. succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conve.ede@cept to individuals, corporations, or associations >ualiDed to ac>uire or hold lands of the public

doain%

ec% )% $otwithstandin* the provisions of ection 7 of this Article, a naturalborn citiGen of the5hilippines who has lost his 5hilippine citiGenship a. be a transferee of private lands, sub+ect toliitations provided b. law% uoted is siilar to ection 1E, Article N0# ofthe then 197' Constitution which reads

ec% 1E% $otwithstandin* the provisions of ection 14 of this Article, a naturalborn citiGen of the5hilippines who has lost his citiGenship a. be a transferee of private land, for use b. hi as hisresidence, as the Batasan* 5abansa a. provide%


21/63

21

5ursuant thereto, Batas 5abansa Bl*% 1)E was passed into law, the relevant provision of whichprovides

ec% 2% An. naturalborn citiGen of the 5hilippines who has lost his 5hilippine citiGenship and whohas the le*al capacit. to enter into a contract under 5hilippine laws a. be a transferee of aprivate land up to a a@iu area of one thousand s>uare eters, in the case of urban land, orone hectare in the case of rural land, to be used b. hi as his residence% 0n the case of arried

couples, one of the a. avail of the privile*e herein *ranted 5rovided, 3hat if both shall availof the sae, the total area ac>uired shall not e@ceed the a@iu herein D@ed%

0n case the transferee alread. owns urban or rural lands for residential purposes, he shall still beentitled to be a transferee of an additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes which,when added to those alread. owned b. hi, shall not e@ceed the a@iu areas hereinauthoriGed%

/ro the adoption of the 19)7 Constitution up to the present, no other law has been passed b.the le*islature on the sae sub+ect% 3hus, what *overns the disposition of private lands in favorof a naturalborn /ilipino citiGen who has lost his 5hilippine citiGenship reains to be B5 1)E%

ven if private respondents were alread. Canadian citiGens at the tie the. applied forre*istration of the properties in >uestion, said properties as discussed above were alread.private lands conse>uentl., there could be no le*al ipedient for the re*istration thereof b.respondents in view of what the Constitution ordains% 3he parcels of land sou*ht to be re*isteredno lon*er for part of the public doain% 3he. are alread. private in character since privaterespondentsM predecessorsininterest have been in open, continuous and e@clusive possessionand occupation thereof under clai of ownership prior to -une 12, 194E or since 19'7% 3he lawprovides that a naturalborn citiGen of the 5hilippines who has lost his 5hilippine citiGenship a.be a transferee of a private land up to a a@iu area of 1,&&& s>%%, if urban, or one uestion% 6hat is iportant is that privaterespondents were forerl. naturalborn citiGens of the 5hilippines, and as transferees of aprivate land, the. could appl. for re*istration in accordance with the andate of ection ),Article N00 of the Constitution% Considerin* that private respondents were able to prove there>uisite period and character of possession of their predecessorsininterest over the sub+ectlots, their application for re*istration of title ust perforce be approved%

3he dissentin* opinion, however, states that the re>uireents in B5 1)E, ust also be copliedwith b. private respondents% peciDcall., it refers to ection (, which provides

ec% (% 0n addition to the re>uireents provided for in other laws for the re*istration of titles tolands, no private land shall be transferred under this Act, unless the transferee shall subit tothe re*ister of deeds of the province or cit. where the propert. is located a sworn stateentshowin* the date and place of his birth the naes and addresses of his parents, of his spouseand children, if an. the area, the location and the ode of ac>uisition of his landholdin*s in the5hilippines, if an. his intention to reside peranentl. in the 5hilippines the date he lost his5hilippine citiGenship and the countr. of which he is presentl. a citiGen and such otherinforation as a. be re>uired under ection ) of this Act%

3he Court is of the view that the re>uireents in ec% ( of B5 1)E do not appl. in the instantcase since said re>uireents are priaril. directed to the re*ister of deeds before who


22/63

22

copliance therewith is to be subitted% $owhere in the provision is it stated, uch less iplied,that the re>uireents ust liFewise be subitted before the land re*istration court prior to theapproval of an application for re*istration of title% An application for re*istration of title before aland re*istration court should not be confused with the issuance of a certiDcate of title b. there*ister of deeds% 0t is onl. when the +ud*ent of the land re*istration court approvin* theapplication for re*istration has becoe Dnal that a decree of re*istration is issued% And that isthe tie when the re>uireents of ec% (, B5 1)E, before the re*ister of deeds should becoplied with b. the applicants% 3his decree of re*istration is the one that is subitted to theoHce of the re*ister of deeds for issuance of the certiDcate of title in favor of the applicant% 5riorto the issuance of the decree of re*istration, the re*ister of deeds has no participation in theapproval of the application for re*istration of title as the decree of re*istration is .et to be issued%

6"/O", the petition is ;00; and the decision appealed fro is hereb. A//0";%

O O";";%

$arvasa, C%-%, CruG, /eliciano, 5adilla, "e*alado, ;avide, -r%, "oero, Bellosillo, elo, Uuiason,5uno, #itu*, Tapunan, and endoGa, --%,concur%

G.R. No. :94: +ay 22, 12

DIRECT%R %F (AND), petitioner,vs%INTER+EDIATE A''E((ATE C%&RT a!* ANGE(INA )AR+IENT%, respondents%

arvil ill for private respondent

6% 3opacio !arcia L Associates collaboratin* counsel for private respondent%

;ollete, Blanco, +ercito L Associates for ovants%

DAVIDE, R., .

5etitioner ur*es this Court to review and set aside the decision of 12 October 19)4 of the then0nterediate Appellate Court 1


23/63

2'

aria, Bulacan, an application for the re*istration of title over ot $o% 1&&E of the Cadastralurve. of an -ose del onte, Bulacan, with an area of '7(,'97 s>uare eters%

On 1) -anuar. 1971, private oppositors An*eles and Cirilo Aador Dled their opposition on the*round that the land belon*s to the%

On 19 -anuar. 1971, an Order of special default a*ainst the whole world, with the e@ception of

oppositors An*eles and Cirilo Aador and the unicipal a.or of an -ose del onte, was issuedb. the trial court%

:pon the Dlin* of an Opposition b. the petitioner and upon otion b. the 5rovincial /iscal for theliftin* of the order of special default and for the adission of the Opposition, the trial courtissued an Order on 24 Au*ust 1971 *rantin* the otion and adittin* saidOpposition% :eparate oppositions Dled b. /eliciano antos, Ciriaco anin*as and ieonAlbarico were also aditted b. the court after the liftin* of the order of special default% 7

ubse>uentl., private respondent oved to drop as coapplicants spouses 5lacer #elasco andocorro Busue*o on the *round that the. were ade coapplicants because of a contract ofservices 9between her and the spouses under which the latter a*reed to shoulder all theliti*ation e@penses and the cost of surve. and attorne.Ms fees in this case the spouses failed tocopl. with their coitent% 3he trial court deeed said a*reeent validl. rescinded b.private respondent and considered her as Qthe onl. applicant in this case%Q

After hearin* the application on its erits, the trial court handed down on 2 -une 19)2 a decisionin favor of private respondent *rantin* the re*istration of the lot in >uestion, to*ether with allthe iproveents thereon, in her nae

% % % with the e@ception of the three


24/63

24

'= ariano Castillo, arried to 5etronila "obes, who, b. virtue of a deed if


25/63

2E

concept of owners, without an.bod. olestin* the% 3he. introduced iproveents b. plantin*diKerent Finds of trees and constructin* houses thereon% 6hen a person occupied


26/63

2(

doain, under a bona Dde clai of ac>uisition of ownership, for at least thirt. .ears iediatel.precedin* the Dlin* of the application for conDration of title e@cept when prevented b. waroKorce a+eure% 3hese shall be conclusivel. presued to have perfored all the conditionsessential to a !overnent *rant and shall be entitled to a certiDcate of title under the provisionsof this chapter% 19

3his section is the law on +udicial conDration of iperfect or incoplete titles% B. its ver.

nature, the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that he as an iperfect or incopletetitle% uch is the dut. of one who holds the aHrative side of an issue 0n eirs of -oseAunate*ui vs% ;irector of /orestr., 1this Court, speaFin* throu*h r% -ustice u*o % !utierreG,

-r%, held

0n conDration of iperfect title cases, the applicant shoulders the burden of provin* that heeets the re>uireents of ection 4), Coonwealth Act $o% 141, as aended b. "epublic Act$o% 1942% % % %

peciDcall., under para*raph


27/63

27

A ere casual cultivation of portions of the land b. the claiant, and the raisin* thereon ofcattle, do not constitute possession under clai of ownership% 0n that sense, possession is note@clusive and notorious so as to *ive rise to a presuptive *rant fro the tate%

5ossession is open when it is patent, visible, apparent, notorious and not clandestine% 230t iscontinuous when uninterrupted, unbroFen and not interittent or occasional 24e@clusive whenthe adverse possessor can show e@clusive doinion over the land and an appropriation of it to

his own use and beneDt 2and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is *enerall. Fnown andtalFed of b. the public or the people in the nei*hborhood% 2:

:se of land is adverse when it is open and notorious% 27

:nder the law, the onl. Find of interruption which does not aKect the continuit. of possession isthat caused b. war or force a+eure%

5rivate respondent does not pretend to be the ori*inal possessor of the propert. in >uestion% herelies on the alle*ed possession of her predecessorsininterest, nael. -uan "e.es, arianoCastillo, acario CruG and /eliciano antos% /ro -uan "e.es, she ac>uired a parcel of landlocated in Tarahui, an -ose del onte, Bulacan, with an area of 1(),&&& s>uare eters as

evidenced in a deed of sale e@ecuted on 7 April 19(9% 29/ro ariano Castillo, she Drst ac>uireda portion, consistin* of 7 hectares, of a parcel of land located in icaulicau, an -ose del onte,Bulacan, per a deed of sale e@ecuted on 1( Au*ust 19(E% 2he purchased the reainin* portionthereof, with an area of 7 hectares, alle*edl. on 1E $oveber 19(E, but she lost the deed ofsale however, ariano Castillo subse>uentl. e@ecuted a socalled ConDrator. ;eed of ale on) April 19(9% 305er the Dndin*s of the trial court, the propert. purchased fro CruG on '1 arch19(9 for 51),7E&%&& consists of 7',&&& s>uare eters% 31$o deed of sale was presented to provethis ac>uisition% 3here is no proof as to the area of the propert. alle*edl. purchased fro antos%

$one of private respondentMs predecessorsininterest declared for ta@ation purposes theiralle*ed land holdin*s% Accordin*l., the. had never paid ta@es thereon% 0t was onl. the privaterespondent who declared the in one


28/63

2)

/eliciano antos he was present when the sales were ade, and the vendors did not show an.written docuent to prove that the. owned the propert., but the. claied to have been inpossession of the sae for ten ue Buco stated that atpresent onl. ariano Castillo is sta.in* on the land in >uestion as an overseer of An*elinaariento and that the last tie he went there was in April, 197)


29/63

29

ac>uisition of ownership% Added to this, as certiDed to b. -arvina, who claied to have beenpresent when the sales were ade to private respondent, none of the vendors could show an.written docuent to prove their ownership of land the. erel. alle*ed that the. have beenpossession of the sae for ten uisition, private respondent would onl. have ore or less'&),&&& s>uare eters, or '&%) hectares, which she ac>uired fro -uan "e.es and arianoCastillo, and not the '7(,'97 s>uare eters, or '7%( hectares which she applied for% $o plausiblee@planation was oKered as to wh. acario CruG did not or could not e@ecute a deed of sale%

3here is as well no evidence concernin* the area of the propert. purchased fro /eliciano antosand no e@planation wh. no deed of sale was e@ecuted b. hi% 3hen too, there is absolutel. nocredible testion. describin* the boundaries and e@tent of the areas each vendor had alle*edl.occupied before the sale to the private respondent% On the contrar., the testion. of nri>ueBuco throws ore doubts thereon% e clais that the land applied for was, since 19'2, in thepossession of the parents of -uan "e.es, uis 5ascual, acario CruG, /eliciano antos, arianoCastillo and a certain Arsenio% 0f that be so, then the parents of uis 5ascual and Arsenio have aclai on portions of the propert. applied for% 5rivate respondent iserabl. failed to show thatshe also ac>uired such portions or that the. were earlier sold to an. of her vendors%

"espondent Court considered the .ear 19'2 as the startin* point of the possession of thepredecessorsininterest of private respondent% 0n the li*ht of the aforesaid testion. of nri>ueBuco, such a conclusion has no basis% As a atter of fact, the trial court itself found and so heldas follows

3he testionial evidence shows that the sub+ect parcel of land was ori*inall. owned andpossessed b. acario CruG, spouses -uan "e.es and Avelina oclin*, and spouses arianoCastillo and 5etronila "obes, the two latter sets spouses havin* been in possession as earl. as192) and 194), respectivel., durin* which tie the. possessed, occupied and cultivated theirrespective portions unolested, openl., continuousl., and in the concept of owners% % % % 3:

0f the Castillo spousesM possession actuall. coenced in 194), as found b. the trial court, it

*oes without sa.in* that their possession of the 14hectare portion was onl. for seventeen uired b. para*raph uestion, 6e Dnd no reason wh., as reJected in the and ClassiDcation "eport dated ) Au*ust1971, 37or barel. a .ear after the Dlin* of the application, onl. onehalf


30/63

'&

hectare% 3:pon the other hand, as earlier entioned, nri>ue Buco onl. entioned two


31/63

'1

$EIR) %F 'E(AGI% 6ARA? 'I%, C(E+ENTE, )ERAFIA, '%RFIRI% a!* E)TEAN, a>>#ur!a8e* +INDANA%? +ARIA a!* G(ICERIA, bot@ #ur!a8e* )EDARIA? D&(CEC%RDER%, VICT%RIA DE (%) REE) a!* %)E GARCIA,applicantsappellants,vs%DIRECT%R %F (AND), DIRECT%R %F F%RE)TR,!overnent oppositorappellees%VICENTE V. DE VI((A, R., a!* VICENTE ). DE VI((A, )R., pr"ateoppositorsappellees%

-ose % atias and % A% -abora for applicantsappellants%/rancisco #illanueva, -r% and !re*orio % O>uitania for private oppositorsappellees%anuel "e.es Castro for oppositorappellee ;irector of /orestr.%

+A5A(INTA(, .

Appeal fro an order of the Court of /irst 0nstance of Batan*as


32/63

'2

3he trial court, over the ob+ection of the applicants, *ranted the otion to disiss b. order dated-anuar. 27, 19(1, holdin*,inter alia, that Qonce a parcel of land is declared or ad+ud*ed publicland b. the court havin* +urisdiction @ @ @ it cannot be the sub+ect an.ore of another landre*istration proceedin* @ @ @ uestion to be public land, precludes a subse>uent application b.an alle*ed possessor for +udicial conDration of title on the basis of continuous possession for atleast thirt. .ears, pursuant to ection 4), subsection


33/63

''

6herefore, the order appealed fro is set aside and the case is reanded to the Court a >uo fortrial and +ud*ent on the erits, with costs a*ainst the private oppositorsappellees%

[G.R. No. 1042:. +ar@ 2, 1:]

RE'&(IC %F T$E '$I(I''INE), repre#e!te* by t@e DIRECT%R %F (AND), petto!er,"#. T$E C%&RT %F A''EA(), $EIR) %F IRENE &((&NGAN, repre#e!te* by @er@u#ba!* D%+ING% 'AGGA% a!* T$E REGI)TER %F DEED) %FI)AE(A, re#po!*e!t#.

D E C I ) I % N

+END%6A, .

3his is a petition for review of the decision [1]of the Court of Appeals reversin* the decision ofthe "e*ional 3rial Court, Branch N0N,[2]Caua.an, 0sabela declarin* /ree 5atent $o% #7974& andOri*inal CertiDcate of 3itle $o% 5)) 17 in the nae of 0rene Bullun*an null and void so far as the

portion of ot $o% 1, 5su 1E&)&1 involved in this case is concerned%

3he facts of this case are as follows

On epteber 1&, 19EE, 0rene Bullun*an


34/63

'4

On $oveber 22, 1972 the court rendered a decision, disissin* the coplaint of #icenteCarabbacan and orderin* hi to vacate the land, even as it upheld the ownership of 0reneBullun*an% Carabbacan, who had been in possession of the land in >uestion, was Dnall. oustedon ;eceber 1&, 19)1%

As alread. stated, the ;irector of ands ordered on arch 2', 19)2 an investi*ation ofCarabbacans protest% 3he investi*ation was undertaFen b. enior pecial 0nvesti*ator $apoleon

"% ;ula., who found that #icente Carabbacan had been in actual cultivation of the land identiDedas ot $o% 7(', 5lsE94 since 1947, havin* ac>uired the sae fro 3oas 3ara.ao on a. 4,1947% 0n his report dated epteber 17, 19)E, the land investi*ator stated that due to a bi* Joodwhich occurred in ;eceber 1947, the Ca*a.an "iver chan*ed its course b. ovin* northeast,resultin* in the eer*ence of a piece of land, which is the sub+ect of this dispute% CarrabacantooF possession of the land and cultivated it% e was in the continuous, peaceful, open andadverse occupation and cultivation of the land fro ;eceber 1947 until 19)1 when he wase+ected b. virtue of the decision in Civil Cases $o% 1&)) and 111&2%[4]

Based on these Dndin*s, the Chief of the e*al ;ivision of the Bureau of ands recoendedon arch 1&, 19)( that steps be taFen to seeF the aendent of /ree 5atent $o% #7974& andOri*inal CertiDcate of 3itle $o% 5))17 of the late 0rene Bullun*an so as to e@clude the disputed

portion and for the reversion of the sae to the tate%

On $oveber 2), 19)(, the olicitor !eneral Dled in behalf of the "epublic ofthe 5hilippines a coplaint for the cancellation of /ree 5atent $o% # 7974& and OC3 $o% 5))17on the *round of fraud and isrepresentation in obtainin* the free patent% 3he case was Dled inthe "e*ional 3rial Court of Caua.an, 0sabela which, on epteber 2E, 19)9, rendered a decisiondeclarin* /ree 5atent $o% #7974& and OC3 $o% 5))17 null and void insofar as the portion of ot$o% 1, 5su1E&)&1 between ot $o% 7(' and ot $o% 7(4, is concerned% 3he lower court foundthat 0rene Bullun*an ade isrepresentations b. claiin* in her application for a free patentthat she was in possession of the disputed portion of ot $o% 1, 5su1E&)&1, when in fact #icenteCarabbacan was occup.in* and cultivatin* the land% 3he court +ustiDed the reversion of the landin >uestion as an assertion of a *overnental ri*ht%

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts rulin* on the *roundthat, after the lapse of one .ear fro the date of issuance of the patent, the tate could nolon*er brin* an action for reversion% 3he appellate court held that the certiDcate of title issued inthe nae of 0rene Bullun*an becae incontrovertible and indefeasible upon the lapse of one.ear fro the issuance of the free patent%

3he "epublic controverts the rulin* of the Court of Appeals% 0t contends that the doctrine ofindefeasibilit. of 3orrens 3itles does not bar the Dlin* of an action for cancellation of title andreversion of land even if ore than one .ear has elapsed fro the issuance of the free patent incase of fraud in obtainin* patents%

6e a*ree with petitioner% 3o be*in with, there is no >uestion that /ree 5atent $o% 7974& andOri*inal CertiDcate of 3itle 5))17 were obtained throu*h fraud% 3he trial court found that 0reneBullun*an falsel. stated in her application for a free patent that ot $o% 1, 5su1E&)&1 was notclaied or occupied b. an. other person% 3he trial court found that a portion of the lot in>uestion had been in the possession and cultivation of #icente Carabbacan since ;eceber1947%[E]0ndeed private respondents adit that before 0rene Bullun*an Dled her application for afree patent, she had Dled a coplaint for forcible entr. a*ainst #icente Carrabacan% 3hecoplaint, which was Dled in the -ustice of the 5eace Court of An*adanan, 0sabela, was disissedprecisel. because the court found that Carabbacan had been in possession of the land lon*before it was sold to 0rene Bullun*an b. eonida 3ara.ao%[(]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/104296.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/104296.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/104296.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/104296.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/104296.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/104296.htm#_edn6


35/63

'E

3he Court of Appeals did not disturb the trial courts Dndin* in this case that 0rene Bullun*ancoitted fraud and isrepresentation% 0ts decision rests solel. on the *round that after thelapse of one .ear fro the date of issuance of a free patent an action for the cancellation ofpatent and title on *round of fraud and isrepresentation can no lon*er be aintained%

6e thinF that this is error% 0t is settled that once a patent is re*istered under Act $o% 49(uent odiDcation, alteration, or chan*e of theaterial facts set forth in the application shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of theconcession, title, or perit *ranted% 0t shall be the dut. of the ;irector of ands, fro tie totie and whenever he a. dee it advisable, to aFe the necessar. investi*ations for thepurpose of ascertainin* whether the aterial facts set out in the application are true, or whetherthe. continue to e@ist and are aintained and preserved in *ood faith, and for the purpose ofsuch investi*ation, the ;irector of ands is hereb. epowered toissue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecu and, if necessar., to obtain copulsor. process

fro the courts% 0n ever. investi*ation ade in accordance with this section, the e@istence of badfaith, fraud, concealent, or fraudulent and ille*al odiDcation of essential facts shall bepresued if the *rantee or possessor of the land shall refuse or fail to obe.a subpoena or subpoena duces tecu lawfull. issued b. the ;irector of ands or his authoriGeddele*ates or a*ents, or shall refuse or fail% to *ive direct and speciDc answers to pertinent>uestions, and on the basis of such presuption, an order of cancellation a. issue out furtherproceedin*s%

3he appellate court said in its decision

6e are not, of course, unaware of cases where the patent and the certiDcate of title issuedpursuant thereto were declared null and void notwithstandin* the e@piration of the

aforeentioned period of one uentl., no ri*ht whatsoever was awarded in said cases for it is alread.settled that a free patent which purports to conve. land to which the *overnent did not havean. title at the tie of its issuance does not vest an. title in the patentee as a*ainst the trueowner


36/63

'(

there was indeed a title awarded such that when the sae was brou*ht under operation of and"e*istration Act in 19E7, it becae incontrovertible in 19E)%[12]

3his is not so% 6here public land is ac>uired b. an applicant throu*h fraud andisrepresentation, as in the case at bar, the tate a. institute reversion proceedin*s even afterthe lapse of the one.ear period%

$or is there erit in the clai of private respondents that the action taFen b. the "epublic inthis case is not in Feepin* with the polic. of tate to foster failies as the factors of societ., to*ive the a sense% of protection and peranenc. in their hoes%[1']5ublic polic. deands thatone who obtains title to a public land throu*h fraud should not be allowed to beneDttherefro% #icente Carabbacan had been in possession of the land even% before 0rene Bullun*anbou*ht the possessor. ri*hts to the land% 0t was therefore a isrepresentation for her to state inher application for a free patent that she had been in possession of the lot in >uestion when thefact is that Carabbacan had been there ahead of her%

$EREF%RE, the decision appealed fro is "#"; and the decisiondated epteber 2E, 19)9 of the "e*ional 3rial Court of Caua.an, 0sabela, Branch N0N is"0$3A3;%

[G.R. No. 1134. u>y , 1:]

RE'&(IC %F T$E '$I(I''INE), Repre#e!te* by t@e DIRECT%R %F (AND)B, petto!er,"#. C%&RT %F A''EA() a!* $EIR) %F (&I) RIAA, !a8e>y, ANDREA RIAA&ENVIAE, (&I) RIAA, ANT%NIA RIAAC%NDE, a!* %$N D%E REAA, a>>repre#e!te* by ANDREA RIAA-&ENVIAE a# A*8!#tratr o t@e E#tate o(u# Rbaya, re#po!*e!t#.

D E C I ) I % N

DAVIDE, R., .

5etitioner seeFs the reversal of the "esolution[1]of 24 -anuar. 1994 of the Court of Appeals inCA!%"% C# $o% 17'E1, which set aside its earlier decision[2]of 9 -anuar. 1991% 3he latter aHredthe decision[']of 11 $oveber 19)7 of the "e*ional 3rial Court uired the parties to subit their respective eoranda%

3he Court of AppealsM reversal was priaril. due to its disa*reeent with the trial courtMsDndin*s of fact% ence, such reoves this case fro the *eneral rule that factual Dndin*s of theCourt of Appeals bind us in a petition for review under "ule 4E of the "ules of Court% [4]6e arethus copelled to review the factual antecedents%

/ro the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals and the pleadin*s of theparties, the followin* were established

On the basis of the private respondentsM e@hibits,[E]on 9, 1&, 121(, 2', 24, 2(, and 27 -ul.192&, a parcel of land located in the barrio of a*ra*ondon*, unicipalit. of i*ao, 5rovince ofAlba., was surve.ed for the spouses uis "iba.a and A*ustina "evatoris


37/63

'7

"iba.a= b. 3elesforo :ntalan, a Bureau of ands surve.or% 3he parcel of land was found tocoprise an area of 2E,E42,(&' s>uare eters% 3he surve. plan was denoinated as 5lan 001'9(1 and alle*edl. approved b. the Actin* ;irector of ands on ' -anuar. 1922% owever, asnoted b. the Court of Appeals in its 9 -anuar. 1991 decision, [(]these e@hibits do not at all showthe surve.orMs si*nature% oreover, as per and ClassiDcation ap $o% )71 of the Bureau of/orestr., the above parcel of land was considered part of the public forest and released fordisposition onl. on '1 ;eceber 19'&%[7]

0n 192E, the spouses "iba.a applied for re*istration and conDration of title of the lotcovered b. 5lan 001'9(1 before the then Court of /irst 0nstance uareeters% 5lan 001'9(1Ad% appeared to have been approved b. the ;irector of ands on 2(

/ebruar. 192(%[1&]3he application was not aended to reJect the resurve. and the aendedplan was not published%

On '1 -ul. 192(, the correspondin* decree of re*istration was issued, [11]while on 19 Au*ust192(, Ori*inal CertiDcate of 3itle


38/63

')

On 27 October 1979, the aforeentioned (2 farers Dled a coplaintinintervention andpra.ed that the land revert to the petitioner and their titles over the portions respectivel.occupied b. the conDred%

0n its decision of 11 $oveber 19)7[2&]the "e*ional 3rial Court ueG,[22]where it was held that an.aendent or alteration in the description of the land after its publication and decree ofre*istration was not perissible unless coupled with republication%

3he trial court liFewise ruled that there was no evidence that the possession of the spouses"iba.a and their predecessorsininterests was open, continuous, and adverse under a bonaDde clai of ownership for the re>uired nuber of .ears oreover, the. failed to present an.ta@ declarations% 0t then concluded that the said pouses a. have occupied portions of the land

at a later tie, but not in the concept of bona Dde owners, for ere casual cultivation and raisin*of cattle on the land did not constitute QpossessionQ as conteplated b. law%[2']

3he private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals


39/63

'9

Bureau of /orestr. uentl., OC3 $o% '947 as reconstituted b. OC3 $o% "O1&)4) is void ab initio%

0t is wellsettled that lands of the public doain classiDed as forest or tiber lands, are incapableof re*istration in the naes of private persons and their inclusion in a title nulliDes the title


40/63

4&

:nsatisDed, the petitioner Dled the instant petition and asserts that uestioned b. the petitioner%['E]

As the Court sees it, onl. two relevant issues need be resolved, to wit

1% 6hether the "epublic of the 5hilippines is barred b. prescription to brin* the action forannulent of OC3 $o% '947 and all its derivative certiDcates of title and

2% 6hether the land re*istration court ac>uired +urisdiction over the four parcels of landsub+ect of the aended surve. plan


41/63

41

lie a*ainst the state in such cases for the tatute of iitation does not run a*ainst thestate% 3he ri*ht of reversion or reconve.ance to the state is not barred b. prescription%

6e therefore hold that since the land applied for b. the spouses "iba.a was part of thepublic forest and released onl. on '1 ;eceber 19'&, [41]the land re*istration court ac>uired no

+urisdiction over the land, which was not .et alienable and disposable% ence, the tateMs actionto annul the certiDcates of title issued thereunder and for the reversion of the land is not barred

b. prescription%

Anent the second issue, we hold that the land re*istration court in "C Case $o% E2, !%%"%O%"ecord $o% 2(&E& never ac>uired +urisdiction over the land covered b. either the ori*inal plan


42/63

42

indispensable however, no such re openin* appears to have been done therein% econd, asearlier shown, the land re*istration court ac>uired no +urisdiction over the land covered b. theori*inal plan because of insuHcient publication in the OHcial !aGette% 3hird, it has not beensuHcientl. shown that the four parcels of land covered b. OC3 $o% '947, which are based on theaended plan, are but a sall part of the sae and covered b. the ori*inal surve. plan% 3hisconclusion is thorou*hl. discussed below%

0n the 24 -anuar. 1994 resolution of the Court of Appeals, it found the ori*inal areas coveredb. 5lan 1'9(1 to be 2E,E42,(&' s>uare eters and the four parcels of land ebraced in theaended plan, 5lan 001'9(1Ad%, to be in the a**re*ate of 1&,97E,&22 s>uare eters% 3hus

0n the case at bar, in 192E, the spouses "iba.a sou*ht for a +udicial conDration of iperfect orincoplete title of the land described as follows

5arcel of land uare eters, with the buildin*sand iproveents thereon, situated in the Barrio a*ra*ondon*, unicipalit. of i*ao, 5rovinceof Alba., 5%0% @ @ @ uare eters are applied for% On$oveber 2' and '&, 192E, said saller parcel of land was surve.ed b. and urve.or6enceslao anuel, and was approved b. the ;irector of ands on /ebruar. 2(, 192( as 5lan 001'9(1Ad% uareeters, ore or less

2% A parcel of land uare eters% 3he land actuall. ebraced inthe decree of re*istration contained onl. 1&,97E,&22 s>uare eters%[EE]


43/63

4'

0n hectares, the 2E,E42,(&' s>uare eters eans 3wo 3housand /ive undred and /ift. /ourectares, two ares, and si@ hundred and three centares uare eters would be onl. 3wo uare eters uare eters= as found b. the latter, onl. shows

the unreliabilit. of the ori*inal plan sou*ht to be established throu*h @hibits ( and (A% 3heCourt of Appeals itself so found it to be in its decision of 9 -anuar. 1991 because these e@hibitsdid not show that the surve. plan was si*ned b. the surve.or% 3hus

Althou*h the trial court said so


44/63

44

it would have been ph.sicall. ipossible to Dnish the surve. thereof in onl. eleven da.s


45/63

4E

despite lacF of service of notices to ad+oinin* owners and the actual occupants of the land, anddenied petitionerMs otion for the reconsideration of the ;ecision%E

3he issue in this petition is whether notices to ad+oinin* owners and the actual occupants of theland are andator. and +urisdictional in +udicial reconstitution of certiDcates of title%

On 4 $oveber 19)( private respondent, claiin* to be one of the heirs of pifania Alcano,

re*istered owner of a parcel of land located in Canubin*, Calapan, Oriental indoro, containin*an area of '',294 s>uare eters, and covered b. 3ransfer CertiDcate of 3itle $o% 3((&(2 in the"e*istr. of ;eeds of Calapan, Oriental indoro, Dled a petition for the reconstitution of Qtheori*inal and duplicate cop. uired itspublication in the OHcial !aGette, which was done% "e>uired notices, e@cept to the ad+oinin*owners and the actual occupants of the land, were *iven%

:pon prior authorit. of the trial court, reception of private respondentMs evidence was ade b.

the O0CBranch ClerF of Court% 3hereafter, on 17 -une 19)7, the trial court handed down anOrder7which ade the followin* Dndin*s of facts

/ro the evidence adduced b. the petitioner, it appears that she is one of the vendees of acertain parcel of land situated in alai*, Calapan, Oriental indoro, containin* an area of'',294 s>uare eters, ebraced in and covered b. 3ransfer CertiDcate of 3itle $o% 3((&(2 andre*istered in the nae of pifania Alcano uisition

Accordin*l., Dndin* the instant petition to be wellfounded and there bein* no opposition to itsapproval, sae is hereb. *ranted% 3he "e*ister of ;eeds of this province is hereb. directed toreconstitute the ori*inal and the ownerMs duplicate copies of 3ransfer CertiDcate of 3itle $o% 3((&(2 in the nae of the re*istered owners


46/63

4(

3he appeal was docFeted as C%A%!%"% C# $o% 1E1('%

0n support of the Drst assi*ned error, petitioner aintained that the re>uireent of ection 1' of"%A% $o% 2( is not onl. andator. but +urisdictional as held in 6 vs% ison, et al%, 124 C"A'94%

0n its ;ecision of 29 Au*ust 19))9respondent Court of Appeals brushed aside the ar*uents of

petitioner and held that

1= ection 1' of "%A% $o% 2( which Qre>uires the sendin* out of notices to the ad+oinin* ownersand actual occupants to vest +urisdiction,Q appears to have been Qat least ipliedl. aended b.5residential ;ecree $o% 1E29Q because it is inconsistent with ection 2' of said ;ecree whichprovides that in ori*inal re*istration cases publication of notices of initial hearin* in the OHcial!aGette is suHcient to confer +urisdiction on the court% ection 11& of said ;ecree provides

ec% 11&% "econstitution of lost or destro.ed ori*inal of 3orrens 3itle% VV Ori*inal copies ofcertiDcates of title lost or destro.ed in oHces of "e*ister of ;eeds as well as liens andencubrances aKectin* such titles shall be reconstituted +udiciall. in accordance with theprocedure prescribed in "epublic Act $o% 2( insofar as not inconsistent with this

;ecree% uired b. ection 1' of"%A% $o% 2(

b% 3he respondent onorable Court of Appeals acted contrar. to law in *rantin* the petition forreconstitution of the ori*inal and duplicate copies of 3C3 $o% ((&(2%

0n Our resolution of 1( -anuar. 19)9,1&6e re>uired the respondents to coent on the petition%5rivate respondent Dled her coent on 1& /ebruar. 19)9%11he practicall. copied therein the>uestioned decision of respondent Court of Appeals%
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_85515_1991.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_85515_1991.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_85515_1991.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_85515_1991.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_85515_1991.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_85515_1991.html#rnt11


47/63

47

0n Our resolution of 1E arch 19)9 6e *ave due course to the petition and re>uired the partiesto subit siultaneousl. their respective eoranda, which petitioner coplied with on ' -ul.19)912and private respondent on 1& -une 19)9%1'

3he petition is ipressed with erit%

3he >uestioned ;ecision of 29 Au*ust 19)) and the "esolution of 1) October 19)) of respondent

Court of Appeals, as well as the Order of Branch '9 of the "e*ional 3rial Court of Oriental indoroof 17 -une 19)7, ust be set aside%

ection 1' of "%A% $o% 2( has not been altered, odiDed or aended%1wphi1ince there>uireent therein of service of notice of the initial hearin* to the ad+oinin* owners and theactual occupants of the land was not coplied with in this case, the court below did not,therefore, ac>uire +urisdiction over the petition for the reconstitution of 3ransfer CertiDcate of

3itle $o% ((&(2% Accordin*l., the respondent Court of Appeals *ravel. erred in aHrin* theOrder of the trial court *rantin* the petition and in holdin* that said ection 1' has been Qatleast ipliedl. aendedQ b. ection 2' in relation to ection 11& of 5%;% $o% 1E29 which tooFeKect on 11 -une 197)%

0n ;irector of ands vs% Court of Appeals, et al%,146e ruled that the re>uireents of ection 12and ection 1' of "%A% $o% 2( readin* as follows

ec% 12% 5etitions for reconstitution fro sources enuerated in sections 2


48/63

4)

the petition% 3he petitioner shall, at the hearin*, subit proof of the publication, postin* andservice of the notice as directed b. the court%

are andator. and +urisdictional and noncopliance therewith would render all proceedin*sutterl. null and void% 6e reiterated this rule in 3ahanan ;evelopent Corp% vs% Court of Appeals,et al%1Ewhere, in respect particularl. to the re>uired notice to an ad+oinin* owner, 6ecate*oricall. declared

3he failure or oission to notif. 3ahanan as the owner, possessor or occupant of propert.ad+acent to ot 2 or as claiant or person havin* interest, title or clai to a substantial portionuisites%

3his reaHration is clear enou*h as to leave no roo for an. convoluted lo*ic to support asophistic distinction between said case and the instant case and an iplausible interpretation ofthe law%

6e further Dnd to be totall. unfounded the view of the Court of Appeals that ection 1' of "%A%$o% 2( Qappears to have been at least ipliedl. aended b. 5residential ;ecree $o% 1E29%Q

3here is absolutel. nothin* in 5%;% $o% 1E29 which intiates or su**ests, indirectl. or evenreotel., an intention to aend said ection 1'% 3he Court of Appeals either isapprehended or

read out of conte@t that portion of ection 2' of 5%;% $o% 1E29 readin* as follows

% % % that the publication in the OHcial !aGette shall be suHcient to confer +urisdiction upon thecourt%

6orse, it coitted a serious blunder when it used this clause to support its proposition ofiplied aendent of ection 1' of "%A% $o% 2( b. virtue of ection 11& of the ;ecree%

ection 2' of 5%;% $o% 1E29 is entitled $otice of initial hearin*, publication, etc% and provides,inter alia, that

3he public shall be *iven notice of initial hearin* of the application for land re*istration b. eans

of


49/63

49

suHcient copliance if the notice is published in the OHcial !aGette, althou*h the law andatesthat it be published Qonce in the OHcial !aGette and once in a newspaper of *eneral circulationin the 5hilippines%Q owever, publication in the latter alone would not suHce% 3his is to accordpriac. to the oHcial publication%

3hat such proviso was never eant to dispense with the other odes of *ivin* notice, whichreain andator. and +urisdictional, is obvious fro ection 2' itself% 0f the intention of the law

were otherwise, said section would not have stressed in detail the re>uireents of ailin* ofnotices to all persons naed in the petition who, per ection 1E of the ;ecree, include owners ofad+oinin* properties, and occupants of the land%

3he above view of the Court of Appeals ne*ates one of the principal purposes of the ;ecree,which is clearl. e@pressed in its e@ordiu, nael., to stren*then the 3orrens .ste throu*hsafe*uards to prevent anoalous titlin* of real propert.% 0t opens wide the doors to fraud andirre*ularities in land re*istration proceedin*s and in proceedin*s for the reconstitution ofcertiDcates of title% -udicial notice a. be taFen of the fact that onl. ver. few have access to orcould read the OHcial !aGette, which coes out in few copies onl. per issue% 0f publication in theOHcial !aGette of the notice of hearin* in both proceedin*s would be suHcient to confer

+urisdiction upon the court, owners of both unre*istered and re*istered lands a. soeda.

painfull. Dnd out that others have certiDcates of title to their land because schein* parties hadcaused their re*istration, or secured reconstituted certiDcates of title thereto and sold thepropert. to third parties%

3he belabored ar*uent of respondent Court of Appeals that it would be unfair to ipose uponthe private respondent the dut. to copl. with the re>uireent of service of notice because itwas not throu*h her fault that the ori*inal cop. of the 3ransfer CertiDcate of 3itle was lost isunacceptable since the law does not aFe an. e@ception or e@eptions besides, it is, to sa. theleast, a ludicrous proposition% >uall. unacceptable is the opinion of said Court that it was thedut. of the trial court to serve the re>uired notices and private respondent should not bepre+udiced if it failed to do so% 0t su**ests, >uite unfortunatel., and *ives the wron* ipressionthat andator. re>uireents of notices a. be dispensed with if the failure to copl. with the

is attributable to the court% 0t liFewise ne*ates the principles of responsibilit., inte*rit., lo.alt.and eHcienc. which the Constitution directs public oHcials and eplo.ees to faithfull. observe%6e should stress here that lapses on the part of courts or their personnel cannot be ade areason or +ustiDcation for nonobservance of laws% B. the ver. nature of their functions, the.should be the Drst to obe. the laws%

0$ 3 0!3 O/ 3 /O"!O0$!, +ud*ent is hereb. rendered !"A$30$! the instant petitionand 330$! A0; the ;ecision of 29 Au*ust 19)) and the "esolution of 1) October 19)) ofrespondent Court of Appeals in C%A%!%"% C# $o% 1E1(' and the Order of Branch $o% '9 of the"e*ional 3rial Court of Oriental indoro, /ourth -udicial "e*ion in 5etition $o% 11,4E(%

Costs a*ainst private respondent%

O O";";%

G.R. No. 100 )epte8ber 14, 14

RE'&(IC %F T$E '$I(I''INE), petitioner,vs%C%&RT %F A''EA() a!* DE(FINA ). D%(%R, respondents%


50/63

E&

3he olicitor !eneral for petitioner%

eopoldo C% $a*era, -r% for private respondent%

E((%)I((%, .

On 1& Au*ust 19)), private respondent ;elDna % ;olor Dled an application before the "e*ional3rial Court of ;aet, Caarines $orte, for the conDration and re*istration of her title to a 9&)s>uare eter residential lot located at the interior of ;encio Cabanela treet, 5oblacion, ;aet,Caarines $orte, described on 5lan Ccn&E&&&&2E and covered b. 3a@ ;eclaration$o% &&E&)2'%

On 2E $oveber 19)), when the case was called for initial hearin*, the /iscal entered hisappearance on behalf of petitioner "epublic of the 5hilippines% "espondent ;elDna % ;oloroved that an order of *eneral default be issued a*ainst the whole world e@cept petitioner whichhad Dled an opposition% On the sae date, the trial court issued an order, statin*

6hen this case was called for initial hearin* toda., onl. the /iscal in behalf of the "epublic of the5hilippines interposed an opposition to the application%

Applicant, thru counsel, pra.ed for the issuance of an order of *eneral default a*ainst the wholeworld with the e@ception of the "epublic of the 5hilippines represented b. the /iscal%

0t appearin* fro the record that the +urisdictional re>uireents have been coplied with andthere bein* no private oppositor to the application, the reception of evidence is hereb. dele*atedto the Branch ClerF of Court who is re>uired to render a report within twent.


51/63

E1

however, that the publication in the OHcial !aGette shall be suHcient to confer +urisdiction uponthe court% aid notice shall be addressed to all persons appearin* to have an interest in the landinvolved includin* the ad+oinin* owners so far as Fnown, and Qto all who it a. concern%Q aidnotice shall also re>uire all persons concerned to appear in court at a certain date and tie toshow cause wh. the pra.er of said application shall not be *ranted % % % %

3he records show that while the trial court stated that the +urisdictional re>uireents were

coplied with on 2E $oveber 19)), the. were .et to be presented on 2& ;eceber 19))before its Branch ClerF, the desi*nated Coissioner%

0n its decision dated 1( -ul. 1991, the appellate court aHred the decision of the trial court% 30tfound petitionerMs subission not onl. too foralistic but also contrar. to the facts and the lawand in dero*ation of substantial +ustice, rationaliGin* thus P

6e Dnd that the re>uireents of ec% 2' of 5residential ;ecree$o% 1E29 have been coplied with in the instant case% 3he record shows that the $otice of 0nitialearin* set on $oveber 2E, 19)), issued b. the Adinistrator, $ational and 3itles and ;eeds"e*istration Adinistration uireents have been coplied with as shown b. the docuents that werealread. attached to the record of the case and of which the trial court can taFe +udicial notice%

3he failure of the /iscal as well as the 5residin* -ud*e to have called the attention of the counselfor the applicant to proceed with the arFin* of the docuents to prove the +urisdictional factswould not have deprived the trial court of its +urisdiction to hear and decide the case% $eitherwould the arFin* of those docuents later after the initial hearin* deprive the trial court of its

+urisdiction% 4

0n this petition, while petitioner concedes that the +urisdiction to taFe co*niGance of the case isnot conferred b. the arFin* of the relevant docuents as e@hibits but, rather, b. the fact thatall the +urisdictional re>uireents of law had been carried out, .et, it taFes e@ception to thefactual Dndin* that there was copliance with the +urisdictional re>uireents% As borne out b.the records, at the scheduled date of initial hearin* on 2E $oveber 19)) and even durin* the


52/63

E2

actual hearin* on 2& ;eceber 19)), the publication re>uireent in the OHcial !aGette was .etto be coplied with% Althou*h the $otice of 0nitial earin* was included for publication in the 17October 19)) issue of the OHcial !aGette, speciDcall. #ol% )4, $o% 42, thereof, the sae washowever released for publication onl. on '1 -anuar. 19)9, as shown b. the CertiDcation of5ublication issued b. the ;irector of the $ational 5rintin* OHce% 0n other words, the actualpublication of the notice cae out [email protected] uestioned decision% 0ndeed, respondent courtcould have easil. resolved the issue in favor of petitioner supported as it was not onl. b.copetent evidence but also b. aple +urisprudence%

3he priar. le*al principle a*ainst which the le*alit. of all the proceedin*s conducted b. thetrial court should be tested is +urisdiction% 0n order to ascertain whether a court has +urisdiction,the provision of the law in point should be in>uired into% :ection 2' of 5%;% 1E29 [email protected] that before the court can act on the application for land re*istration, the public shall be

*iven notice of the initial hearin* thereof b. eans of publication, ailin*, and postin*%0n ;irector of ands v% Court of Appeals, 7citin* Calte@ v%C0", 9, this Court ruled that in all caseswhere the authorit. of the courts to proceedis conferred b. a statute and when the anner of obtainin* +urisdiction is andator. it ust bestrictl. coplied with, or the proceedin*s will be utterl. void% o that where there is a defect ofpublication of petition, such defect deprives the court of +urisdiction% And when the court lacFs

+urisdiction to taFe co*niGance of a case, the sae lacFs authorit. over the whole case and all itsaspects% 10

0n "e*ister of ;eeds of alabon v% "3C, alabon, 11an issue siilar to the one presented in thepresent petition was posed, that is, whether the actual publication of the notice of the petition inthe OHcial !aGette fort.seven


53/63

E'

ection 2' of 5%;% 1E29 does not provide a period within which the notice should be published inthe OHcial !aGette but for reasons alread. obvious, the publication should precede the date ofinitial hearin*% 6hile there is no dispute that the notice was included in #ol% )4, $o% 42, 17October 19)) issue of the OHcial !aGette, this particular issue was released for publication onl.on '1 -anuar. 19)9 when the initial hearin* was alread. a fait accopli% 3he point of reference inestablishin* lacF of +urisdiction of the trial court was '1 -anuar. 19)9 because it was onl. on thatdate when the notice was ade Fnown to the people in *eneral% 14#eril., the late publication ofthe notice defeated the purpose for its e@istence thereb. reducin* it to a ere pro fora notice%

B. reason of the defective notice of initial hearin*, all the proceedin*s conducted b. the trialcourt which culinated in its decision *rantin* the pra.er of respondent ;olor are declared #O0;and it was error for respondent Court of Appeals to have sustained the sae%

6"/O", the petition is !"A$3;% 3he >uestioned decision of respondent Court of Appealswhich aHred the decision of the "e*ional 3rial Court of ;aet, Caarines $orte, is #ACA3; and3 A0;, and the application of private respondent for the conDration and re*istration of hertitle over the propert. described therein is ;$0;% O O";";%

G.R. No. (-2:03 a!uary 27, 1:

VIRGINIA (. DE CA)TR%,petitioner,vs%$%N. 'I% +ARC%), u*uare eters of land situated in the Cit. of Ba*uio%

On -ul. '&, 19(E, petitioner #ir*inia % de Castro oved to intervene% er interest is in the 1,&&&s>uare eters alle*edl. included in the 1E,922 s>uare eters of land speciDed in respondent

AFiaMs petition below% 2

0t appears that petitioner #ir*inia de Castro Dled with the Bureau of ands 3ownship alesApplication [3A#'EE9 uare eterparcel of land identiDed as ot1, UueGon ill ubdivision, "esidential ection QTQ, Ba*uio Cit.% 0t was surve.ed for which shepaid a fee of 51E&%&& on October 21, 19EE% 5ublic auction, dul. published, was conducted atwhich petitioner de Castro was the hi*hest bidder% On ;eceber 17, 19EE, the lot was awardedin her favor at a cost of 54%'& per s>uare eter, or a total of 54,'&&%&&% 5etitioner full. paid thepurchase price which, with interests, aounted to 54,'&(%')% 5etitioner, it is claied, had beenpa.in* ta@es on the lot%


54/63

E4

On Au*ust 1(, 19(E, petitionerMs otion for intervention, despite AFiaMs opposition, was *rantedb. the court below%

At the trial on the erits, petitioner de Castro, respondent AFia, and diKerent *overnenta*encies were dul. represented% 5etitioner de Castro there presented docuentar. andtestionial evidence in support of her opposition to the inclusion of said 1,&&& s>uare eters ofland% 3he case was subitted for decision%

3hereafter, on October 24, 19(E, AFia lod*ed a otion to disiss petitionerMs opposition to hisuired was an ipossibilit. because, in the .ear 19EE and several .earsthereafter, there were no li*htin*, water and road facilities within the iediate vicinit. of theland, and later on, the Cit. n*ineer of Ba*uio refused to issue the re>uired buildin* peritbecause of the pendenc. of respondent AFiaMs petition for reopenin* heretofore adverted to% healso ac>uainted the court with the fact that because of her letter aforesaid, the ;irector of andshad asFed its Ba*uio oHce to ree@aine the revocation% At an. rate, the land in >uestion, so shecontinued to aver in her otion, could not be the sub+ect of petition for +udicial reopenin* as itwas never in possession of respondent AFia%1awphil.#t

On arch 2, 19((, the fore*oin* second otion for reconsideration was perfunctoril. denied b.respondent +ud*e%

3hen, on arch 1E, 19((, the ;irector of ands cae out with an order reinstatin* petitioner deCastroMs award, for the reason that lacF of water and li*htin* facilities found to be true in theinvesti*ation conducted b. the Bureau of ands caused dela. in the construction of petitionerMshouse% 3he ;irector, however, held in abe.ance further action thereon until respondent AFiaMspetition for reopenin* is Dnall. decided b. the Ba*uio court%

3he ne@t ove of petitioner #ir*inia % de Castro was to start certiorari proceedin*s in this Courtthru a veriDed petition pra.in* that the orders of respondent +ud*e, disissin* her opposition tothe reopenin*, be set aside and annulled%


55/63

EE

:pon the return of respondents, and the eoranda of the parties, the case is now before usfor decision%

1% /irst to erit attention is the >uestion of +urisdiction%

3he thrust of petitionerMs ar*uent is that the reopenin* of the cadastral case below is

+urisdictionall. tainted b. lacF of publication%

"espondent AFiaMs petition for reopenin* was instituted under "epublic Act 9'1, eKective -une2&, 19E', which in its ection 1 reads

C30O$ 1% All persons claiin* title to parcels of land that have been the ob+ect ofcadastral proceedin*s, who at the tie of the surve. were in a$t%al possession of thesae, but for soe +ustiDable reason had been unable to Dle their clai in the propercourt durin* the tie liit established b. law, in case such parcels of land, on account oftheir failure to Dle such clais, have been, or are about to be declared land of the publicdoain, b. virtue of +udicial proceedin*s instituted within the fort. .ears ne@t precedin*the approval of this Act, are hereb. *ranted the ri*ht within Dve .ears 3 after the date on

which this Act shall taFe eKect, to petition for a reopenin* of the +udicial proceedin*sunder the provisions of Act $ubered 3went.two hundred and Dft.nine, asaended,onl& with respe$tto such of said parcels of land as have notbeen alienated,reserved, leased, *ranted, or otherwise pro'isionall&orper(anentl& "ispose" of b. the!overnent, and the copetent Court of /irst 0nstance, upon receivin* such petition, shallnotif. the !overnent,thro%ghthe olicitor !eneral, and if after hearin* the parties, saidcourt shall Dnd that all conditions herein established have been coplied with, and that allta@es, interests and penalties thereof have been paid fro the tie when land ta@ shouldhave been collected until the da. when the otion is presented, it shall order said +udicialproceedin*s reopened as if no action has been taFen on such parcels% 4

Third Assignment Cases LTD

Documents