THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 237514, February 10, 2021
HELEN M. ALBERTO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES NICASIO FLORES, JR. AND PERLITA FLORES, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DELOS SANTOS, J.:
WHEREFORE, this court hereby (a) declares as null and void Free Patent No. 035408-09-1197 and the Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. 14447 in the names of Nicasio Flores, Jr. and Perlita Flores; and (b) orders the Register of Deeds of Pampanga to cancel said title in its records.The RTC held that the Malits were able to prove that there was fraud in the procurement of the free patent and sustained the Malits' contention that the free patent and the corresponding title issued to the respondents were therefore void.13 Conversely, the RTC found that respondents failed to show that the issuance of the free patent was made in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Public Land Act. Moreover, the RTC pointed out that respondents applied for the free patent over Lot No. 1298 while the same was subject of a tenancy or leasehold relationship in which Nicasio Jr. was the agricultural lessee. It also found that the Malits' title over the land was already confirmed in the October 28, 1959 Decision. According to the RTC, the foregoing badges of fraud successfully impugned the validity of the certificate of title.14 The RTC further noted that respondents failed to prove that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in continuous, uninterrupted, open, and adverse cultivation and possession in the concept of owner of the subject land.15
SO ORDERED.12
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal filed by the defendants-appellants is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 29, 2015 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Guagua, Pampanga, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Free Patent 035408-1019 and [Katibayan ng Original na Titulo Blg.] 14447 remain to be valid and subsisting. SO ORDERED.17 (Citation omitted)The CA held that the Malits failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the procurement of free patent by respondents was attended by fraud. Thus, the Malits failed to overthrow the presumption of regularity in the processing and granting of the Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. 14447 issued under the Land Registration Act.18 The CA further posited that while the Malits have presented the December 28, 1959 Decision confirming their ownership of Lot No. 1298, they, nevertheless, failed to show that the land was registered under the Torrens System.19 Moreover, the CA explicated that the Malits' failure to assert their right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time warranted the presumption that they have either abandoned or declined to assert it based on the grounds of public policy, which requires the discouragement of stale claims for the peace of society.20 Not amenable to the ruling of the CA, petitioner herein brought the instant petition before the Court.
Petitioner alleges that there was fraud in the procurement by respondents of the free patent. She claims there was no evidence shown by respondents that the issuance of the free patent was made in accordance with the procedure laid down in Commonwealth Act No. 141, or that an investigation was conducted in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 141. Neither was there sufficient notice made to the municipality and the barrio where the subject land is located in order to give the adverse claimants the opportunity to present their claims.22 Petitioner further asserts that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty or official functions does not apply in this case since Lot No. 1298 had ceased to become public alienable land, hence, not within the jurisdiction of the CENRO for issuance of free patents 23 According to petitioner, the issuance of the free patent to respondents is null and void not only as to the existence of fraud in their application, but more so due to the fact that Lot No. 1298 is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands. Hence, being null and void, Free Patent No. 035408-09-1197 and the Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. 14447 produce no legal effect. Petitioner likewise avers that neither laches nor the statute of limitations applies to land registration cases. Thus, considering that the October 28, 1959 Decision had become final and executory, no further proceeding to enforce the Malits ownership was necessary on their part24 On the other hand, respondents contend that the petition must be denied since the factual findings of the CA are binding and conclusive upon this Court and may not be reviewed on appeal when supported by substantial evidence, such as in this case.
- Whether the CA erred in ruling that the Malits failed to prove the existence of fraud in respondents' application for free patent.
- Whether the CA erred in applying the doctrine of laches against the Malits' claim.21
(1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of fact are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.25In this case, the rulings of the RTC and the CA are contradictory in the first place. More importantly, the CA manifestly overlooked undisputed facts, the consideration of which, call for a different conclusion in the present controversy.
Lots Nos. 665, 666, 667 and 1298 of the Lubao Cadastre not being contested, the claimants were allowed to present their evidence in support of their claim thereon, which they did on October 26, 1959.Accordingly, an Order for the Issuance of Decrees in Cadastral Cases29 dated May 17, 1969 was issued by Judge Arsenio Santos of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Fifth Judicial District, directing the Commissioner of Land Registration to issue the corresponding decree for Lot Nos. 665, 666, 667, and 1298, considering that the October 28, 1959 Decision had become final. It is worthy to note that respondents did not refute the existence of the said Decision, or that it has attained finality. In De la Merced v. Court of Appeals,30 the Court elucidated on when title to the land in a cadastral proceeding is vested, thus:
From the evidence adduced, it appears that Orlando, Helen, Manuel, Corazon and Aurora, all surnamed Malit are the owners of the aforesaid lots for having inherited them from their mother Barbara Vitug who died on October 22, 1946, who, in turn, inherited said lots from her parents Anastacio Vitug and Marta Lingad; and that their possession thereon, coupled with that of their predecessors in interest, has been open, peaceful, public, continuous and adverse in concept of ownership for more than thirty (30) years.
WHEREFORE, the court, confirming the claimants' title to Lots Nos. 665, 666, 667 and 1298 of the Lubao Cadastre, hereby orders that they be registered in the names of Orlando Malit, of legal age, married to Delfina Beltran; Helen Malit, of legal age, single; Manuel Malit, of legal age, married to Leonida Ortiz Sy; Corazon Malit, 20 years, single; and Aurora Malit, 18 years old, single, all Filipino citizens, residents of, and with postal address [in] Lubao, Pampanga, share and share alike as their private property.Once this decision becomes final, let the corresponding decree issue.28 (Emphases supplied)
After trial in a cadastral case, three actions are taken. The first adjudicates ownership in favor of one of the claimants. This constitutes the decision — the judgment — the decree of the court, and speaks in a judicial manner. The second action is the declaration by the court that the decree is final and its order for the issuance of the certificates of title by the Chief of the Land Registration Office. Such order is made if within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the decision no appeal is taken from the decision. This again is judicial action, although to a less degree than the first.In this case, not only was the title of ownership of the Malits over Lot No. 1298 confirmed by virtue of the October 28, 1959 Decision, an order for the issuance of a decree had also been issued by the court, directing the Commissioner of Land Registration to issue the corresponding decree after the October 28, 1959 Decision, adjudicating ownership of the land to the Malits had become final. In view of that, there being no imputation of irregularity in the said cadastral proceedings, title of ownership was vested on the Malits as adjudicatees as of the date of the issuance of such judicial decree.
The third and last action devolves upon the General Land Registration Office. This office has been instituted "for the due effectuation and accomplishment of the laws relative to the registration of land." (Administrative Code of 1917, sec. 174.)
The judgment in a cadastral survey, including the rendition of the decree, is a judicial act. As the law says, the judicial decree when final is the base of the certificate of title. The issuance of the decree by the Land Registration Office is a ministerial act. The date of the title prepared by the Chief Surveyor is unimportant, for the adjudication has taken place and all that is left to be performed is the mere formulation of technical description. As a general rule, registration of title under the cadastral system is final, conclusive, and indisputable, after the passage of the thirty-day period allowed for an appeal from the date of receipt by the party of a copy of the judgment of the court adjudicating ownership without any step having been taken to perfect an appeal. The prevailing party may then have execution of the judgment as of right and is entitled to the certificate of title issued by the Chief of the Land Registration Office. The exception is the special provision providing for fraud.
Under the foregoing pronouncement, the title of ownership on the land is vested upon the owner upon the expiration of the period to appeal from the decision or adjudication by the cadastral court, without such an appeal having been perfected. The certificate of title would then be necessary for purposes of effecting registration of subsequent disposition of the land where court proceedings would no longer be necessary. (Emphasis supplied)
SEC. 103. Certificates of Title Pursuant to Patents. — Whenever public land is by the Government alienated, granted or conveyed to any person, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree. It shall be the duty of the official issuing the instrument of alienation, grant, patent or conveyance in behalf of the Government to cause such instrument to be filed with the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies, and to be there registered like other deeds and conveyance, whereupon a certificate of title shall be entered as in other cases of registered land, and an owner's duplicate issued to the grantee. The deed, grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration. It is the act of registration that shall be the operative act to affect and convey the land, and in all cases under this Decree, registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies. The fees for registration shall be paid by the grantee. After due registration and issuance of the certificate of title, such land shall be deemed to be registered land to all intents and purposes under this Decree. (Emphases supplied)Certainly, the rationale for the requirement of registration to affect and convey public land granted through a patent does not apply in cadastral proceedings, wherein the court confirms private ownership of land, which, upon finality, renders the land as registered property.Neither laches nor the statute of limitations applies to a decision in a land registration case.39 In the same vein, the fact that the Malits' ownership over Lot No. 1298 had been adjudicated several decades ago does not give room for the application of the statute of limitations or laches. In the landmark case of Sta. Ana v. Menla,40 the Court expounded the raison d'etre why the statute of limitations and Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court do not apply in land registration proceedings, thus:
This provision of the Rules refers to civil actions and is not applicable to special proceedings, such as a land registration case. This is so because a party in a civil action must immediately enforce a judgment that is secured as against the adverse party, and his failure to act to enforce the same within a reasonable time as provided in the Rules makes the decision unenforceable against the losing party. In special proceedings the purpose is to establish a status, condition or fact; in land registration proceedings, the ownership by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be established. After the ownership has been proved and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is neeessary, except when the adverse or losing party had been in possession of the land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.For the past decades, the Sta. Ana doctrine on the inapplicability of the rules on prescription and laches to land registration cases has been repeatedly affirmed. "Clearly, the peculiar procedure provided in the Property Registration Law from the time decisions in land registration cases become final is complete in itself and does not need to be filled in. From another perspective, the judgment does not have to be executed by motion or enforced by action within the purview of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure."42 "Unlike in ordinary civil actions governed by the Rules on Civil Procedure, the intent of land registration proceedings is to establish ownership by a person of a parcel of land, consistent with the purpose of such extraordinary proceedings to declare by judicial fiat a status, condition, or fact. Hence, upon the finality of a decision adjudicating such ownership, no further step is required to effectuate the decision and a ministerial duty exists alike on the part of the land registration court to order the issuance of, and the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue, the decree of registration."43 "Failure of the court or of the clerk to issue the decree for the reason that no motion therefore has been filed cannot prejudice the owner or the person in whom the land is ordered to be registered."44
Furthermore, there is no provision in the Land Registration Act similar to Sec. 6, Rule 39, regarding the execution of a judgment in a civil action, except the proceedings to place the winner in possession by virtue of a writ of possession. The decision in a land registration case, unless the adverse or losing party is in possession, becomes final without any further action, upon the expiration of the period for perfecting an appeal.41 (Emphases supplied)
The provision lays down the procedure that interposes between the rendition of the judgment and the issuance of the certificate of title. No obligation whatsoever is imposed by Section 39 on the prevailing applicant or oppositor even as a precondition to the issuance of the title. The obligations provided in the Section are levied on the land court (that is to issue an order directing the Land Registration Commissioner to issue in turn the corresponding decree of registration), its clerk of court (that is to transmit copies of the judgment and the order to the Commissioner), and the Land Registration Commissioner (that is to cause the preparation of the decree of registration and the transmittal thereof to the Register of Deeds). All these obligations are ministerial on the officers charged with their performance and thus generally beyond discretion of amendment or review.The failure on the part of the administrative authorities to do their part in the issuance of the decree of registration cannot oust the prevailing party from ownership of the land. Neither the failure of such applicant to follow up with said authorities can. The ultimate goal of our land registration system is geared towards the final and definitive determination of real property ownership in the country, and the imposition of an additional burden on the owner after the judgment in the land registration case had attained finality would simply frustrate such goal. (Emphases supplied)Hence, the certification issued by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) stating that no final decree of registration has yet been issued for Lot No. 1298 either because no decision has yet been rendered thereon, or that no copy of the same was furnished to it, cannot defeat the Malits' ownership declared through judicial act. First, the existence of the December 28, 1959 Decision has been duly established. Second, the duty to forward the decree to the LRA for the corresponding issuance of the title does not lie with the Malits as the adjudicatees.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 9-30.
2 Id. at 32-50; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Elihu A. Ybañez, concurring.
3 Id. at 57-59.
4 Id. at 65-79; penned by Presiding Judge Jonel S. Mercado.
5 Id. at 66-67.
6 Records, p. 31.
7Rollo, p. 67.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 35.
11 Supra note 3
12Rollo, p. 79.
13 Id. at 73.
14 Id. at 78.
15 Id. at 77.
16 Supra note 1.
17Rollo, p. 49.
18 Id. at 41, 43.
19 Id. at 45.
20 Id. at 48.
21 Id. at 13.
22 Id. at 14-15.
23 Id. at 15
24 Id. at 20.
25Bernas v. Estate of Felipe Yu Han Yat, 838 Phil. 710, 725-726.
26Heirs of Spouses Corazon P. De Guzman v. Heirs of Marceliano Bandong, 816 Phil. 617, 626-627 (2017).
27Rollo, p. 13.
28 Id. at 76.
29 Records, p. 125.30 115 Phil. 229, 236-237 (1962), citing Government of the Philippine Islands v. Abural, 39 Phil. 997, 1001-1003 (1919).
31Republic v. Yap, 825 Phil. 778, 789 (2018), citing Ting v. Heirs of Diego Lirio, 547 Phil. 237, 241-243 (2007); Heirs of Cristobal Marcos v. De Banuvar, 134 Phil. 257, 262 (1968)
32Cano v. Camacho, 150 Phil. 457, 463 (1972).
33 110 Phil. 823 (1961).
34 Id. at 833.
35Heirs of Tappa v. Heirs of Bacud, 783 Phil. 536, 553 (2016).
36De la Merced v. Court of Appeals, supra note 30, at 237; see also Nieto v. Quines, supra note 33, at 827828.
37 559 Phil. 756 (2007).
38 SEC. 51. Conveyance and Other Dealings by Registered Owner. — An owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws. He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration. The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies.
39 Republic v. Nillas, 541 Phil. 277, 284 (2007).
40 111 Phil. 947 (1961).
41 Id. at 951.
42Republic v. Yap, supra note 31, at 759; Republic v. Nillas, supra note 39, at 288.
43Republic v. Nillas, id. at 287.
44Republic v. Yap, supra note 31, at 788.
45 Supra note 39, at 288.
46 Records, p. 126.
47 Id. at 15-16.
48Melendres v. Catambay, GR. No. 198026, November 28, 2018.
49Heirs of Santiago v. Heirs of Santiago, 452 Phil. 238, 243 (2003).
50Heirs of Tappa v. Heirs of Bacud, supra note 35, at 548.
51Melendres v. Catambay, supra note 48.
52 Records, p. 347.
53Melendres v. Catambay, supra note 48; Agne v. The Director of Lands, 261 Phil. 13, 25 (1990).
54Republic v. Heirs of Felipe Alejaga, Sr., 441 Phil. 656, 674 (2002).
55Melendres v. Catambay, supra note 48; Agne v. Director of Lands, supra note 53.
56Agne v. The Director of Lands, id. at 31.cralawredlibrary