GR 133168; (March, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133168; March 28, 2006
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Benjamin Guerrero, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Benjamin Guerrero filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application in 1964 for a 256-square-meter parcel of public land in Quezon City. His application was approved, leading to the issuance of Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 8991 and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-28 in 1982. In 1983, a protest was filed by Angelina Bustamante, alleging Guerrero obtained the patent through fraud as her house occupied a portion of the land. The Bureau of Lands dismissed the protest, a decision affirmed by the Minister of Natural Resources and the Office of the President. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the Office of the President ordered a remand to the DENR for an ocular investigation.
The DENR investigation found that 83 square meters of Guerrero’s titled property was in the actual possession of the Bustamantes and that a 3-meter-wide road, as indicated in the original Order of Award, was not reflected in the technical description of the title. Consequently, the Office of the President directed the DENR to implement the report for the “proper correction” of the technical description. The Republic, through the Director of Lands, then filed a Petition for Amendment of Plan and Technical Description of OCT No. 0-28 before the RTC.
ISSUE
Whether the Republic’s petition for the amendment/correction of the technical description of OCT No. 0-28, filed more than one year after the issuance of the patent and title, is barred by the one-year period for review on the ground of fraud under the Public Land Act.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is distinct. The action filed by the Republic was not an action for reversion or a direct attack on the title based on fraud, which would be subject to the one-year prescriptive period from the issuance of the patent under Section 91 of the Public Land Act. Instead, the petition was one for the amendment or correction of the technical description of the certificate of title, which is a collateral attack permitted under Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree). The purpose was to align the technical description with the actual boundaries specified in the original Order of Award, which expressly included a road on the east. The finding that the titled property encroached upon a road and land possessed by another indicated a glaring mistake in the technical description. Such a correction does not nullify the grant but merely ensures the title accurately reflects the land actually awarded. Therefore, the one-year period for review based on fraud was inapplicable, and the trial court had jurisdiction to order the amendment to conform to the patent’s true intent.