346 Phil. 724
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Plaintiffs-appellants [private respondents] filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of Original Certificate of Title No. P-8265 issued in the name of the heirs of Marciano Nagaño and covering Cad. Lot. No. 3275. Plaintiff-appellants alleged that the issuance of the said title was on account of the fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation committed by defendant Macario Valerio. An information for perjury was even filed on November 2, 1983 against defendant Valerio, who unlawfully attested that Lot No. 3275 was not occupied or being claimed by other persons. Plaintiff-appellants alleged that part of the subject property was owned by their predecessors-in-interest Rufino Mallari and Fermina Jamlig and that they were in possession of the said land since 1920. They recently discovered that their entire Lot No. 3275 was registered by defendant Valerio under Free Patent No. (III-2) 001953 and OCT No. P-8265 in the name of the heirs of Marciano Nagaño. They allegedly demanded from defendant Valerio to execute the necessary document in order that the 2,250 square meters owned by them be segregated from the property titled in the name of the defendants-appellees [petitioners herein]. Defendants-appellees, however, refused to accede their demands.In its Order of 21 September 1992,[5] the trial court granted petitioners’ motion to dismiss on the ground that:
A motion to dismiss was filed by defendants-appellees on the following grounds, viz.:
1. The court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action;
2. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendants, since suit for annulment of title which actually is a reversion proceedings should be instituted by the Solicitor;
3. Plaintiffs’ cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, the lawsuit having been instituted more than one year, or in fact almost fifteen years after the issuance of the title.[4]
[The] action to annul the subject certificate of title, which is the plaintiffs’ principal cause of action, should be instituted by the Solicitor General. (Lopez v. Padilla, 45 SCRA 44; Maximo v. CFI of Capis (sic), 182 SCRA 420; and Sumali v. Judge of CFI Cotabato, 96 Phil. 946, cited by the defendants).Private respondents appealed the order of dismissal to respondent court raising this lone assignment of error:
THE COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE AND/OR ALL THE CAUSES OF ACTION OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS.[6]In its decision[7] of 20 September 1995, the Court of Appeals set aside the challenged order of the trial court and reinstated private respondents’ complaint. Applying Agne v. Director of Lands,[8] respondent court distinguished private respondents’ action from a review of the decree of title on the ground of fraud, and held that the rule on the incontrovertibility of a certificate of title upon the expiration of one year after the entry of the decree did not apply as the action for cancellation of the patent and certificate of title issued pursuant thereto was instituted on the ground that they were null and void as the Bureau of Lands had no jurisdiction to issue them, the land having been withdrawn from the public domain prior to the award of the patent and grant of certificate of title to another person.
The Court of appeals correctly set aside the challenged order of the trial court, but not necessarily for the correct reasons. The trial court sustained the second ground of petitioners’ motion to dismiss, namely, that private respondents had no cause of action since the suit for annulment of title amounted to a reversion proceeding which only the Office of the Solicitor general could initiate. The propriety of that ruling was the primary issue before the Court of Appeals, as the trial court did not deem it necessary to rule on the other grounds, viz., (a) lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action; and (2) that private respondents’ cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations since the action was filed more than one year after issuance of the title.I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL PERSONALITY TO CONTEST THE FINAL AWARD MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, AND CIVIL COURTS ARE DEVOID OF JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO REVIEW OR CONTROL SUCH FINAL JUDGMENT.II
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS CASE IS FOR THE AWARD IN THEIR FAVOR OF 2,250 SQUARE METERS PORTION OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND COVERED BY OCT NO. P-8265 AND CIVIL COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURE OF THE ACTION SINCE IT IS THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, NOT THE CIVIL COURTS, WHO IS VESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO DECIDE [TO] WHOM TO AWARD DISPOSABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.III
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAVE NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, SINCE [A] SUIT FOR ANNULMENT OF TITLE WHICH ACTUALLY IS A REVERSION PROCEEDINGS [sic], SHOULD BE INSTITUTED BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL.IV
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ CAUSE OF ACTION IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LAWSUIT HAVING BEEN INSTITUTED MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR IN FACT ALMOST FIFTEEN YEARS, AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE TITLE.
SECTION 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.[13]
SEC. 101. All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the [Republic] of the Philippines.In light of the above, and at this time, prescription is unavailing against private respondents’ action. It is settled that a Free Patent issued over private land is null and void,[14] and produces no legal effects whatsoever. Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum.[15] Moreover, private respondents’ claim of open, public, peaceful, continuous and adverse possession of the 2,250 square meter portion since 1920, and its illegal inclusion in the Free Patent of petitioners and in their original certificate of title, gave private respondents a cause of action for quieting of title which is imprescriptible.[16] The complaint of private respondents may thus likewise be considered an action for quieting of title.