Federico L

8/13/2019 Federico L

1/12

Federico L. Reyes, et al. vs. CA, et al.GRN 94524; September !, 99"

This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision 1 of the respondentCourt of Appeals dated April 19, 1990, in CA-G.R. CV o. 1!"00, the

dispositive portion of which reads#

$%&'R'()R', in the li*ht of the fore*oin*, the decision of the court a +uodated April 1, 19" is here/ 'T AD' and another is rendered#

a2 Declarin* )ri*inal Certificate of Title o. 3 in the na4e of the heirs ofAntonia 5aalan as null and void and all other derivative titles, if an/ theree, are here/ ordered cancelled and

2 Declarin* that the land covered / the cancelled certificate of title ereverted to the tate includin* whatever i4prove4ents introduced / the

defendants which are ordered forfeited in favor of the Repulic of the6hilippines.$3

The factual ac7drop of the case, as accuratel/ su44ari8ed / therespondent court in the assailed decision, is as follows#

$Antonia 5aalan filed with the ureau of 5ands &o4estead Application o.31!0" on (eruar/ 1, 19:" ;'> ;'


2/12

verif/in* that the sa4e would e released for private disposition.

$Actin* on @ar/ A*nes urns= re+uest for surve/ authorit/, the ureau of5ands ordered 5and nspector @ateo D. icat to inspect and surve/ thepropert/. n the report dated Dece4er 3:, 19" ;'


3/12


4/12

court considered# ;a2 the Certification o. ">, dated ?anuar/ 1:, 191, issued/ District (orester Ro*elio 5. Del*ado ;'


5/12

/ Ro*elio 5. Del*ado in his capacit/ as the District (orester.

$T&F, it was held in the case of R6 vs. Ani4as, >" CRA !99 that#

=The defense of indefeasiilit/ of a certificate of title issued pursuant to a

free patent does not lie a*ainst the tate in an action for reversion of landcovered there/ when such land is a part of a pulic forest or a forestreservation. As a *eneral rule, ti4er or forest lands are not alienale ordisposale under either the Constitution of 19:> or the Constitution of 19:.Althou*h the Director of 5ands has urisdiction over pulic lands classified asa*ricultural under the Constitution, or alienale or disposale under the6ulic 5and Act and is char*ed with the ad4inistration of all laws relativethereto, 4ineral and ti4er lands are e/ond his urisdiction . . . whendefendant sa*ani Du Ti4ol filed his application for free patent over theland in +uestion, the area was not a disposale or alienale pulic land ut apulic forest. Titles issued to private parties / the ureau of 5ands when the

land covered there/ is not disposale pulic land ut forest land are void ainitio.=

=T&' nature and character of a pulic land 4ade in the investi*ation reportsof the ureau of 5ands, is indin* on the court ;Repulic vs. 6or7an, 1>1CRA 2. 6rescription does not lie a*ainst the tate ;Art. 110 par. !E ewCivil Code2. &ence, the ri*ht of reversion or conve/ance to the tate is notarred / prescription. The lower court in its decision is of the opinion that=even if it were true as contended / the plaintiff that at the ti4e of the*rantin* of patent and the issuance of )CT o. 3 in 19!1 to thedefendants, the land was not /et disposale and alienale . . . /et such error

co44itted / the *overn4ent thru the ureau of 5ands in *rantin* theho4estead patent, was rectified / the sa4e *overn4ent thru the thenureau of (orestr/ when it released the said land covered / the &o4estead6atent fro4 the forest 8one . . . '+uit/ de4ands that the *overn4ent 4ustnot annul and cancel the ho4estead patent issued in 19!1 even if the landwas not /et alienale and disposale then, for after all the said eca4ealienale and disposale in 19"1= ; pp. :3:-:3!, Record2 %e elieve thou*hthat the rule 4ust stand no 4atter how harsh it 4a/ see4 Dura le< sedle


6/12

%hether or not the testi4on/ of (orester @arceliano 6ore is sufficient tooutwei*h Certification o. 33 and there/ accord *reater proative value toCertification o. ">E

%hether or not, *iven the le*al presu4ptions in favor of alienailit/ of thesuect land and the re*ularit/ of its *rant as a ho4estead, sufficientsustantial evidence e was prepared, thesuect land was alread/ alienale and disposale in character. 6etitionersfurther contend that Certification o. 33 is actuall/ a correction ofCertification o. "> in that it was 4ade clear that the suect land wasalread/ classified as alienale and disposale in 193 and not onl/ in 19"1

as shown in 5C@ o. 3!3 9 .

%e have carefull/ perused the record of the case and find that the twocertifications issued / (orester Ro*elio 5. Del*ado, i.e., Certification o. ">dated ?anuar/ 1:, 191 10 and Certification o. 33 dated ove4er 3>,191, 11 are not reall/ contradictor/ as petitioners contend. A co4parison ofthe land classification 4aps ;5C @ap ""> and 5C @ap 3!32 which were4ade the asis of the issuance of the said certifications show that thesuect lot is part of the unclassified pulic forest when the &o4estead6atent was issued to petitioners= predecessor-in-interest, Antonia 5aalan.5C@ o. "">, 13 which was the asis of Certification o. ">, reveals that the

suect lot is found in the area enclosed / ro7en lines fro4 points 1!1 to1!! 1: on the side of the portion 4ar7ed as $Fnclassified 6ulic (orest.$ Asshown in 5C@ o. "">, the suect lot was delieratel/ se*re*ated fro4 thealienale and disposale portion identified as loc7 , 6roect 1:. f thesuect lot was included in the area classified as alienale and disposale asearl/ as 193, as petitioners clai4, then it should have een included in thesaid classified portion. This e


7/12

and classified as alienale and disposale land onl/ on ?anuar/ :1, 19"1.

This oservation is supported / the testi4on/ of (orester @arceliano 6orewho surve/ed and plotted the land in +uestion. n the @anifestationH@otiondated ?anuar/ 1, 19: filed / (orester 6ore with the trial court, he stated#

$ ofthis @anifestationH@otion which should e =6roect 1:-G, certified / the thenDirector of (orestr/, @anila as per 5C @ap o. 3!3.= %hen said entries werediscovered, we tried to contact @r. (ederico Re/es to infor4 hi4 aout theerrors ut it was onl/ too late. Recentl/, when @r. (ederico Re/es ca4e ac7to the office, we infor4ed hi4 aout the errors contained in the certificationissued to Antonia 5aalan and further infor4ed hi4 that our file cop/ hadalread/ een corrected.$ 1! ;'4phasis )urs2

Testif/in* on the said oservation, (orester 6ore e


8/12

s7etchI=A The area is located in @atain, uic, within 6roect 1:-G of uic,a4ales ir.= @/ +uestion to /ou @r. witness is# will /ou show to the &onorale Courtthe location of the parcel of land of the heirs of Antonia 5aalan as appearin*

in this s7etch planI=A n front of that do*patch in @atain, opposite ir.= o . . . in other words ased on this plottin* . . . the land in plot fallsinside 6roect 1:-G of 5C @ap 3!3I=A es, sir.$ 1>)n cross-e


9/12

$ %ill /ou point the alienale and disposale area in this 4apI$A This one up to here, up to this ri*ht, elow this ri*ht, sir.$C)FRTGo ahead.$ATT. R)F'

Are /ou sa/in* @r. 6ore all of the area co4prises within the @unicipalit/ ofuic are within the land classification 4ap 6roect 1:-GI$A o, /our &onor, a portion onl/.$ &ow aout arrio @atain was it within part of uic was not within6roect 1:-GI$A Calapacuan, auso* and other arrio separate Calapacuan, and @atainecause it is within that 6roect 1:-G.$ And /ou a*ree with 4e @r. 6ore that there is so4ethin* 4entionedhere nor in land classification 4ap 3!3 that arrio @atain, uic is within6roect 1:-GI$A ecause the arrio is within this 6roect.


10/12

6etitioners i4pu*n the crediilit/ of (orester 6ore contendin* that histesti4on/ is tainted with ias.

%hile this Court ordinaril/ does not rule on the issue of crediilit/ of

witnesses, that ein* a +uestion of fact which is proscried under ection 1,Rule !> of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court has underta7en to do so ine


11/12

6etitioners also contend that the respondent Repulic failed to presentsufficient and sustantial evidence to overco4e the presu4ption of thealienailit/ of land and the presu4ption that the officers who issued thepatent and the title have re*ularl/ perfor4ed their official duties.

Fnder the Re*alian doctrine, all lands of the pulic do4ain elon* to thetate, and that the tate is the source of an/ asserted ri*ht to ownership inland and char*ed with the conservation of such patri4on/. This sa4edoctrine also states that all lands# not otherwise appearin* to e clearl/within private ownership are presu4ed to elon* to the state. 31

&ence, the urden of proof in overco4in* the presu4ption of tateownership of lands of the pulic do4ain is on the person appl/in* forre*istration. The applicant 4ust show that the land suect of the applicationis alienale or disposale. 33 This petitioners failed to do.

%e have stated earlier that at the ti4e the ho4estead patent was issued topetitioners= predecessor-in-interest, the suect land elon*ed to theinalienale and undisposale portion of the pulic do4ain. Thus, an/ titleissued in their na4e / 4ista7e or oversi*ht is void a initio ecause at theti4e the ho4estead patent was issued to petitioners, as successors-in-interest of the ori*inal patent applicant, the Director of 5ands was not thenauthori8ed to dispose of the sa4e ecause the area was not /et classified asdisposale pulic land. Conse+uentl/, the title issued to herein petitioners /the ureau of 5ands is void a initio.

6etitioners= contention that the *overn4ent is now estopped fro4

+uestionin* the validit/ of )CT o. 3 issued to the4, considerin* that ittoo7 the *overn4ent !> /ears to assail the sa4e, is erroneous. %e haveruled in a host of cases that prescription does not run a*ainst the*overn4ent. n point is the case of Repulic vs. Court of Appeals, 3: whereinwe declared#

$And in so far as the ti4eliness of the action of the Govern4ent isconcerned, it is asic that prescription does not run a*ainst the tate. . . .The case law has also een#

=%hen the *overn4ent is the real part/ in interest, and is proceedin* 4ainl/

to assert its own ri*hts and recover its own propert/, there can e nodefense on the *round of laches or li4itation.= . . .

=6ulic land fraudulentl/ included in patents or certificates of title 4a/ erecovered or reverted to the tate in accordance with ection 101 of the6ulic 5and Act. 6rescription does not lie a*ainst the tate in such cases forthe tatute of 5i4itations does not run a*ainst the tate. The ri*ht ofreversion or reconve/ance to the tate is not arred / prescription.$


12/12

;'4phasis )urs2

(inall/, petitioners ar*ue that the suse+uent release of the land as alienalecured an/ defect in the *rant thereof.

%e do not a*ree.

The rule is that a void act cannot e validated or ratified. The suse+uentrelease of the suect land as alienale and disposale did not cure an/defect in the issuance of the ho4estead patent nor validated the *rant. Thehard fact re4ains that at the ti4e of the issuance of the ho4estead patentand the title, the suect land was not /et released as alienale. %hile wes/4pathi8e with the petitioners, we nonetheless can not, at this instance,/ield to co4passion and e+uit/. The rule 4ust stand no 4atter how harsh it4a/ see4. Dura le< sed le

Documents

Federico L