GR 61113; (February, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 61113 February 21, 1990
RICARDO MAXIMO and JUAN PATNUGOT, petitioners, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ, BRANCH III, MAMBUSAO, CAPIZ, Presided by the HON. OSCAR LEVISTE and PRIMO ISIDORO, respondents.
FACTS
On January 10, 1968, a Free Patent Title was issued to petitioner Ricardo Maximo for a parcel of land in Jamindan, Capiz. Over a year later, on March 19, 1969, private respondent Primo Isidoro filed a complaint for annulment of the title, claiming the land was part of his private property and that the patent was obtained through fraud using a forged affidavit. This initial case was dismissed motu proprio by the trial court in 1973 for failure to prosecute. Seven years later, on January 25, 1980, Isidoro refiled the complaint.
The petitioners moved to dismiss the refiled action on multiple grounds, including lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion. In their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners raised the additional ground of prescription. The trial court again denied the motion, prompting the petitioners to file this petition for certiorari and prohibition.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint for annulment of a free patent title filed by a rival claimant, not the State.
RULING
Yes, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and dismissed the complaint. The legal logic is anchored on jurisdiction and proper party to sue. An action for annulment of a free patent and reversion of the land to the State is a prerogative solely vested in the Government, represented by the Solicitor General. A private individual, such as respondent Isidoro, who is merely a rival applicant for the same public land, lacks the legal personality to institute such an action. His remedy is administrative, not judicial.
The Court emphasized that the Director of Lands has exclusive jurisdiction to determine, between conflicting applicants, who has satisfactorily complied with the requirements for a free patent grant. The judiciary cannot usurp this administrative function. Furthermore, the validity of a patent issued by the Director of Lands is not subject to collateral attack in an action filed by a private party. It can only be challenged directly by the State or questioned via a judicial review of the administrative decision on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, a power now lodged with the Court of Appeals. Since Isidoro was not the owner claiming the land as private property but a competing applicant, the trial court had no jurisdiction over his suit. Its denial of the motion to dismiss constituted grave abuse of discretion warranting certiorari.