G.R. No. 164024, January 29, 2009
LUIS B. MANESE, ANTONIA ELLA, HEIRS OF ROSARIO M. ORDOÑEZ, represented by CESAR ORDOÑEZ, SESINANDO PINEDA and AURORA CASTRO, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES DIOSCORO VELASCO and GLICERIA SULIT, MILDRED CHRISTINE L. FLORES TANTOCO and SYLVIA L. FLORES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of title and damages against respondents concerning an alleged foreshore land of about 85,521 square meters in Guisguis, Sariaya, Quezon. Respondent Dioscoro Velasco was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-16783 based on Homestead Patent No. 133300 on October 13, 1971. The property was subsequently sold to respondent Sylvia Flores on March 22, 1977, and later to Mildred Christine Flores-Tantoco on January 4, 1981, with corresponding transfer certificates of title issued. Petitioners, owners of adjacent agricultural land, alleged that the homestead patent and subsequent transfers were null and void because Velasco was not qualified, having never occupied or improved the land, and committed fraud and falsification. They claimed open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since 1961, having introduced improvements and planted crops, and that they had applied for and been approved for a lease of the foreshore land by the government. They argued the sale from Velasco to Flores was invalid for lack of approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources as required by Commonwealth Act No. 141 (The Public Land Act). Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing petitioners lacked legal personality to sue as only the Solicitor General could bring such a reversion action, the sale was valid even without prior approval, the title was indefeasible after one year, and the action was barred by laches. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling petitioners were not the real party in interest, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioners are real parties in interest with authority to file a complaint for annulment of title of foreshore land.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The subject land is foreshore land, defined as part of the alienable public domain, not capable of private appropriation, and disposable only by lease. Under Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, all actions for reversion of lands of the public domain to the Government must be instituted by the Solicitor General in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, which is the real party in interest. Petitioners, as private individuals, are not the real parties in interest. The Court rejected petitioners’ invocation of equity, stating that equity cannot be applied against statutory law or judicial rules of procedure. The proper recourse for petitioners is to lodge their complaint with the Bureau of Lands for an administrative investigation under Section 91 of The Public Land Act.