THIRD DIVISION
|
REPUBLIC
OF THE Petitioner, - versus - IGNACIO
LEONOR and CATALINO RAZON, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 161424
Present:
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and Promulgated: December
23, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This is a petition for
review on certiorari of the Court of
Appeals (CA) Decision[1]
dated December 19, 2003. The assailed
decision adjudged the cancellation of the free patents and original
certificates of title (OCTs) over two of the five lots in question in favor of petitioner.
The antecedents of the
case are as follows:
On December 16, 1991, petitioner Republic
of the Philippines, represented by the Regional Executive Director, Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region IV, through the Office of
the Solicitor General, filed separate
complaints for Cancellation of Free Patent and OCT and Reversion against
respondents Ignacio Leonor and Catalino Razon. The complaints involved the following
properties:
1.
In Civil
Case No. 55-91: Free Patent No. (IV-3A)-2182, covered by OCT No. P-1676 in the
name of Ignacio Leonor, over Lot No. 10108, Cad. 511, Lemery Cadastre with an
area of 722 square meters;
2.
In Civil
Case No. 56-91: Free Patent No. (IV-3A)-2181, covered by OCT No. P-1675 in the
name of Ignacio Leonor, over
3.
In Civil
Case No. 57-91: Free Patent No. (IV-3A)-2180, covered by OCT No. P-1674 in the
name of Catalino Razon, over Lot No.10109, Cad. 511, Lemery Cadastre, with an
area of 722 square meters;
4.
In Civil
Case No. 58-91: Free Patent No. (IV-3A)-1891, covered by OCT No. P-1127 in the
name of Ignacio Leonor, over
5.
In Civil
Case No. 59-91: Free Patent No. (IV-3A)-1892, covered by OCT No. P-1128 in the
name of Catalino Razon, over
In Civil Case Nos. 55-91,[3]
56-91[4]
and 57-91,[5]
the complaints averred that, in an investigation conducted by DENR-Region IV,
it was ascertained that Lot Nos. 10108, 8617 and 10109 were part of the non-disposable
foreshore land and did not appear in the cadastral map or in the cadastral
records as having been officially surveyed by the DENR. These defects allegedly constituted fraud
which, in effect, ipso facto cancelled
the free patents and the corresponding OCTs.
In contrast, the complaints in Civil
Case Nos. 58-91[6] and
59-91[7] alleged
that, on the basis of a protest filed by Luisa Ilagan Vda. de Agoncillo who
claimed to be in possession of Lot Nos. 9398 and 9675 since time immemorial, an
investigation was conducted by the DENR wherein it was discovered that (1)
although the said lots appeared in the cadastral map, they were not cadastrally
surveyed or approved cadastral lots as evidenced by the Alphabetical and Numerical
List of Claimants; (2) the lots were verified to be part of the early survey conducted
on June 22, 1977 and identified as Lot No. 6192 of Cadastre 511, Lemery
Cadastre, subsequently covered by Plan SWO-4A-000306-D in the name of Luisa
Ilagan; and (3) Lot Nos. 9398 and 9675 were conveyed to respondents,
respectively, through an “Affidavit of Relinquishment of Rights” executed on
November 27, 1986 by a certain Anacleto Serwelas who had no right whatsoever over
the land. The complaints further averred that serious discrepancies existed among
the technical descriptions appearing in the certificates of title, the
cadastral map and the transfer of rights. These defects, according to the complaint, also
constituted fraud which, in effect, ipso
facto cancelled the said patents and the corresponding OCTs.
On February 10, 1992, respondents
filed their separate answers[8]
uniformly stating as follows: (1) the free patents were issued in accordance
with existing law and procedure; (2) the subject lots were surveyed by Geodetic
Engineer Alexander Jacob of the Bureau of Lands and inspected and certified to
be alienable and disposable by the Land Inspector of the Bureau of Lands; (3)
the right of action for the cancellation of the same had already prescribed since
more than one year had already lapsed since the free patents were issued; (4) they
had been in continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the
lots for more than 30 years and they had developed them into a beach resort,
with valuable facilities; and (5) the subject lots were not investigated by the
DENR-Region IV and there was no resolution issued by the said office to that
effect.
Luisa Ilagan was allowed to intervene
in Civil Case Nos. 58-91 and 59-91. She
claimed that Lot Nos. 9398 and 9675 were part of the parcel of land that she owned,
designated as Lot No. 6192, Cad-511-D of the Lemery Cadastre and covered by Tax
Declaration No. 0527; that this parcel of land was surveyed on June 22, 1977 and
Plan SWO-4A-000306-D was approved on April 18, 1980; that she had been in peaceful
possession of the subject land for more than 60 years but, because of old age,
she failed to visit and supervise the land; that Anacleto Serwelas was her
tenant who took advantage of her absence and succeeded in selling the western
portion of the subject land in favor of respondents, without her knowledge and
consent; and that in 1987, she learned of respondents’ applications for free
patent and of the issuance of the OCTs in their names; hence, she filed a
formal protest with the DENR asking for an investigation.[9]
In answer to these allegations, respondents
averred that Luisa Ilagan had already sold her properties to her tenants, and
that Plan SWO-4A-000304 in her name was rejected by the Bureau of Lands as
shown in the Cadastral Map of Lemery Cadastre, Cad. 511, Case 22.[10] Luisa Ilagan replied that the rejection of
Plan SWO-4A-000304 was null and void for lack of notice. She insisted that respondents
had no right over the subject lots since they acquired them from Anacleto
Serwelas, who was not the owner of the properties.
On June 14, 2000, the Regional Trial
Court rendered a decision in favor of respondents, thus:
WHEREFORE,
for insufficiency of evidence presented by the
IT IS SO ORDERED.[11]
The heirs of Luisa Ilagan and the petitioner
filed separate appeals with the CA.
On February 11, 2002, the CA partially
granted petitioner’s prayers. It
declared that two of the five lots—Lot Nos. 10108 and 10109—are foreshore
lands. The CA noted that (a) serious discrepancies exist between the cadastral
map and the technical description in the OCTs covering these two lots; (b) the
said lots do not appear in the cadastral map; (c) Atty. Raymundo L. Apuhin,
petitioner’s witness, testified that the said lots were not surveyed and
approved by the DENR; and (d) they do not appear to be covered by corresponding
tax declarations. Based on the
foregoing, the CA concluded that these two lots are foreshore lands. Consequently,
it ordered the cancellation of Free Patent No. (IV-3A)-2182 and OCT No. P-1676
over
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed
decision dated June 14, 2000 of the RTC, Branch 5, Lemery, Batangas in Civil
Cases Nos. 55-91 to 59-91 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Free Patent No.
(IV-3A)-2182 with the corresponding OCT No. P-1676 in the name of Ignacio
Leonor over Lot No. 10108, and Free Patent No. (IV-3A)-2180 with the
corresponding OCT No. P-1674, in the name of Catalino Razon over
The rest of the decision stands.
SO ORDERED.[12]
This
petition for review on certiorari seeks
the reversion of Lot Nos. 8617, 9398 and 9675 to petitioner. On this score,
petitioner ascribes the following error to the appellate court:
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR
OF LAW WHEN IT SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE THREE SUBJECT FREE PATENTS AND
TITLES ALBEIT THEY PERTAIN TO INALIENABLE FORESHORE LANDS AND DESPITE THE
FRAUDULENT ENTRIES IN RESPONDENTS’ FREE PATENT APPLICATIONS.[13]
Petitioner argues that the lands are
inalienable foreshore lands. It points out that the five lots comprise the
whole Leonor Beach Resort and that when the technical descriptions of the
subject lots were plotted on the cadastral map of Barangay Nonong Castro, the
lots were identified as foreshore lands, which are not capable of appropriation.[14] Petitioner adds that the burden is on respondents
to prove that the lands that have been registered in their names are alienable
and disposable.[15]
Petitioner
further contends that, assuming that the subject lands are not foreshore lands,
the free patents should nonetheless be cancelled, because respondents committed
fraud and made misrepresentations in their free patent applications in that (a)
they declared that the subject lots were cadastrally surveyed when, in truth,
they do not appear in the approved Cadastral Plan of Lemery, Batangas, Cad.
511, Case 22; (b) respondent Ignacio Leonor declared that he acquired Lot No. 9398
from Moises and Ricardo Peren and Vicente de Roxas, whose names do not however appear
on the lists of claimants for Barangay Nonong Castro, Case 22, Lemery Cadastre,
indicating that they are fictitious persons; (c) respondent Ignacio Leonor
failed to enter the names of his predecessors-in-interest as to Lot No. 8617,
as required in the free patent application; (d) serious discrepancies were
noted in the description of Lot No. 9398 in the application for free patent and
in the technical description in OCT No. P-1127; and (e) Lot No. 9675 does not
appear in the lists of claimants.[16]
Incidentally, it should be pointed out that, other than Lot Nos. 10108
and 10109, only Lot No. 8617 was alleged in the complaint (Civil Case No.
59-91) to be part of the indisposable foreshore land. In fact, there is no piece
of evidence pointing to Lot Nos. 9398 and 9675 as being foreshore lands. Petitioner
seeks the cancellation of the free patents over Lot Nos. 9398 and 9675 solely
on the ground that they were procured through fraud and misrepresentation.
The
Court finds that the petition has no merit.
As
a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court when affirmed by the CA are final and
conclusive on, and cannot be reviewed on appeal by, this Court as long as they
are borne out by the records or are based on substantial evidence. The Court is not a trier of facts, its
jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been
committed by the lower courts.[17] But to appease any doubt on the correctness
of the assailed ruling, we have carefully perused the records and, nonetheless,
arrived at the same conclusion.
To
be sure, petitioner was not able to adequately establish that
At the outset, petitioner
argues that the burden to prove that the lands in question are alienable and
disposable is upon respondents. The
argument is out of line. This case is not a land registration proceeding but involves
reversion of lands already registered in the names of respondents. At this
stage, it would be reasonable to presume that respondents had established that
the properties are alienable and disposable considering that they have already
succeeded in obtaining free patents and OCTs over the properties. In this reversion proceeding, premised on the
claim that the property is foreshore land or that the patents were obtained
through fraud or misrepresentation, the burden is now upon petitioner to prove
such allegations.
With regard to Lot No. 8617,
the records reveal that the only piece of evidence alluding to this lot being foreshore
land is the testimony of Atty. Apuhin of the DENR-Region IV, which is quoted as
follows:
Q-
And what
did you find in relation to the Free Patent No. (IV-3A) 2180 insofar as that
plotting made by the Legal Division of the DENR is concerned?
A-
In my
request, I found out that x x x
Q-
How
about the survey record, what did you find insofar as
A-
In
verification with the Survey Division, Lot No. 8617 is definitely a part of [the]
foreshore lot as shown in the approved cadastral map of Lemery.
Q-
By the
way, when you speak of foreshore lot, what do you mean?
A-
It is an
area covered by the flow of tide in its highest equational tide which is 20
meters from the highest equational tide.
Q- If
it is a foreshore land, can it be the subject of Free Patent application?
A-
No, sir.
x x x x
Q-
After
conducting the necessary investigation insofar as
A-
After
conducting the necessary investigation insofar as Lot 8617 is concerned,
Q-
If it is
a foreshore lot, what is your conclusion?
A-
A
foreshore lot cannot be the subject of acquisition [of] Free Patent.
Q-
If it
cannot be the subject of acquisition, what is the effect on the application for
Free Patent of x x
A-
The
application for x x x Free Patent should not have been approved.[18]
Certainly, Atty. Apuhin’s testimony
fails to convince us. The interview markedly lacks details as to how he
conducted an investigation to determine whether Lot No. 8617 is foreshore land
or an explanation as to how he arrived at his conclusion. Although it was stated in the records that
Atty. Apuhin conducted an ocular inspection, his only
finding on the basis of this inspection was that the lots had already been
developed as a beach resort. In his
direct testimony, he vaguely stated that the lot is foreshore land as
shown in the cadastral map. We have
examined the said cadastral map of Barangay Nonong Castro, Lemery, Batangas but
we noticed that it does not indicate, in any way, that Lot No. 8617 is foreshore
land. What is obvious in the said map is
that the lot is close to the waters of
We likewise agree with the CA that petitioner
was not able to establish that fraud or misrepresentation attended the
application for free patents. In the same
way that petitioner has the burden of proving that Lot No. 8617 is a foreshore
land, petitioner, as the party alleging that fraud and misrepresentation vitiated
the application for free patents, also bears the burden of proof.[21] Fraud and misrepresentation are never presumed,
but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence; mere preponderance of
evidence is not even adequate.[22]
To show that there was fraud,
petitioner insists that the three lots do not appear in the cadastral map of
Barangay Nonong Castro, which allegedly indicates that they were not
cadastrally surveyed. This is manifestly untrue as the said cadastral map of Lemery
Cadastre, Cad. 511, Case 22, clearly includes and indicates the locations of
Lot Nos. 8617, 9398 and 9675.
Petitioner also cites discrepancies
in the description of Lot No. 9398 in the free patent application and in the
technical description in OCT No. P-1127. If true, such discrepancies would not
necessarily imply that respondents employed fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining
the free patent. After all, there was no proof that the lot referred to in the
free patent application was different from the lot described in OCT No.
P-1127.
Further, petitioner points out that in
the free patent application for Lot No. 8617, respondent Ignacio Leonor did not
indicate the names of his predecessors-in-interest and the date when he began
his possession and cultivation of the lot. Petitioner contends that this was in violation
of Section 91[23] of the Public
Land Act and, as such, resulted in the ipso
facto cancellation of the free patent.
The mere omission of an information from
the patent application, though essential, does not, per se, cause the ipso facto cancellation of the patent. It must be shown that the information withheld
would have resulted in the disapproval of the free patent application had it
been disclosed. The names of the
predecessors-in-interest are obviously required to be indicated in the
application form in order to show that the applicant has complied with the
occupation and cultivation requirement under the law. In this case, petitioner
had no evidence showing that respondents had not complied with the occupation
and cultivation requirement under the law. Considering this, we are
ill-equipped to pronounce the ipso facto
cancellation of free patents.
With regard to Lot No. 9398,
petitioner argues that the names of the predecessors of Ignacio Leonor —
Vicente de Roxas, Moises and Ricardo Peren — listed in the application form for
the free patent are fictitious persons, as their names do not appear in the
List of Claimants. The list also does
not include
Again, we are not convinced. Undoubtedly, the list of claimants is evidence
that the lots enumerated therein were cadastrally surveyed, and that the name
indicated after each lot number was that of the claimant of the lot at the time
of the survey. But despite Atty.
Apuhin’s testimony, the list cannot be given weight particularly with respect
to lots not included therein. In other
words, the list cannot be taken as evidence that lots that were not included in
the list were not cadastrally surveyed or that only the claimants named therein
had rights over that particular lot. This is only reasonable considering that it
is not even known, for sure, when the list was made, how it was prepared, and
how often it was updated.
Atty. Apuhin’s testimony on the
preparation of the list and on there being no other list for other lots in
Barangay Nonong Castro is not worthy of credence. He admitted during trial that he was not privy
to the preparation of the list. Apparently,
he was also not the actual custodian of the list since a certain Florencio V.
Carreon, Chief, Records Unit, certified the copy of the list. Atty. Apuhin’s ignorance on this matter is
made more apparent by the following testimony:
Q-
You were
a privy in the preparation of the list?
A-
I am
not.
Q-
Since
you were not a privy to the preparation of the list[,] you must have inquired
how often was the list prepared[.] The list given to you was the list on the
approved Cadastral Survey?
A-
Case No. 22.
Court:
Q-
The
question of the Court is that, constantly this list is revised because of the
approval of certain claimants in relation to the approved survey?
A-
Yes,
sir.
Q-
As you
inquired, what was the date when this list shown to you alphabetically was
approved?
A-
It was
approved on March 12, 1987.
Q-
Because the alphabetical list is based on
that?
A-
Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q-
Do you
know, based on record when the cadastral survey was implemented, that cadastral
survey which was approved on March 12, 1987?
A-
I did
not see.
Q-
This
list of claimants, they are listed while the cadastral survey is being done?
A-
Yes,
sir.
Q- Based
on the approved survey plan?
A-
Yes,
sir.
Q- It
would appear at the time of the survey?
A- Yes,
sir.
Q- The
survey plan is approved later on?
A- Yes,
sir.
Q- On
your own knowledge based on the investigation, was there any list subsequent to
March 12, 1987 released by the DENR?
A- None,
sir.
Q- But
you look[ed] at this application on your investigation?
A-
Yes,
sir.
Q- And
you affirm that this was the last list of claimants alphabetically done in
relation to [Barangay] Nonong Castro?
A- Yes,
sir.
Fiscal:
Q-
Aside
from this list of claimants, has there been other list of claimants, prior
list?
A- I
have no knowledge[24]
We also do not believe that Moises
and Ricardo Peren and Vicente de Roxas are fictitious persons. From the investigation conducted by Atty.
Apuhin, he learned that Moises Peren executed a Waiver of Real Rights on June
16, 1986 in favor of Ignacio Leonor.[25] It also appears from the records that these
persons were respondents in a case for accion
reivindicatoria and quieting of title filed by Luisa Ilagan.[26]
From the foregoing, the dearth of
petitioner’s evidence is glaring. DENR-Region
IV did not conduct a thorough investigation of the alleged irregularities imputed
to respondents in obtaining the free patents. There was not even a written
report on the investigation submitted to the court. In view of this, we are constrained to sustain
the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court and to deny the
petition.
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the petition is DENIED. The
Court of Appeals Decision dated December 19, 2003
is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, 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
* Additional member per Special Order No. 805 dated December 4, 2009.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola and Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurring; rollo, pp. 35-46.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Prudential Bank v. Lim, G.R. No. 136371, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 485, 491.
[18] TSN, May 2, 1995, pp. 6-8.
[19]
[20] Republic of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, 476 Phil. 693, 701 (2004).
[21] Spouses Morandarte v. Court of Appeals, 479 Phil. 870 (2004).
[22]
[23] Sec.
91 of the Public Land Act provides:
The statements made in the application shall be
considered as essential conditions and parts of any concession, title, or
permit issued on the basis of such application, and any false statement therein
or omission of facts altering, changing, or modifying the considerations of the
facts set forth in such statements, and any subsequent modification,
alteration, or change of the material facts set forth in the application shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of
the concession, title, or permit granted.
[24] TSN, November 24, 1993, pp. 5-6.
[25] TSN, November 18, 1993, p. 14.