G.R. No. L-39473. April 30, 1979.
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Isabel Lastimado, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Isabel Lastimado successfully petitioned for the reopening of cadastral proceedings over a 971-hectare portion of Lot No. 626 in Mariveles, Bataan, under Republic Act No. 931 . No opposition was filed by the government or private parties. The Court of First Instance granted the petition, adjudicated the land to Lastimado, and issued a decree of registration, leading to the issuance of an Original Certificate of Title and subsequent Transfer Certificates of Title after subdivision. Within one year from the decree’s entry, the Republic filed a Petition for Review under Section 38 of Act No. 496 , alleging fraud. The State contended the land was part of a U.S. Military Reservation turned over to the Philippines only in 1965 and formed part of the public forest, thus inalienable.
The trial court dismissed the Petition for Review, ruling the State was estopped for failing to oppose the original reopening petition. The court later refused to give due course to the State’s appeal, deeming it improper. The Court of Appeals denied the State’s subsequent certiorari and mandamus petition, finding no allegation of fraud by Lastimado and holding the State’s failure to oppose constituted an admission the land was not forestal. The Republic elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the State’s Petition for Review without a hearing on the merits regarding the alleged inalienable character of the land.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and remanded the case for further proceedings. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle that land classified as part of a military reservation or public forest is outside the commerce of man and cannot be acquired by prescription or registered under the Torrens system. The State’s allegation that the land was within a military reservation and formed part of the public forest presented a substantive issue of fact and law that required a full hearing. The trial court’s summary dismissal, based solely on the State’s failure to file an initial opposition, was erroneous. The State cannot be estopped by the neglect or mistake of its officials from asserting the inalienability of public domain lands, which concerns public interest and the conservation of the national patrimony. Following precedent, a petition for review filed within the one-year period based on fraud warrants an opportunity to present evidence. The alleged fraud consisted in seeking registration of land that was legally incapable of private appropriation at the time of the claimed possession. Therefore, the dismissal orders were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court to allow the State to prove its allegations.