G.R. No. 188587, November 23, 2021
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. YU CHO KHAI AND CRISTINA SY YU, ALFONSO L. ANGLIONGTO, JR., REPRESENTED BY FELICITAS YAP VDA. DE ANGLIONGTO, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, DAVAO CITY, AGDAO RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., NICOLAS P. SOLANAN, AND THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES AURELIO PIZARRO AND FILOMENA PIZARRO, NAMELY ROGELIO G. PIZARRO, MARIA EVELYN G. PIZARRO-SULIT, MISAEL G. PIZARRO, NORMAN PAUL PIZARRO, LUZVIMINDA G. PIZARRO, DELIA-THELMA PIZARRO DILLERA, VIRGILIO G. PIZARRO, ROSALINDA PIZARRO INGLES, JOSE ELVIN G. PIZARRO, LYDIA PIZARRO GUDANI, AND ALICIA P. LADISLA (SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, WILLIE L. LADISLA, ALEXIS P. LADISLA, ANTONIO P. LADISLA, MARIA BELEN L. UMAYAN, BENJAMIN P. LADISLA, RAMONITO P. LADISLA, FLORDELIZA L. BONTIA, LOURINDA D. DE JESUS, MARIA PLACIDA L. ALOLOD, JOSEPHINE L. ALEGUIOJO, CECILIA L. AGUIRRE, RAYMOND L. LADISLA, CAROLINE L. ADTOON, AND ARMANDO P. LADISLA), RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of land in Davao City identified as Lot No. 1226-E. The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint seeking the cancellation of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-14 and its derivative titles issued to the respondents, and the reversion of the property to the State. The Republic argued that the property could not have been alienable and disposable when OCT No. 0-14 was issued on July 20, 1950, because Bureau of Forest Development Administrative Order (BFDAO) No. 4-1369, which classified the area as alienable and disposable, was only issued on September 27, 1976. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the Republic’s complaint. The Republic elevated the case directly to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, raising pure questions of law. The records show that OCT No. 0-14 was issued pursuant to Decree No. 3609, which resulted from a compulsory cadastral proceeding (Cad. Case No. 1, G.L.R.O. Cad. Record No. 317) initiated by the Republic under Act No. 2259 (the Cadastral Act). In that proceeding, the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent-heirs were declared owners in fee simple of the property.

ISSUE

Whether the Petition for Review should be denied based on the fact that OCT No. 0-14 was issued pursuant to a decree from a compulsory cadastral proceeding initiated by the Republic, which constitutes positive evidence that the property was already alienable and disposable at the time of the title’s issuance.

RULING

The Separate Concurring Opinion concurs in the result that the Petition should be denied. However, it posits that the denial should be more appropriately anchored on the specific fact that OCT No. 0-14 was issued pursuant to a decree resulting from a compulsory cadastral proceeding initiated by the Republic under Act No. 2259. The institution of such a cadastral proceeding by the State for the settlement of titles, and the subsequent issuance of a decree of registration in favor of private claimants after due hearing, constitute positive evidence that the land subject of the decree was classified as alienable and disposable at the time the decree and the resulting Torrens title were issued. In the absence of controverting evidence, this fact is sufficient to preclude reversion in favor of the Republic. Therefore, the Republic’s petition, which is based on the subsequent 1976 BFDAO classification, should be denied.