THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 237514, February 10, 2021 ]
HELEN M. ALBERTO, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES NICASIO FLORES, JR. AND PERLITA FLORES, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
DELOS SANTOS, J.:
The Case
This is a Petition
[1] for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision
[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 22, 2017 and its Resolution
[3] dated February 14, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 106012. The CA reversed the Decision
[4]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guagua, Pampanga, Branch 52 dated
October 29, 2015, which granted Helen M. Alberto (petitioner) and her
siblings Aurora M. Dabu and Corazon M. Maninang's (collectively, the
Malits) action for cancellation of Free Patent No. 035408-09-1197 and
the
Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. 14447 issued in the names of respondent spouses Nicasio Flores, Jr. (Nicasio Jr.) and Perlita Flores (respondents).
The Factual Antecedents
On August 25, 2009, the Malits filed a complaint for cancellation and
declaration of nullity of Free Patent No. 035408-09-1197 and
Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg.
14447, covering Lot No. 1298 of the Lubao Cadastre, claiming that these
were procured by respondents through fraud. The Malits alleged that
they are the exclusive owners in fee simple of Lot No. 1298 of the Lubao
Cadastre, containing an area of 5,018 square meters, more or less,
situated in San Roque Arbol, Lubao, Pampanga. The Malits acquired
ownership of the subject land through inheritance from their mother,
Barbara Vitug, in whose name it was surveyed when the Municipality of
Lubao, Pampanga was cadastrally surveyed between the years 1932 and
1935. The Malits' title over the subject land was confirmed by the then
Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Fifth Judicial District, First
Branch in a Decision dated October 28, 1959, entitled
"The Director of Lands, Petitioner, v. Orlando, Helen, Manuel, [Corazon], and Aurora, all surnamed Malit, Claimants,"
in Cadastral Case No. 40, LRC Cadastral Records No. 1693 of the Lubao
Cadastre, involving Lots No. 665, 666, 667 and 1298 of the Lubao
Cadastre. Since then, Lot No. 1298 has been declared for taxation
purposes as shown in the known available Tax Declaration No. 9247 issued
in June 1973 in the names of Orlando Malit (Orlando) and Manuel Malit
(Manuel). Thereafter, petitioner's siblings, Orlando and Manuel, sold
their shares and interests in the properties by virtue of a Deed of
Absolute Sale dated March 1, 1988, hence, they were not included in this
case.
[5]
According to petitioner, Lot No. 1298 was the subject of a tenancy
relationship with Nicasio Flores, Sr. (Nicasio Sr.), and thereafter by
Nicasio Jr., as their agricultural lessees. However, sometime in May
2008, respondents applied for a free patent over Lot No. 1298, which was
given due course by the Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office (CENRO). On January 21, 2009, respondents were issued Free Patent
No. 035408-09-1197, which was then approved by the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO). Subsequently, the
Registry of Deeds of Pampanga issued the Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. 14447[6] in the names of respondents.[7]
Petitioner contended that the October 28, 1959 Decision effectively
classified Lot No. 1298 as private land, hence, it is no longer a public
alienable land. Consequently, the CENRO and the PENRO did not have
jurisdiction over the same when they gave due course to respondents'
application and issued Free Patent No. 035408-09-1197.[8]
Petitioner, likewise, averred that Nicasio Jr. and his father, Nicasio
Sr. have recognized the ownership of the Malits in the subject land as
they have been occupying the same in their capacity as tenants/lessees
and remitting rentals to the Malits. Thus, they cannot claim to have
occupied and possessed the land for more than 30 years in the concept of
an owner to justify their application to a free patent title.[9]
In their Answer, respondents averred that they are qualified to the
grant of the free patent in accordance with law for having been in
continuous, uninterrupted, open, and adverse cultivation and possession
in the concept of owner of Lot No. 1298.[10]
The Ruling of the RTC
On October 29, 2015, the RTC rendered a Decision
[11] in favor of the Malits, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, this court hereby (a) declares as null and void Free Patent No. 035408-09-1197 and the Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg.
14447 in the names of Nicasio Flores, Jr. and Perlita Flores; and (b)
orders the Register of Deeds of Pampanga to cancel said title in its
records.
SO ORDERED.[12]
The RTC held that the Malits were able to prove that there was fraud in
the procurement of the free patent and sustained the Malits' contention
that the free patent and the corresponding title issued to the
respondents were therefore void.
[13]
Conversely, the RTC found that respondents failed to show that the
issuance of the free patent was made in accordance with the procedure
laid down under the Public Land Act. Moreover, the RTC pointed out that
respondents applied for the free patent over Lot No. 1298 while the same
was subject of a tenancy or leasehold relationship in which Nicasio Jr.
was the agricultural lessee. It also found that the Malits' title over
the land was already confirmed in the October 28, 1959 Decision.
According to the RTC, the foregoing badges of fraud successfully
impugned the validity of the certificate of title.
[14]
The RTC further noted that respondents failed to prove that they and
their predecessors-in-interest have been in continuous, uninterrupted,
open, and adverse cultivation and possession in the concept of owner of
the subject land.
[15]
The Ruling of the CA
On August 22, 2017, the CA rendered a Decision
[16] reversing the RTC Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal filed by the
defendants-appellants is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 29, 2015
rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Guagua, Pampanga, is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Free Patent 035408-1019
and [Katibayan ng Original na Titulo Blg.] 14447 remain to be valid and subsisting.
SO ORDERED.[17] (Citation omitted)
The CA held that the Malits failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the procurement of free patent by respondents was attended
by fraud. Thus, the Malits failed to overthrow the presumption of
regularity in the processing and granting of the
Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. 14447 issued under the Land Registration Act.
[18]
The CA further posited that while the Malits have presented the December
28, 1959 Decision confirming their ownership of Lot No. 1298, they,
nevertheless, failed to show that the land was registered under the
Torrens System.
[19] Moreover,
the CA explicated that the Malits' failure to assert their right for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time warranted the presumption
that they have either abandoned or declined to assert it based on the
grounds of public policy, which requires the discouragement of stale
claims for the peace of society.
[20]
Not amenable to the ruling of the CA, petitioner herein brought the instant petition before the Court.
The Issues
- Whether the CA erred in ruling that the
Malits failed to prove the existence of fraud in respondents'
application for free patent.
- Whether the CA erred in applying the doctrine of laches against the Malits' claim.[21]
Petitioner alleges that there was fraud in the procurement by
respondents of the free patent. She claims there was no evidence shown
by respondents that the issuance of the free patent was made in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Commonwealth Act No. 141, or
that an investigation was conducted in accordance with Commonwealth Act
No. 141. Neither was there sufficient notice made to the municipality
and the barrio where the subject land is located in order to give the
adverse claimants the opportunity to present their claims.
[22]
Petitioner further asserts that the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duty or official functions does not apply in this case
since Lot No. 1298 had ceased to become public alienable land, hence,
not within the jurisdiction of the CENRO for issuance of free patents
[23]
According to petitioner, the issuance of the free patent to respondents
is null and void not only as to the existence of fraud in their
application, but more so due to the fact that Lot No. 1298 is no longer
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands. Hence, being null and
void, Free Patent No. 035408-09-1197 and the
Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg.
14447 produce no legal effect.
Petitioner likewise avers that neither laches nor the statute of
limitations applies to land registration cases. Thus, considering that
the October 28, 1959 Decision had become final and executory, no further
proceeding to enforce the Malits ownership was necessary on their part
[24]
On the other hand, respondents contend that the petition must be denied
since the factual findings of the CA are binding and conclusive upon
this Court and may not be reviewed on appeal when supported by
substantial evidence, such as in this case.
The Ruling of the Court
The Petition is impressed with merit.
At the outset, it is true that, as a general rule, petitions under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court should only raise questions of law. The reason
behind this is that this Court is not a trier of facts and will not
re-examine and reevaluate the evidence on record. Factual findings of
the CA, affirming that of the trial court, are therefore generally final
and conclusive on this Court. However, this rule is subject to the
following exceptions:
(1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises, or
conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the
factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of fact are
contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of
the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly
overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of
the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are
contrary to the admissions of both parties.[25]
In this case, the rulings of the RTC and the CA are contradictory in the
first place. More importantly, the CA manifestly overlooked undisputed
facts, the consideration of which, call for a different conclusion in
the present controversy.
In an action for declaration of nullity
of free patent and certificate of title
on the ground of ownership of
complainant, the nullity arises
strictly not from the fraud or
deceit,
but from the fact that the
land is
beyond the jurisdiction
of the Bureau
of Lands (now Land
Management
Bureau) and
whatever patent or
certificate
of title obtained therefor is
consequently void ab initio.[26]
In this case, petitioner sought the nullification of the free patent and
certificate of title issued to respondents on the strength of the
October 28, 1959 Decision
[27]
in Cadastral Case No. 40, LRC Cad. Rec. No. 1693, declaring the Malits
as owners of the subject land, among others, and ordering the
registration of the same in their name.
In the aforesaid Decision, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga,
Fifth Judicial District, First Branch held, thus:
Lots Nos. 665, 666, 667 and 1298 of the Lubao
Cadastre not being contested, the claimants were allowed to present
their evidence in support of their claim thereon, which they did on
October 26, 1959.
From the evidence adduced, it appears that Orlando, Helen, Manuel,
Corazon and Aurora, all surnamed Malit are the owners of the aforesaid
lots for having inherited them from their mother Barbara Vitug who died on October 22, 1946, who, in turn, inherited said lots from her parents Anastacio Vitug and Marta Lingad; and
that their possession thereon, coupled with that of their predecessors
in interest, has been open, peaceful, public, continuous and adverse in
concept of ownership for more than thirty (30) years.
WHEREFORE, the court, confirming the claimants' title to Lots Nos. 665, 666, 667 and 1298 of the Lubao Cadastre, hereby
orders that they be registered in the names of Orlando Malit, of legal
age, married to Delfina Beltran; Helen Malit, of legal age, single;
Manuel Malit, of legal age, married to Leonida Ortiz Sy; Corazon Malit,
20 years, single; and Aurora Malit, 18 years old, single, all Filipino
citizens, residents of, and with postal address [in] Lubao, Pampanga,
share and share alike as their private property.
Once this decision becomes final, let the corresponding decree issue.[28] (Emphases supplied)
Accordingly, an Order for the Issuance of Decrees in Cadastral Cases
[29]
dated May 17, 1969 was issued by Judge Arsenio Santos of the Court of
First Instance of Pampanga, Fifth Judicial District, directing the
Commissioner of Land Registration to issue the corresponding decree for
Lot Nos. 665, 666, 667, and
1298, considering that the October
28, 1959 Decision had become final. It is worthy to note that
respondents did not refute the existence of the said Decision, or that
it has attained finality.
In
De la Merced v. Court of Appeals,
[30] the Court elucidated on when title to the land in a cadastral proceeding is vested, thus:
After trial in a cadastral case, three actions are taken.
The first adjudicates ownership in favor of one of the claimants. This
constitutes the decision — the judgment — the decree of the court, and
speaks in a judicial manner. The second action is the declaration by the
court that the decree is final and its order for the issuance of the
certificates of title by the Chief of the Land Registration Office. Such
order is made if within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy
of the decision no appeal is taken from the decision. This again is
judicial action, although to a less degree than the first.
The third and last action devolves upon the General Land Registration
Office. This office has been instituted "for the due effectuation and
accomplishment of the laws relative to the registration of land."
(Administrative Code of 1917, sec. 174.)
The judgment in a cadastral survey, including the rendition of the
decree, is a judicial act. As the law says, the judicial decree when
final is the base of the certificate of title. The issuance of the
decree by the Land Registration Office is a ministerial act. The date of
the title prepared by the Chief Surveyor is unimportant, for the
adjudication has taken place and all that is left to be performed is the
mere formulation of technical description.
As a general rule, registration of title under the cadastral system is
final, conclusive, and indisputable, after the passage of the thirty-day
period allowed for an appeal from the date of receipt by the party of a
copy of the judgment of the court adjudicating ownership without any
step having been taken to perfect an appeal. The prevailing party may
then have execution of the judgment as of right and is entitled to the
certificate of title issued by the Chief of the Land Registration
Office. The exception is the special provision providing for fraud.
Under the foregoing pronouncement, the title of ownership on the land
is vested upon the owner upon the expiration of the period to appeal
from the decision or adjudication by the cadastral court, without such
an appeal having been perfected. The certificate of title would then be
necessary for purposes of effecting registration of subsequent
disposition of the land where court proceedings would no longer be
necessary. (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, not only was the title of ownership of the Malits over Lot
No. 1298 confirmed by virtue of the October 28, 1959 Decision, an order
for the issuance of a decree had also been issued by the court,
directing the Commissioner of Land Registration to issue the
corresponding decree after the October 28, 1959 Decision, adjudicating
ownership of the land to the Malits had become final. In view of that,
there being no imputation of irregularity in the said cadastral
proceedings, title of ownership was vested on the Malits as adjudicatees
as of the date of the issuance of such judicial decree.
A final judgment confirming land title
and ordering its registration constitutes
res judicata against the whole world and
the adjudicatee need not file a motion
to
execute the same.[31]
Settled is the rule that "a cadastral case is a proceeding in rem, which, as such, binds the whole word."[32] In Nieto v. Quines,[33]
this Court held that the proceedings under the Cadastral Act, at the
initiative of the government, are judicial. Process is served by
publication upon all persons who may have interest in the land,
including the government, to appear and prove or oppose the claims of
ownership that may be filed therein. The action is one in rem and any decision rendered therein by the cadastral court is binding against the whole world, including the government.[34]
Significantly, the CA acknowledged the existence of the October 28, 1959
Decision and that the same confirmed the ownership of the Malits over
Lot No. 1298. Nevertheless, the CA held that failure of the Malits to
register the subject land under the Torrens System for an unreasonable
length of time warranted the presumption that the Malits have abandoned
their right.
The CA's ratiocination that the December 28, 1959 Decision has been
rendered ineffective due to the Malits' failure to show that the subject
land was registered under the Torrens System is utterly specious. It
bears stressing that "[o]wnership is different from a certificate of
title, the latter being only the best proof of ownership of a piece of
land. Title as a concept of ownership should not be confused with the
certificate of title as evidence of such ownership although both are
interchangeably used."
[35] As
discussed in the foregoing, in view of the October 28, 1959 Decision of
the cadastral court declaring the Malits as owners of Lot No. 1298 of
the Lubao Cadastre, and the judicial order declaring the finality of the
decision and, accordingly, ordering the issuance of the corresponding
title, title of ownership of the Malits as the adjudicatees was vested
upon them as of the date of the issuance of the judicial decree. The
land, for all intents and purposes, had become, from that time,
registered property, which could not be acquired by adverse possession.
[36]
The CA erroneously applied the case of
Fudot v. Cattleya Land, Inc.
[37]
when it held that the operative act of perfecting the Malits' title to
the subject land is the registration under the Torrens System. The case
cited by the CA involved conflicting rights over registered properties
and those of innocent transferees, who relied on the clean titles of the
properties in question. The declaration of the Court in that case is
pursuant to Section 51
[38] of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, which provides that with respect to
conveyances and dealings by the registered owner, deeds, mortgages,
leases, or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law may be
used to operate only as a contract between the parties. However, insofar
as third persons are concerned, it is the act of registration that
serves as an operative act to convey or affect the land. Surely, such
case finds no bearing on the instant case, where the Malits have been
adjudicated as owners of the subject land in a cadastral case, and not
subsequent transferees thereof.
Parenthetically, Section 103 of P.D. No. 1529, on registration of
patents, likewise provides:
SEC. 103. Certificates of Title Pursuant to Patents. — Whenever public land
is by the Government alienated, granted or conveyed to any person, the
same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree. It
shall be the duty of the official issuing the instrument of alienation,
grant, patent or conveyance in behalf of the Government to cause such
instrument to be filed with the Register of Deeds of the province or
city where the land lies, and to be there registered like other deeds
and conveyance, whereupon a certificate of title shall be entered as in
other cases of registered land, and an owner's duplicate issued to the
grantee. The deed, grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the
Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind
the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the Government
and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to
make registration. It is the act of registration that shall be the
operative act to affect and convey the land, and in all cases under
this Decree, registration shall be made in the office of the Register of
Deeds of the province or city where the land lies. The fees for
registration shall be paid by the grantee. After due registration and
issuance of the certificate of title, such land shall be deemed to be
registered land to all intents and purposes under this Decree. (Emphases
supplied)
Certainly, the rationale for the requirement of registration to affect
and convey public land granted through a patent does not apply in
cadastral proceedings, wherein the court confirms private ownership of
land, which, upon finality, renders the land as registered property.
Neither laches nor the statute of
limitations applies to a decision in a
land registration case.[39]
In the same vein, the fact that the Malits' ownership over Lot No. 1298
had been adjudicated several decades ago does not give room for the
application of the statute of limitations or laches. In the landmark
case of
Sta. Ana v. Menla,
[40] the Court expounded the
raison d'etre
why the statute of limitations and Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court do not apply in land registration proceedings, thus:
This provision of the Rules refers to civil actions and is
not applicable to special proceedings, such as a land registration case.
This is so because a party in a civil action must immediately enforce a
judgment that is secured as against the adverse party, and his failure
to act to enforce the same within a reasonable time as provided in the
Rules makes the decision unenforceable against the losing party. In
special proceedings the purpose is to establish a status, condition or
fact; in land registration proceedings, the ownership by a person of a
parcel of land is sought to be established. After the ownership has been
proved and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to
enforce said ownership is neeessary, except when the adverse or losing
party had been in possession of the land and the winning party desires
to oust him therefrom.
Furthermore, there is no provision in the Land Registration Act similar
to Sec. 6, Rule 39, regarding the execution of a judgment in a civil
action, except the proceedings to place the winner in possession by
virtue of a writ of possession. The decision in a land registration
case, unless the adverse or losing party is in possession, becomes final
without any further action, upon the expiration of the period for
perfecting an appeal.[41] (Emphases supplied)
For the past decades, the
Sta. Ana doctrine on the
inapplicability of the rules on prescription and laches to land
registration cases has been repeatedly affirmed. "Clearly, the peculiar
procedure provided in the Property Registration Law from the time
decisions in land registration cases become final is complete in itself
and does not need to be filled in. From another perspective, the
judgment does not have to be executed by motion or enforced by action
within the purview of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure."
[42]
"Unlike in ordinary civil actions governed by the Rules on Civil
Procedure, the intent of land registration proceedings is to establish
ownership by a person of a parcel of land, consistent with the purpose
of such extraordinary proceedings to declare by judicial fiat a status,
condition, or fact. Hence, upon the finality of a decision adjudicating
such ownership, no further step is required to effectuate the decision
and a ministerial duty exists alike on the part of the land registration
court to order the issuance of, and the Land Registration Authority
(LRA) to issue, the decree of registration."
[43]
"Failure of the court or of the clerk to issue the decree for the
reason that no motion therefore has been filed cannot prejudice the
owner or the person in whom the land is ordered to be registered."
[44]
In the case of
Republic v. Nillas,
[45]
the Court elucidated on why the Property Registration Decree (P.D. No.
1529) does not contain any provision on execution of final judgments,
thus:
The provision lays down the procedure that interposes
between the rendition of the judgment and the issuance of the
certificate of title. No obligation whatsoever is imposed by Section 39
on the prevailing applicant or oppositor even as a precondition to the
issuance of the title. The obligations provided in the Section are
levied on the land court (that is to issue an order directing the Land
Registration Commissioner to issue in turn the corresponding decree of
registration), its clerk of court (that is to transmit copies of the
judgment and the order to the Commissioner), and the Land Registration
Commissioner (that is to cause the preparation of the decree of
registration and the transmittal thereof to the Register of Deeds). All
these obligations are ministerial on the officers charged with their
performance and thus generally beyond discretion of amendment or review.
The failure on the part of the administrative authorities to do their
part in the issuance of the decree of registration cannot oust the
prevailing party from ownership of the land. Neither the failure of such
applicant to follow up with said authorities can. The ultimate goal
of our land registration system is geared towards the final and
definitive determination of real property ownership in the country, and
the imposition of an additional burden on the owner after the judgment
in the land registration case had attained finality would simply
frustrate such goal. (Emphases supplied)
Hence, the certification issued by the Land Registration Authority (LRA)
stating that no final decree of registration has yet been issued for
Lot No. 1298 either because no decision has yet been rendered thereon,
or that no copy of the same was furnished to it, cannot defeat the
Malits' ownership declared through judicial act. First, the existence of
the December 28, 1959 Decision has been duly established. Second, the
duty to forward the decree to the LRA for the corresponding issuance of
the title does not lie with the Malits as the adjudicatees.
In this case, the Malits' ownership of Lot No. 1298 is further bolstered
by the declaration of the land for taxation purposes by Orlando and
Manuel in 1973 as shown in Tax Declaration No. 9247.[46] Moreover, the Malits exercised the right of ownership over the subject land with the execution of the Deed of Sale[47]
dated March 1, 1988, wherein the Malits' co-heirs, Orlando and Manuel,
conveyed and transferred their share of the land to their siblings.
"If the land in question is proven to
be of private ownership and,
therefore,
beyond the jurisdiction of
the Director
of Lands [now Land
Management
Bureau], the free
patent and subsequen
t title issued
pursuant thereto are null and
void."[48]
A free patent issued over a private land is null and void and produces no legal effects whatsoever. Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum.
Free patent applications under the Public Land Act apply only to
disposable lands of the public domain, and not to private lands, which
became such by virtue of a duly registered possessory information or by
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the present or
previous occupants.[49]
"The
Director of Lands has no authority to grant free patent to lands that
have ceased to be public in character and have passed to private
ownership."[50]
Public land law applies only to lands of the public domain. "Section 44,
Chapter VI of Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act states
that a free patent may issue in favor of an applicant only if (1) the
applicant has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or
herself or through his or her predecessors-in-interest, a tract or
tracts of agricultural public lands subject to disposition, or (2) [the applicant] shall have paid the real estate tax thereon while the same has not been occupied by any person."[51]
Based on the facts established in this case, respondents did not satisfy
the requisites for the issuance of Free Patent No. 035408-09-1197.
First, respondents' claim of possession since 1944 is defeated by the
1958 Decision confirming the Malits' open, peaceful, public, continuous,
and adverse possession in concept of owner of the land, coupled with
that of their predecessors-in-interest, for more than 30 years. Hence,
by the time respondents filed their application for free patent in 2008,
Lot No. 1298 had long been removed from the coverage of the Public Land
Act. Second, the earliest tax receipt[52] presented by respondents shows that taxes on the land were paid only after they were granted the free patent in 2009.
In reversing the RTC, the CA essentially invoked the indefeasibility of Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg.
14447 and held that the Malits failed to present sufficient evidence to
overthrow the validity of its issuance. The CA is misled.
The indefeasibility and
imprescriptibility of
a Torrens title
issued pursuant to a patent
may be
invoked only when the land involved
originally formed part of the public
domain.
If it was a private land, the
patent and
certificate of title issued
upon the patent are a nullity.[53]
"Well-settled is the doctrine that the registration of a patent under
the Torrens System does not by itself vest title; it merely confirms the
registrant's already existing one. Verily, the registration under the
Torrens System is not a mode of acquiring ownership."[54]
"[T]he rule on the incontrovertibility of a certificate of title [upon
the expiration of one year, after the entry of the decree, pursuant to
the provisions of the Land Registration Act], does not apply where an
action for the cancellation of a patent and a certificate of title
issued pursuant thereto is instituted on the ground that they are null
and void because the Bureau of Lands [now Land Management Bureau] had no
jurisdiction to issue them at all, the land in question having been
withdrawn from the public domain prior to the subsequent award of the
patent and the grant of a certificate of title to another person."[55]
The Land Registration Act does not create or vest title. It only
confirms and records title already existing and vested. It does not
protect a usurper from the true owner. It cannot be a shield for the
commission of fraud. It does not permit one to enrich himself or herself
at the expense of another. Stated elsewise, the Torrens System was not
established as a means for the acquisition of title to private land. It
is intended merely to confirm and register the title, which one may
already have on the land. Where the applicant possesses no title or
ownership over the parcel of land, he or she cannot acquire one under
the Torrens System of registration.[56]
The foregoing proffered, Free Patent No. 035408-09-1197 is null and void, and the Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. 14447 issued in accordance with the patent is deemed invalidly issued.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 22, 2017
and the Resolution dated February 14, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 106012 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASEDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, Branch 52 dated October 29, 2015 in Civil Case No. G-09-4642 is REINSTATED.
The Free Patent No. 035408-09-1197 and the Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. 14447 in the names of Nicasio Flores, Jr. and Perlita Flores are declared NULL and VOID. The Register of Deeds of Pampanga is likewise ORDERED to cancel said title in its records.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-30.
[2] Id. at 32-50; penned by
Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, with Associate Justices
Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Elihu A. Ybañez, concurring.
[3] Id. at 57-59.
[4] Id. at 65-79; penned by Presiding Judge Jonel S. Mercado.
[5] Id. at 66-67.
[6] Records, p. 31.
[7] Rollo, p. 67.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 35.
[11] Supra note 3
[12] Rollo, p. 79.
[13] Id. at 73.
[14] Id. at 78.
[15] Id. at 77.
[16] Supra note 1.
[17] Rollo, p. 49.
[18] Id. at 41, 43.
[19] Id. at 45.
[20] Id. at 48.
[21] Id. at 13.
[22] Id. at 14-15.
[23] Id. at 15
[24] Id. at 20.
[25] Bernas v. Estate of Felipe Yu Han Yat, 838 Phil. 710, 725-726.
[26] Heirs of Spouses Corazon P. De Guzman v. Heirs of Marceliano Bandong, 816 Phil. 617, 626-627 (2017).
[27] Rollo, p. 13.
[28] Id. at 76.
[29] Records, p. 125.
[30] 115 Phil. 229, 236-237 (1962), citing Government of the Philippine Islands v. Abural, 39 Phil. 997, 1001-1003 (1919).
[31] Republic v. Yap, 825 Phil. 778, 789 (2018), citing Ting v. Heirs of Diego Lirio, 547 Phil. 237, 241-243 (2007); Heirs of Cristobal Marcos v. De Banuvar, 134 Phil. 257, 262 (1968)
[32] Cano v. Camacho, 150 Phil. 457, 463 (1972).
[33] 110 Phil. 823 (1961).
[34] Id. at 833.
[35] Heirs of Tappa v. Heirs of Bacud, 783 Phil. 536, 553 (2016).
[36] De la Merced v. Court of Appeals, supra note 30, at 237; see also Nieto v. Quines, supra note 33, at 827828.
[37] 559 Phil. 756 (2007).
[38] SEC. 51. Conveyance and Other Dealings by Registered Owner.
— An owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or
otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws. He may
use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary
instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease, or
other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey or affect
registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but
shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of
authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect
the land insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all cases under
this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office of the
Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies.
[39] Republic v. Nillas, 541 Phil. 277, 284 (2007).
[40] 111 Phil. 947 (1961).
[41] Id. at 951.
[42] Republic v. Yap, supra note 31, at 759; Republic v. Nillas, supra note 39, at 288.
[43] Republic v. Nillas, id. at 287.
[44] Republic v. Yap, supra note 31, at 788.
[45] Supra note 39, at 288.
[46] Records, p. 126.
[47] Id. at 15-16.
[48] Melendres v. Catambay, GR. No. 198026, November 28, 2018.
[49] Heirs of Santiago v. Heirs of Santiago, 452 Phil. 238, 243 (2003).
[50] Heirs of Tappa v. Heirs of Bacud, supra note 35, at 548.
[51] Melendres v. Catambay, supra note 48.
[52] Records, p. 347.
[53] Melendres v. Catambay, supra note 48; Agne v. The Director of Lands, 261 Phil. 13, 25 (1990).
[54] Republic v. Heirs of Felipe Alejaga, Sr., 441 Phil. 656, 674 (2002).
[55] Melendres v. Catambay, supra note 48; Agne v. Director of Lands, supra note 53.
[56] Agne v. The Director of Lands, id. at 31.
Source: Supreme Court E-Library
This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)