432 Phil. 792
QUISUMBING, J.:
Amelita assumed payment of the lot to the Bureau of Lands. She paid a total amount of P282,900.[6]x x x
That I, FERMINA A. LOPEZ, of legal age, Filipino, widow of Pedro C. Lopez and a resident of Port San Pedro, Cebu City, Philippines, am the AWARDEE of Lots Nos. 4, 5, 3-B, 3-C and 6-B, Sgs-3451 And being the winning bidder at the auction sale of these parcels by the Bureau of Lands held on May 12, 1982, at the price of P150.00 per square meter taking a purchase price of P282,900.00 for the tract; That I have made as my partial payment the sum of P28,290.00 evidenced by Official Receipt No. 1357764-B representing ten (10%) per cent of my bid, leaving a balance of P254,610.00 that shall be in not more than ten (10) years at an equal installments of P25,461.00 beginning June 17, 1983 until the full amount is paid.
… the Transferee Mrs. Amelita L. Sola, agrees to assume, all the obligations, duties and conditions imposed upon the Awardee in relation to the MSA Application No. V-81066 entered in their records as Sales Entry No. 20476.
… [I] hereby declare that I accept this Deed of Self-Adjudication and Transfer of Rights and further agree to all conditions provided therein.[5]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant. Lot 5, Sgs-3451, is hereby declared as lawfully owned by plaintiff and defendant is directed to reconvey the same to the former.On appeal, the Court of Appeals in its decision dated March 23, 1999 reversed the RTC. Thus:
No pronouncement as to damages and attorney’s fees, plaintiff having opted to forego such claims.
SO ORDERED.[15]
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint filed by plaintiff-appellee against defendant-appellant is hereby DISMISSED.Petitioner sought reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA.[17]
Costs against plaintiff-appellee.
SO ORDERED.[16]
The crucial issue to be resolved in an action for reconveyance is: Who between petitioner and respondent has a better claim to the land?I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR, REFLECTIVE OF UNMINDFUL RECKLESSNESS WHICH IS THE VERY OPPOSITE OF JUDICIAL CIRCUMSPECTION, IN DECLARING THAT THE DEED OF DONATION DATED JANUARY 4, 1984 (ANNEX “C”) IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER WAS EMBODIED ONLY IN A PRIVATE DOCUMENT (Page 6, Decision, Annex “A”), ALTHOUGH, BY A MERE CASUAL LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT, IT CAN BE READILY DISCERNED THAT IT IS NOTARIZED;II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN APPLYING ON THE CASE AT BAR THE PRINCIPLE IN LAW THAT IT IS REGISTRATION OF THE SALES PATENT THAT CONSTITUTE THE OPERATIVE ACT THAT WOULD CONVEY OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND TO THE APPLICANT (Pp. 3-6, Decision, Annex “A”) BECAUSE THE LEGAL CONTROVERSY BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT DOES NOT INVOLVE CONFLICTING CLAIMS ON SALES PATENT APPLICATIONS;III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN MAKING A FINDING THAT RESPONDENT ACQUIRED THE LAND IN QUESTION, IN GOOD FAITH (Page 7, Decision, Annex “A”), ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO BASIS NOR NEED TO MAKE SUCH A FINDING; andIV.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN ENUNCIATING THAT POSSESSION MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 1544 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE INCLUDE SYMBOLIC POSSESSION, UPON WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT BASED ITS CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT WAS FIRST IN POSSESSION BECAUSE THE DEED OF SELF-ADJUDICATION AND TRANSFER OF RIGHTS IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT DATED MAY 28, 1983 WAS EXECUTED MUCH EARLIER THAN THE DEED OF DONATION IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER DATED JANUARY 4, 1984 (Pages 7-8, Decision, Annex “A”).[18]
Art. 744. Donations of the same thing to two or more different donees shall be governed by the provisions concerning the sale of the same thing to two or more different persons.Petitioner claims that respondent was in bad faith when she registered the land in her name and, based on the abovementioned rules, he has a better right over the property because he was first in material possession in good faith. However, this allegation of bad faith on the part of Amelita Sola in acquiring the title is devoid of evidentiary support. For one, the execution of public documents, as in the case of Affidavits of Adjudication, is entitled to the presumption of regularity, hence convincing evidence is required to assail and controvert them.[25] Second, it is undisputed that OCT No. 3439 was issued in 1989 in the name of Amelita. It requires more than petitioner’s bare allegation to defeat the Original Certificate of Title which on its face enjoys the legal presumption of regularity of issuance.[26] A Torrens title, once registered, serves as notice to the whole world. All persons must take notice and no one can plead ignorance of its registration.[27]
Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. (Emphasis supplied.)
Sec. 101.—All actions for 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 other words, a private individual may not bring an action for reversion or any action which would have the effect of canceling a free patent and the corresponding certificate of title issued on the basis thereof, such that the land covered thereby will again form part of the public domain. Only the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead may do so.[29] Since Amelita Sola’s title originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee.[30] Clearly then, petitioner has no standing at all to question the validity of Amelita’s title. It follows that he cannot “recover” the property because, to begin with, he has not shown that he is the rightful owner thereof.