GR L 14641; (November, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14641; November 23, 1960
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner-appellant, vs. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA, ET AL., respondents., EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
On April 28, 1955, respondent Eustaquio de Luna filed a free patent application with the Director of Lands for a parcel of land in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, claiming occupation since prior to July 4, 1945, through predecessors-in-interest. Relying on these statements, the Director approved the application on September 7, 1955, and issued Free Patent No. V-21168 on October 4, 1955. The patent was registered, and Original Certificate of Title No. P-1537 was issued to de Luna. Subsequently, based on a complaint by Igmedio Gaa, an investigation revealed that de Luna and his predecessors had never occupied the land, and that Igmedio Gaa had been in actual, exclusive, and adverse possession since before the war. The Director of Lands filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro on February 19, 1958, seeking to declare the patent and title null and void due to false statements in the application. Respondent de Luna moved to dismiss, arguing the Director had no legal capacity to sue, as the real party in interest was Igmedio Gaa. The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling that an action for reversion under Section 101 of the Public Land Act must be instituted in the name of the Republic of the Philippines and prosecuted by the Solicitor General, not by the Director of Lands. The Director’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Director of Lands had the authority to file the petition for the cancellation of the free patent and certificate of title issued to respondent Eustaquio de Luna.
RULING
No, the Director of Lands did not have the authority to file the petition in his own name. The Supreme Court affirmed that once a free patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property, over which the Director of Lands loses control and jurisdiction. Furthermore, the action was filed more than one year after the issuance and registration of the patent and title, beyond the one-year period for review on the ground of fraud under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, rendering the Torrens title indefeasible. The proper remedy for the reversion of public lands fraudulently awarded is an action instituted by the Solicitor General (or an officer acting in his stead) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, as expressly provided under Section 101 of the Public Land Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 141 ). The Court noted that the Director’s error was merely one of form (i.e., improper party plaintiff) and not prejudicial. In the interest of justice and to resolve the dispute on the merits, the case was remanded to the court of origin to allow the petitioner to amend the pleadings to comply with the legal requirement of having the action prosecuted in the name of the Republic by the proper officer.