GR 69138; (May, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 69138 May 19, 1992
Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Forest Development), petitioner, vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (First Civil Cases Division) and Hilario P. Rama, respondents.
FACTS
In May 1974, Anselmo Logronio, officer-in-charge of the Bohol Reforestation Project of the Bureau of Forest Development, bulldozed portions of two parcels of land in Talibon, Bohol, believing them to be forest lands, and planted trees. Respondent Hilario P. Rama filed a complaint for recovery of possession, ownership, and damages against Logronio, claiming to be the absolute owner and possessor. The first parcel (Lot 1, Psu-218360) was covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 6148 (Free Patent No. 319750). The second parcel was unregistered but covered by a tax declaration. The Republic of the Philippines intervened, alleging the lands were forest lands within a timberland block and never released as alienable and disposable, seeking cancellation of the title and reversion to the public domain. The trial court declared the lands forest land and inalienable. The Intermediate Appellate Court sustained this factual finding but awarded necessary expenses to Rama as a possessor in good faith, with a right of retention until reimbursement.
ISSUE
The issue raised is the propriety of awarding necessary expenses to the alleged possessor in good faith with a right of retention until the expenses are paid.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It SET ASIDE the appellate court’s decision and resolution insofar as they ordered the Republic to pay Rama necessary expenses with a right of retention. The trial court’s decision was MODIFIED by deleting the order for the Republic to pay necessary expenses with a right of retention for the first parcel. The Court held that Rama could not be considered a possessor in good faith. For the titled parcel, the title was void ab initio as the land was forest land, not alienable, and the State cannot be estopped by the mistake of its officials. For the untitled parcel, Rama’s possession was not in good faith as he was aware of the land’s inclusion within the reforestation project. The ruling in Dizon v. Rodriguez, which allowed reimbursement for necessary expenses under special circumstances, was not applicable. The Republic, having voluntarily intervened, submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, but the award of expenses was improper.