G.R. No. 60169 March 23, 1990
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, VIDAL DEL MUNDO, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF SOUTH COTABATO and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, respondents.

FACTS

Vidal del Mundo obtained Homestead Patent No. 114425 and Original Certificate of Title No. P-28386 on November 10, 1966, over a parcel of land in South Cotabato. On February 18, 1969, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed a complaint for reversion, alleging the patent and title were secured through fraud. The Republic claimed del Mundo falsely represented in his application and final proof papers that he had occupied, cultivated, and improved the land as required by the Public Land Act, and that the land was not under the adverse claim of another.
The Court of First Instance of South Cotabato found for the Republic, ruling that del Mundo committed misrepresentation. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appellate court, while sustaining the factual finding of fraud, held that the title had become indefeasible and incontrovertible under the Torrens system, as the reversion action was filed more than one year after the issuance of the patent and title. The Republic elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether a homestead patent and the corresponding original certificate of title obtained through fraud can be cancelled in a reversion proceeding filed by the State beyond the one-year period from their issuance.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals decision, and ordered the cancellation of the patent and title and the reversion of the land to the public domain. The Court clarified that the one-year period for contesting a certificate of title under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act refers to a decree of registration and does not apply to original certificates of title issued pursuant to a homestead patent. For public land patents, the governing law is the Public Land Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 141 ).
Crucially, the State’s right to institute reversion proceedings under Section 101 of the Public Land Act, based on fraud in the procurement of a patent, is imprescriptible. The State, as the absolute owner of public domain, cannot lose its property through prescription. The defense of indefeasibility of a Torrens title cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate a fraud against the State. The Court emphasized that no title emanating from a fraudulently acquired patent can become indefeasible, and such title remains void ab initio. The action for reversion, being an action in rem, is not subject to the one-year period for review of a decree. Therefore, the Republic’s action filed over two years after issuance was timely.