THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 186603, April 05, 2017
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DENR, REGION VI, ILOILO CITY, Petitioner, v. VALENTINA ESPINOSA, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, LEONILA CALISTON, AND SPOUSES DIOSCORO & ESTRELLA ESCARDA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
JARDELEZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 seeking to nullify the Court of Appeals' (CA) July 25, 2008 Decision2 and February 4, 2009 Resolution3 in CA-G.R. CV No. 00421. The CA modified the May 12, 2004 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61 of Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, and dismissed the reversion case filed by the Republic of the Philippines (State) against respondents Valentina Espinosa and her successor-in-interest, Leonila B. Caliston, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 12, 2004 and Order dated July 16, 2004 are hereby modified upholding the validity of Original Certificate of Title No. 191-N and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 91117, respectively, issued in the names of Valentina Espinosa and Leonila Caliston. The award of damages, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation in favor of Leonila Caliston is affirmed.On October 26, 1955, Cadastral Decree No. N-31626 was issued to Valentina Espinosa (Espinosa) in Cadastral Case No. 39, L.R.C. Cadastral Record No. 980. It covered a 28,880-square meter lot located at Lot No. 3599 of Cadastral Record No. 980, Poblacion, Sipalay City, Negros Occidental (property). By virtue of the decree, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 191-N was issued on October 15, 1962 in the name of Espinosa.6 On June 17, 1976, Espinosa sold the property to Leonila B. Caliston (Caliston), who was later issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-911177 on June 29, 1976.8
SO ORDERED.5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:Caliston's motion for reconsideration19 was denied in an Order20 dated July 16, 2004. On August 5, 2004, Caliston filed a Notice of Appeal21 with the RTC. On the other hand, the spouses Escarda did not file a notice of appeal. Records were then forwarded to the CA, where proceedings ensued.SO ORDERED.18
- Declaring Original Certificate of Title No. 191-N in the name of Valentina Espinosa and all its derivative titles, such as: TCT No. T-91117 in the name of Leonila Caliston, null and void ab initio;
- Ordering defendants to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 191-N and TCT N[o]. T-91117 to defendant Register of Deeds for the Province of Negros Occidental and the latter to cancel said titles and all their derivative titles, if any;
- Ordering the reversion of the land covered by the aforesaid patent and title to the mass of the public domain under the administration and disposition of the Director of Forestry (now Regional Executive Director, Region VI, Iloilo City);
- Declaring that defendant Leonila Caliston has better right over the subject lot as against intervenors Spouses Dioscoro and Estrella Escarda; and
- Ordering the intervenors to pay defendant Leonila Caliston the following sums:
a) Not less than P20,000.00 for moral damages; b) Not less than P10,000.00 for exemplary damages; c) Not less than P10,000.00 for attorney's fees, plus so much appearance fees of P2,000.00 incurred and/or paid by answering defendant in connection with this case; and d) Not less than P5,000.00 for expenses of litigation.
Finally, we find the need to emphasize that in an action to annul a judgment, the burden of proving the judgment's nullity rests upon the petitioner. The petitioner must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the judgment is fatally defective. When the proceedings were originally filed by the Republic before the Court of Appeals, the petitioner contended that when the decree in favor of De Perio was issued by Judge Ostrand in 1912 the parcels of land were still part of the inalienable public forests. However, petitioner's case rested solely on land classification maps drawn several years after the issuance of the decree in 1912. These maps fail to conclusively establish the actual classification of the land in 1912 and the years prior to that. Before this Court, petitioner reiterates said contention and refers, for the first time, to a 1908 proclamation reserving the land in Zambales as a naval reservation and alleging that the subject parcels of land are parts thereof. These, for reasons discussed earlier, are insufficient to overcome the legal presumption in favor of the decree's regularity, more so when we consider that notice of the application for registration and the date of hearing thereof, addressed to the Attorney General, the Director of Lands, the Director of Public Works and the Director of Forestry, among others, was published in the Official Gazette and that Governor General Smith's Proclamation of 1908 itself recognizes private rights.48We stress that our ruling is not inconsistent with the doctrine that forest lands are outside the commerce of man and unsusceptible of private appropriation. Neither are we changing the rule on imprescriptibility of actions for reversion. We are merely deciding on the facts as proved by the record. To allow a reversion based on a classification made at the time when the property was already declared private property by virtue of a decree would be akin to expropriation of land without due process of law.49
The rules of admissibility must be applied uniformly. The same rule holds true when the Government is one of the parties. The Government, when it comes to court to litigate with one of its citizens, must submit to the rules of procedure and its rights and privileges at every stage of the proceedings are substantially in every respect the same as those of its citizens; it cannot have a superior advantage. This is so because when a [sovereign] submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court and participates therein, its claims and rights are justiciable by every other principle and rule applicable to the claims and rights of the private parties under similar circumstances. Failure to abide by the rules on admissibility renders the L.C. Map submitted by respondent inadmissible as proof to show that the subject lot is part of the forest reserve.51We went on to explain that even if the map was admitted in evidence to prove that the lot was classified as part of the timberland or forest reserve, the classification was made long after private interests had intervened. Not only was the lot already occupied and cultivated, a free patent and a certificate of title were also awarded and issued years ahead of the classification—
Even assuming that the L.C. Map submitted by respondent is admissible in evidence, still the land in question can hardly be considered part of the timberland or forest reserve. L.C. Map No. 2961, which purports to be the "correct map of the areas demarcated as permanent forest pursuant of the provisions of P.D. No. 705 as amended" was made only in 1980. Thus, the delineation of the areas was made nine (9) years after Orcullo was awarded the free patent over the subject lot.These principles laid down in SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc. undoubtedly apply here. As part of fair play and due process, the State is as bound by the rules on formal offer of evidence as much as every private party is. More, the State's subsequent reclassification of the area where the property is situated cannot be used to defeat the rights of a private citizen who acquired the land in a valid and regular proceeding conducted 24 years earlier.x x x
Obviously, private interests have intervened before classification was made pursuant to P.D. No. 705. Not only has Orcullo by herself and through her predecessors-in-interest cultivated and possessed the subject lot since 1930, a free patent was also awarded to her and a title issued in her name as early as 1971. In fact, it appears that the issuance of the free patent and certificate of title was regular and in order. Orcullo complied with the requisites for the acquisition of free patent provided under Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), as certified by the Director of Lands and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.x x x
The Regalian doctrine is well-enshrined not only in the present Constitution but also in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The Court has always recognized and upheld the Regalian doctrine as the basic foundation of the State's property regime. Nevertheless, in applying this doctrine, we must not lose sight of the fact that in every claim or right by the Government against one of its citizens, the paramount considerations of fairness and due process must be observed. Respondent in this case failed to show that the subject lot is part of timberland or forest reserve it adverted to. In the face of the uncontroverted status of Free Patent No. 473408 and OCT No. 0-6667 as valid and regular issuances, respondent's insistence on the classification of the lot as part of the forest reserve must be rejected.52
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 9-24.
2Id. at 25-36; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier with Associate Justices Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla and Franchito N. Diamante concurring.
3Id. at 37.
4 RTC records, pp. 97-105.
5Rollo, p. 35.
6 RTC records, p. 7.
7Id. at 9.
8Rollo, p. 26.
9 RTC records, pp. 1-5. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 1114 and titled "Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Regional Executive Director of the DENR, Region VI, Iloilo City v. Valentina Espinosa, Leonila B. Caliston and the Register of Deeds for the Province of Negros Occidental."
10Id. at 2.
11Id. at 28-32. Spouses Escarda filed a Complaint in Intervention dated June 2, 2003.
12Id. at 29.
13Id. at 31.
14Id. at 21-26.
15Id. at 45-46.
16Id. at 23-24; 47-48. It is admitted by the parties that Caliston filed an unlawful detainer case against the spouses Escarda before the Municipal Trial Court of Sipalay Negros Occidental and which was pending at the time the spouses intervened in the present case. Id. at 29; 45.
17Supra note 4.
18 RTC records, pp. 104-105.
19Id. at 119-126.
20Id. at 134.
21Id. at 135-138.
22 CA rollo, pp. 19-38; 125-134.
23Id. at 91-106.
24Supra note 2.
25 RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Sec. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
26Rollo, pp. 31-33.
27Id. at 29-30.
28 G.R. No. 152570, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 522.
29Supra note 3.
30 See Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v. Yap, G.R. No. 167707, October 8, 2008, 568 SCRA 164, 192.
31Tan Sing Pan v. Republic, G.R. No. 149114, July 21, 2006, 496 SCRA 189, 196.
32Id. at 196-198, citing Government of the Philippine Islands v. Abural, 39 Phil. 996 (1919).
33 See Republic v. Leonor, G.R. No. 161424, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 75, 85.
34 See Republic v. Mangotara, G.R. No. 170375, July 7, 2010, 624 SCRA 360, 473-474.
35Id. at 473, citing Estate of the Late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic, G.R. No. 168661, October 26, 2007, 537 SCRA 513.
36Id. at 489, citing Morandarte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123586, August 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 213, 225.
37 See Republic v. Development Resources Corporation, G.R. No. 180218, December 18, 2009, 608 SCRA 591, 594.
38 See Republic v. Leonor, supra note 33.
39Id.
40Republic v. Bellate, G.R. No. 175685, August 7, 2013, 703 SCRA 210, 221.
41 RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Sec. 35.
42Republic v. Reyes-Bakunawa, G.R. No. 180418, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 163, 192.
43Id. at 192, citing Union Bank of the Philippines v. Tiu, G.R. Nos. 173090-91, September 7, 2011, 657 SCRA 86, 110.
44 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 34.
45 The Memorandum/Position Paper of the plaintiff Republic dated June 2, 2004 in Civil Case No. 1114 states:x x x In a reclassification of the public lands conducted by the Bureau of Forestry on January 17, 1986 in the vicinity where the land in question is situated, the said land was plotted on Bureau Forestry map L.C. No. 2978 to be inside the area which was reverted to the category of public forest. RTC records, p. 107.46 See Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-46048, November 29, 1988, 168 SCRA 77, 83-84.
47 G.R. No. 83290, September 21, 1990, 189 SCRA 792.
48Id. at 800. Italics and emphasis supplied.
49 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Sec. 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
50Supra note 28.
51Id. at 532-533. Citations omitted.
52Id. at 533-535. Citations omitted.
53 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Secs. 1 & 9.
54SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc. v. Republic, supra note 28 at 535.