G.R. No. L-28917 September 30, 1971
CARLOS S. GABILA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FLORENCIO BARRIGA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Carlos S. Gabila filed an amended complaint against Florencio Barriga, later including the Director of Lands as a co-plaintiff. Gabila alleged that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in continuous, adverse possession since 1935 of two lots, part of which was foreshore land. He claimed that Barriga, through fraud and misrepresentation, succeeded in having a portion of Lot 2 surveyed and included in his sales application, ultimately securing Original Certificate of Title No. P-1747. Gabila asserted that Barriga destroyed his fishpond improvements to conceal the fraud and that the land, being foreshore, was not disposable but only leasable. The complaint prayed for the cancellation or amendment of Barriga’s title concerning the portion occupied by Gabila.
Barriga moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the action for cancellation of a free patent and the corresponding certificate of title could only be prosecuted by the Government through the Solicitor General, not by a private individual. He pointed out that while the Director of Lands was named as a co-plaintiff, the complaint was signed only by Gabila’s private counsel without any authorization from or representation by the Solicitor General. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, holding that Gabila lacked legal standing and that the real party in interest was the Republic.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, on the grounds that the plaintiff, a private individual, is not the real party in interest to sue for the cancellation of a certificate of title derived from a free patent.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order of dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a certificate of title issued pursuant to a free patent is a grant from the state, and any action for its cancellation or annulment on grounds of fraud must be instituted by the Government through the Solicitor General. The Court examined the amended complaint and found that Gabila made no assertion of private ownership over the land itself. He expressly admitted the land was part of the public domain until the title was issued to Barriga. Consequently, any right allegedly violated by the fraudulent acquisition was a right vested in the state, not in Gabila as a private claimant.
The Court rejected Gabila’s argument that his causes of action included rights over improvements and claims for damages, ruling these were merely ancillary to the principal relief of title cancellation. The inclusion of the Director of Lands as a co-plaintiff was deemed ineffective, as the official was not represented by the Solicitor General or any authorized agent; the complaint was signed solely by Gabila’s private counsel. Thus, the suit remained a private action. Since the real party in interest—the Republic—was not properly impleaded, the complaint failed to state a cause of action actionable by the appellant. The Court, however, set aside the dismissal order and remanded the case to allow the proper impleading of the Director of Lands with the Solicitor General’s notice, failing which the case would be dismissed.