G.R. No. 119682 January 21, 1999
FRANCISCO BAGUIO, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RICARDO T. MICHAEL, in his capacity as Heir-Successor of WILLIAM MICHAEL, SR., and as President of MICHAEL SLIPWAYS, INC., and COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of land known as Lot 1426 in Catarman, Liloan, Cebu, declared as public land in 1963. On August 2, 1963, William Michael, predecessor-in-interest of private respondent Ricardo Michael, filed a foreshore lease application for the land, obtained a provisional permit, and made reclamations and improvements. On February 25, 1968, William Michael filed a miscellaneous sales application for the reclaimed foreshore land. On November 9, 1976, petitioner Francisco Baguio applied for a free patent over the same land, representing it as agricultural, unclaimed, and in his actual and continuous possession and cultivation. Based on these representations, Free Patent No. 7757 and Original Certificate of Title No. 0-15457 were issued to Baguio on January 10, 1978. Subsequently, Baguio demanded rentals from William Michael and opposed Michael’s sales application. William Michael protested the issuance of the free patent to Baguio. On February 16, 1989, the government, represented by the Director of Lands, filed a petition for cancellation of title and/or reversion against Baguio. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition, canceling Baguio’s title and ordering reversion, and declared private respondent Michael the true occupant. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the action for reversion filed by the Republic was barred by prescription.
2. Whether petitioner Baguio procured the free patent and title through fraud and misrepresentation.
3. Whether the trial court erred in declaring private respondent Michael as the true and lawful possessor and occupant.
4. Whether the land in question is foreshore land.

RULING

1. No, the action for reversion was not barred by prescription. While a Torrens Title becomes indefeasible after one year from issuance, the State may still bring an action for reversion under Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act) for land fraudulently granted. Such an action is imprescriptible.
2. Yes, petitioner Baguio was guilty of fraud and misrepresentation. In his free patent application, he falsely declared the land as agricultural, unclaimed, and in his continuous possession and cultivation. Evidence established that private respondent’s predecessor had filed a foreshore lease application in 1963, a sales application in 1968, and had been in continuous possession, making substantial improvements. These false statements warrant the annulment of the title under Section 91 of the Public Land Act.
3. The Court found no error in the trial court’s declaration. Private respondent Michael, as heir and successor-in-interest under Section 105 of the Public Land Act, rightfully succeeded to the rights and obligations of William Michael, who was the lawful occupant and possessor since 1963.
4. Yes, the land is foreshore land. The use of the land for drydocking operations and the need for reclamation established that it was land alternately covered and uncovered by water. The trial court’s factual findings on this matter, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and not reviewable by the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari, which is limited to questions of law.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the cancellation of Baguio’s free patent and title, the reversion of the land to the public domain, and the declaration of private respondent Michael as the true and lawful occupant.