Lee Hong Hok Vs David
Lee Hong Hok Vs David
Lee Hong Hok Vs David
David
G.R. No. L-30389, December 27, 1972
DOCTRINE: Imperium distinguished from dominum. The government authority
possessed by the state which is appropriately embraced in the concept of
sovereignty comes under the heading of imperium; and its capacity to own or
acquire property under dominium. The use of this term is appropriate with
reference to lands held by the state in its proprietary character. In such
capacity, it may provide for the exploitation and use of lands and other
natural resources, including their disposition, except as limited by the
Constitution.
FACTS: Petitioners Lee Hong Hok et al. claim that the Torrens Title of
Respondent David over the disputed land (which is part of the Naga Cadastre)
should be declared null and void. The CA found no legal justification for
nullifying the right of David over the disputed land arising from the grant
made in his favor by appropriate public officials.
David had acquired lawful title over said land. The Director of Lands awarded
him an order for issuance of a sales patent pursuant to his miscellaneous
sales application. Subsequently, on the basis of such order, the
Undersecretary of Agricultural and Natural Resources issued a Miscellaneous
Sales Patent and an OCT was issued by the Register of Deeds of Naga City in
favor of the respondent.
ISSUE: WON the State can dispose of lands which have not passed into private
ownership.
HELD: In this case the land in question is not private property as the Director
of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources have always
sustained the public character thereof for having been formed by reclamation.
In the case at bar, a Miscellaneous Sales Patent and OCT was issued in favor
of respondent David by competent public officials. He had acquired the grant
and title legally. The notices regarding the auction sale of the land were
published, the actual sale and award thereof to David were not clandestine
but open and public official acts of an officer of the Government. The
application was merely a renewal of his deceased wife's application, and the
said deceased occupied the land since 1938.
(The first paragraph of Section 2, Article XII says that all lands of the public
domain x x x and other natural resources are owned by the state,)
A grant by the government through duly competent public officials cannot be
disregarded on the premise that land not passing into private ownership may
not be disposed of by the state.
of Lot No. 463 involved in the present controversy, and there being no
showing that the same has been acquired by any private person from the
Government, either by purchase or by grant, the property is and remains part
of the public domain." To repeat, the second assignment of error is devoid of
merit.