HEIRS OF RETERTA v.

MOREZ and SPS LOPEZ

FACTS:

Petitioners commenced an action of quieting of title and

reconveyance involving friar land in Cavite.

The land was inherited from their father who died on 1983;
That their father had been the grantee of the land by virtue of
his OCCUPATION and CULTIVATION;
That he and his predecessors in interest had been in OCEN
possession of the land for more than 30 years;
That they discovered in 1999 an affidavit dated 1966 that their
father had purportedly executed whereby he had waived his
rights, interests, and participation in the land;
That by virtue of affidavit, sales cert had been issued in favor of
respondent Mores by the Dept of Agri and NatRes.

The petitioners complaint self-styled as being for the "quieting of

title and reconveyance, declaration of nullity of affidavit & Sales
Certificate, reconveyance and damages" would challenge the
efficacy of the respondents certificate of title under the theory that
there had been no valid transfer or assignment from the petitioners
predecessor in interest to the respondents of the rights or interests
in the land due to the affidavit assigning such rights and interests
being a forgery and procured by fraud.

The petitioners cause of action for reconveyance has support in

jurisprudence bearing upon the manner by which to establish a right
in a piece of friar land. According to Arayata v. Joya, in order that a
transfer of the rights of a holder of a certificate of sale of friar lands
may be legally effective, it is necessary that a formal certificate of
transfer be drawn up and submitted to the Chief of the Bureau of
Public Lands for his approval and registration.
The law authorizes no other way of transferring the rights of a holder
of a certificate of sale of friar lands. In other words, where a person
considered as a grantee of a piece of friar land transfers his rights
thereon, such transfer must conform to certain requirements of the
law.

Under Director of Lands v. Rizal, the purchaser in the sale of friar lands
under Act No. 1120 is already treated by law as the actual owner of
the lot purchased even before the payment of the full payment price
and before the execution of the final deed of conveyance, subject to
the obligation to pay in full the purchase price, the role or position of
the Government becoming that of a mere lien holder or mortgagee.

Thus, pursuant to Section 16 of Act No. 1120, had grantee Teofilo

Reterta perfected his title, the petitioners as his heirs would have
succeeded him and taken title from him upon his death. By law,
therefore, should the execution of the deed in favor of the
respondents be held invalid, the interests of Teofilo Reterta should
descend to the petitioners and the deed should issue in their favor.

Adding significance to the petitioners claim was their allegation in

the complaint that they were in possession of the land. Moreover, as
alleged in the petitioners opposition to the motion to dismiss of the
respondents, Teofilo Reterta had partially paid the price of the land.

Given the foregoing, the petitioners complaint made out a good case
for reconveyance or reversion, and its allegations, if duly established,
might well warrant the reconveyance of the land from the
respondents to the petitioners. It did not matter that the respondents
already held a certificate of title in their names. In essence, an action
for reconveyance respects the incontrovertibility of the decree of
registration but seeks the transfer of the property to its rightful and
legal owner on the ground of its having been fraudulently or
mistakenly registered in another persons name. There is no special
ground for an action for reconveyance, for it is enough that the
aggrieved party asserts a legal claim in the property superior to the
claim of the registered owner, and that the property has not yet
passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. On this score,
it is also worthy to stress that the title of a piece of a friar land
obtained by a grantee from the Government without conforming with
the requirements set by the law may be assailed and nullified.

REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF ANGELES

FACTS:

Complaint for the reversion of a land was filed by the Regional

Executive director of Region 3 of the DENR.

1963, Angeles filed a Free Patent on the subject land in Bataan. Free
patent and OCT was issued to him.

Prior to his death, he transferred and conveyed in favor of his sister

the northern portion by a Deed of Absolute Sale that was postdated.

Then again, her sister was able to transfer the said share to her
daughter, Alvarez. ROD reg the title to Angels and Alvarez.

However, Samahang Nayon filed a protest before the then Bureau of

Lands.

RTC:

States cause of action had prescribed, because the Complaint had

been filed beyond the prescriptive period of four years from the
issuance of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT).
Further, Respondent Alvarez was an innocent purchaser for value;
her title, being already indefeasible, could therefore no longer be
revoked or cancelled

ISSUE: Does Prescription Run Against the State?

Elementary is the rule that prescription and laches will not bar
actions filed by the State to recover its own property acquired
through fraud by private individuals.

The challenged Order granted, on the ground of prescription, herein

respondents Motion to Dismiss petitioners Complaint for Reversion.

Court:

The purpose of reconveyance is to compel a person, under whose

name the property was wrongfully registered, to transfer or reconvey
it to the rightful owner

The instant case involves a reversion sought by the State through the
Office of the Solicitor General

Petitioners Complaint for Reversion primarily seeks the cancellation

of the illegally obtained free patent and certificate of title, as well as
the consequent reversion of the subject land which was originally
public in character. In a reconveyance filed by a private individual,
the property does not go back to the State.

True, a title issued on the basis of a free patent is as indefeasible as

one judicially secured
One who succeeds in fraudulently acquiring title to public land should
not be allowed to benefit from it.
Public land fraudulently included in patents or certificates of title may
be recovered or reverted to the State in accordance with Section 101
of the Public Land Act. The right of reversion or reconveyance to the
State is not barred by prescription

CARO v. SUCALDITO

FACTS:

Gregorio Caro bought a parcel of land known as Assessors Lot No.

160 from Ruperto Gepilano in Iloilo City.

Gregorio Caro sold a portion of the said lot to his son Melchor Caro. 7
hectares.

Melchor Caro applied for a free patent before the Bureau of Lands,
District Land Office No. 6-1, covering the said area of the property
which he bought from his father.

Opposed by Deogracias de la Cruz.

Protestant De la Cruz testified that the land in controversy was

bought by him from Cipriano Gallego in 1965; and was forcibly driven
out by Caro.

Ruperto Cepellano (sic) in his affidavit testified that what he sold to

Gregorio Caro is a land distinct and different from the land in
question. Lot 160 is different from Lot 4512.

Court:

The Court agrees with the ruling of the RTC and the CA, and holds that
the petitioner has no personality to file a suit for reconveyance of the
subject property
The Court notes that the petitioners complaint before the RTC prays
for the annulment of the free patent issued in the respondents favor.
Considering that the ultimate relief sought is for the respondent to
"return" the subject property to him, it is in reality an action for
reconveyance.

Essence of an action for reconveyance is that the decree of

registration is respected as incontrovertible but what is sought
instead is the transfer of the property which has been wrongfully or
erroneously registered in another persons name, to its rightful
owner or to one with a better right

Reversion, on the other hand, is an action where the ultimate relief

sought is to revert the land back to the government under the
Regalian doctrine.

In this case, the petitioner, not being the owner of the disputed
property but a mere applicant for a free patent, cannot thus be
considered as a party-in-interest with personality to file an action for
reconveyance.

The Court declared that the proper party to bring the action was the
government, to which the property would revert.

In the present dispute, only the State can file a suit for reconveyance
of a public land. Therefore, not being the owners of the land but mere
applicants for sales patents thereon, respondents have no personality
to file the suit. Neither will they be directly affected by the judgment
in such suit

Hence, Caro, not being the owner of the subject property but only as
an applicant of a mere free patent, does not have the legal standing to
file an action for reconveyance.
In this case, the SolGen is the legal party to take such action.

HEIRS OF NAGANO v. CA & SPS MALLARI

Declaration of nullity of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) issued

pursuant to a Free Patent in the name of petitioners.

FACTS:

Mallari filed complaint for the declaration of nullity of OCT issued in

the name of the heirs of Marciano Nagao and covering Cad. Lot. No.
3275. Mallari alleged that the issuance of the said title was on account
of the fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation committed by defendant
Marcario Valerio.

The defendant in the said case attested that no one has been
occupying and claiming such land.

Sps Mallari alleged that part of the subject property was owned by
their predecessor-in-interest Rufino Mallari and Ferminal Jamlig
since 1920.

They discovered that the said lot was registered under Valerio under
Free Patent and OCT in the name of the heirs of Nagano.

Sps Mallari demanded that the land owned by them by segregated

from the property titled in the name of the Heirs of Nagano.

Nagano: Plaintiff's 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

Court:
This claim is an assertion that the lot is PRIVATE LAND, or that even
assuming it was part of the public domain, Sps Mallari had already
acquired imperfect title thereto under Section 48(b) of C.A. No. 141,
otherwise known as the Public Land Act, as amended by R.A. No.
1942.

Sec. 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:

xxxxxxxxx

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in

interest have been in OCEN 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
was or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to Government grant and shall
be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.

In light of the above, and at this time, prescription is unavailing

against private respondent's action. It is settled that a Free Patent
issued over private land is null and void, and produces no legal affects
whatsoever.

(Application for Free Patent is available on Public Lands only)

Private respondent's 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

ESTATE OF THE LATE YUJUICO v. REPUBLIC & CA

FACTS:

Fermina Castro filed an application for the registration and

confirmation of her title over a parcel of land with an area of 17,343
in Paranaque City.

Opposed by OSG (Director of Lands) and Dizon, a private party. The

opposition were stricken from the records

The Court declares Castro as the owner of the land.

Director of Lands and Dizon did not appeal.

OCT was issued to Castro and was SOLD to Yujuico. TCT was issued
into Yujuicos name and subdivided the land into two. 1 for him 1 for
Carpio (Petitioner).

Annotations at the back of the titles showed that both of them used
the lot as a mortgage for various loans.

1977, PD 1085 entitled Conveying the Land Reclaimed in the

Foreshore and Offshore of the Manila Bay as Property of Public
Estates Authority (PEA) was issued.

Hence, land reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore of Manila Bay

became the properties of PEA. Land sold to MBDC.
PEA undertook the construction of Manila Coastal Road. Yujuico and
Carpio discovered that the road directly overlapped their property
and that they owned a land sold by the PEA to the MBDC.

YC filed a petition for cloud and annulment of title with damages.

However, they settled for a Compromise Agreement where 1.4
hectares and 1.7 hectares would be conveyed to YC, respectively.

The incumbent PEA Gen Mngr opposed and decided to defer the
implementation of the CA on the ground that, as per protocol, it
should be signed and approved by the President of PEA