FIRST DIVISION
|
HEIRS OF GREGORIO AND MARY
VENTURANZA, Petitioners, - versus - REPUBLIC OF THE Respondent. |
G.R. No.
149122
Present: PUNO, C.J.,
Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: July 27, 2007 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
By this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, petitioners seek the reversal of the decision[1] dated
The
petition traces its beginning from a complaint filed by the Republic of the
Reviewed,
the records unfold the following facts and antecedents:
The
title in question – TCT No. 2574 of the Registry of Deeds of Camarines Sur –
was issued sometime in 1959 in the name of Gregorio Venturanza, married to Mary
Edwards-Venturanza. The memorandum of registration shows that TCT No. 2574 was
derived from TCT No. RT-40 (140), which is
a reconstituted title issued
to one Florencio Mora who sold the
property therein described to Gregorio Venturanza in 1956 for P107,730.00.
The same memorandum of registration, however, does not show when the
land covered by TCT No. 2574 was originally registered and the other data were merely noted as (NA).
In
1964, GregorioVenturanza and the then Abaca Development Board entered into an agreement for purchase and
sale of the property covered by TCT No. 2574, whereby the former agreed to
convey the property to the latter, subject to the approval of the document of
sale by the concerned government office. The final sale, however, did not
materialize.
Meanwhile,
it appears that in the course of the parties’ negotiation for the sale of the
property covered by the title in question, the government’s negotiation
committee assigned a deputy clerk of the Land Registration Commission (LRC) to
verify the true copies of TCT No. 2574 in the name of Gregorio Venturanza.
Per
verification, it was found out that Venturanzas’ TCT No. 2574, was derived from
TCT No. RT-40 (140) in the name of one Florencio Mora (Mora) which covers Lots
1, 2 and 3 of Plan RS-383-D containing a combined area of 23,944,635 square
meters or 2,394 hectares, situated in the municipality of Buhi, Camarines Sur.
In
turn, TCT No. RT-40 (140) appears to have been reconstituted from TCT No. 140 which
was issued to one Sebastian Moll on
TCT
No. 140, on the other hand, appears to be a transfer from Land Registration
Case (LRC) No. 3480 issued to one Casimiro Natividad.
Upon
further investigation, it was discovered that the land subject of LRC No. 3480,
originally registered on
In
the report submitted by the LRC deputy clerk, the latter made a finding that the
Venturanzas’ TCT No. 2574, a direct transfer from TCT No. RT-40 (140) which
was, in turn, derived from TCT No. 140, covers only a parcel of land with an
area of 451 square meters and not 23,944,635 square meters or 2,394 hectares which
practically comprise the entire
Such
was the state of things when, sometime in 1965, in the then Court of First
Instance (now RTC) of Camarines Sur, the Republic of the Philippines, through
the OSG, filed a complaint for the Cancellation
of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2574 and the Reversion of the Land
Described Therein to the Republic of the Philippines. Thereat originally docketed
as Civil Case No. 5973, the complaint eventually became Civil Case No. IR-122 which
was raffled to Branch 37 of the court.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor of the Republic of the Philippines and against the defendants ordering the annulment of TCT No. 2574 in the name of Gregorio Venturanza, ordering the Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur to cancel said title, and reverting the land covered by the questioned title, except that which may have already been alienated by the proper authorities and lawfully passed to private ownership, to the public domain of the Republic of the Philippines, with costs against the defendants.
SO ORDERED.
In
resolving the suit in favor of the Republic, the trial court principally anchored
its judgment on the ground that the reconstituted title issued in the name of
Florencio Mora could have been fraudulently secured, hence, does not legally
exist. The court further ruled that since the reconstituted title issued to
Florencio Mora is a nullity, then the order for its reconstitution did not attain
finality and therefore may be attacked anytime.
Therefrom,
the Venturanzas went on appeal to the CA in CA-G.R.
CV No. 38630, arguing that Mora’s reconstituted title from where their TCT
No. 2574 was derived is already indefeasible on the ground that upon the lapse
of one (1) year, the decision granting reconstitution of Mora’s title becomes
final. The Venturanzas also claimed that they are protected by law as buyers in
good faith. Lastly, they argued that the Republic’s action for the cancellation
of TCT No. 2574 and the reversion of the land described therein to the mass of
public domain was already barred by the decision of the CA in CA-G.R. No. 20681-R, entitled, Florencio Mora v. Venancio Infante, et al., which
granted the petition for reconstitution of Mora’s TCT No. RT-40 (140).
In
the herein assailed decision dated
We
DENY.
Petitioners
maintain that under Section 112 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act), Mora’s
reconstituted TCT No. RT-40 (140) is already indefeasible the same having
attained finality one (1) year after the CA granted its reconstitution in CA-G.R. No. 20681-R. Citing the second
paragraph of Section 31 of P.D. No. 1529[4] which
reads:
The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject only to such exceptions or liens as may be provided by law. It shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the National Government and all branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application or notice, the same being included in the general description “to all whom it may concern”,
petitioners contend that the two
courts below were without authority to annul TCT No. 2574 issued in the name of
Gregorio Venturanza.
Petitioners
are wrong. Clearly, the provisions relied upon refer to original decrees of
registration and not to orders of reconstitution. As it is, petitioners cannot
even seek refuge in the Land Registration Act because the land covered by TCT
No. 2574 had never been brought within the operation of said law. As correctly pointed
out by the CA to which we are in full accord:
xxx the Land
Registration Act is not applicable considering that the land covered by TCT No.
2574 had never been within the operation
of the Land Registration Act because of the irregularities attending the issuance
of the reconstituted title. As found by the trial court:
TCT No. RT-40 (140) supposedly
reconstituted from TCT no. 140 in the name of Florencio Mora consists of 2,394
hectares supposedly situated in Buhi, Camarines
Significantly, from the exhibits
presented by the plaintiff it can be seen that the resurvey plan (Exh. A) shows
that the survey of Lot Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was based on TCT No. 140 and it covered
an area of 23,944,635 square meters and
appeared to have been surveyed on January 20, to January 31, 1953 or a period
of 11 days. Exh. “B” shows that the area supposedly covered by TCT 2574 is
within the timberland, Project 12, Block B, L.C. 646 and Project 19, Block ALC
761, Exh. “C”, the official map of
The stench of anomaly became at once
pervading when we consider the evidence submitted by the plaintiff. The land
practically covers the
As a necessary consequence, no court could have ever acquired jurisdiction to order the reconstitution of Mora’s TCT No. RT-40 (140) over the land which has never been originally registered. As aptly pointed out by the trial court:
The
evidence shows that TCT No. 2574, the title in question, derived its existence
from RT-40 (140) in the name of Florencio Mora which was a reconstituted title
based on TCT No. 140 allegedly obtained by Florencio Mora during the Japanese
occupation. The records of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur, however, do
not show how the land covered by TCT No. 140 supposedly in the name of
Florencio Mora was registered. Neither is there a decree number, when said
decree was entered, the OCT number or LRC Record Number. [6]
Corollarily,
petitioners’ argument that the Republic’s action for the cancellation of TCT
No. 2574 and the reversion of the land covered thereby to the State is barred
by the decision of the CA in CA-G.R. No.
20681-R has no leg to stand on.
Aside
from the fact that no court could have ever acquired jurisdiction to order the
reconstitution of Mora’s title over the property which has never been
originally registered, the judgment in CA-G.R.
No. 20681-R did not operate as res
judicata which would bar the Republic’s action because there was no identity
of cause of action between CA-G.R. No.
20681-R and the instant case.
The
issue in CA-G.R. No. 20681-R was
whether or not Mora’s evidence in Special Proceedings No. 674 and the procedures adopted
by him for the reconstitution
of certificate of title
alleged to have been lost or destroyed were in conformity with the provisions
of Republic Act No. 26. The questions of ownership
and whether or not the property or portion thereof was registrable,
being a timberland, were never put at issue in CA-G.R. No. 20681-R. Neither the non-existence
of the original
title from which
Mora’s TCT No. RT-40 (140) and petitioners’
TCT No. 2574 were derived, nor the non-registrability of the
timberland included in the area in question which constitute Republic’s cause
of action against the herein petitioners, were ever raised, much less, decided
by the CA in CA-G.R. No. 20681-R.
Petitioners
also claim that they are protected by law considering that they were buyers in
good faith.
Again,
this assertion is without basis considering that Mora’s reconstituted TCT No.
RT-40 (140), from where petitioners’TCT No. 2574 was derived, is void. The only
way by which Mora could have acquired ownership over the subject parcels of
land and validly transfer that ownership to the petitioners was for Mora to
apply for their registration in his own name.
What makes petitioners’ cause doubly undeserving of merit is the finding of the two courts below that the land subject matter of this case is part timberland,[7] a finding not even once disputed by petitioners. It is, thus, safe to conclude that the land subject of TCT No. 2574 could not have been registered in the name of petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest for the simple reason that under the Constitution, timberlands, which are part of the public domain, cannot be alienated.[8] A certificate of title covering inalienable lands of the public domain is void and can be cancelled in whosever hand said title may be found.[9] Thus, we have ruled that a certificate of title is void when it covers property of the public domain classified as forest or timber and mineral lands. And any title issued on non-disposable lands even if in the hands of alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled.[10]
All told, the Court finds no reversible error in the assailed
decision of the CA, affirming that of the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.
No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices B.A. Adelfuin Dela Cruz (now ret.) and Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, concurring; rollo, pp. 38-45.
[2]
[3]
[4] Formerly Section 38 of Act No. 496.
[5] Rollo, pp. 40-41.
[6]
[7] Original Records, p. 83.
[8] Sections 2 & 3, Article XII, 1987 Constitution.
[9] Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corporation v. Damyung, G.R. Nos.
L-31666-68,
[10] Ledesma
v.