REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. VIVENCIO A. BANTUGAN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL T…

Republic versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Secretary of Agriculture, against the Court of Appeals and the private respondents, the Bustria family, over a parcel of fishpond land in Dasol, Pangasinan. The Republic asks the Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court's dismissal of its action to annul a trial court judgment that had declared the Bustrias the absolute owners of the land. The case matters because it settles two things every examinee must know: first, that a person need not have been a party to a judgment in order to sue for its annulment, so long as that judgment adversely affects him; and second, that public land classified as suitable for fishpond development is inalienable, and possession of it, however long, can never ripen into private ownership.

Procedural History

The story begins with a land registration case filed by Matias Bustamante before the then Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The trial court ruled in his favor, but on appeal the Court of Appeals modified the judgment, declaring most of the land, being accretion thrown up by the sea, to be part of the public domain belonging to the Republic. That ruling was affirmed in full by the Supreme Court in a resolution dated February 29, 1968.

Years later, Zenaida Bustria, daughter of Isidro Bustria, sued Porfirio Morado for ownership and possession of the lot before the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan. The Republic was not made a party. Because Morado and his counsel failed to appear at pre-trial and at subsequent hearings, the trial court declared him in default and rendered judgment in favor of Zenaida Bustria, declaring her the exclusive and absolute owner and ordering Morado to pay attorney's fees and costs. Morado's petition for relief from judgment was denied, and a writ of execution issued. The Morado spouses then went up to the Court of Appeals on certiorari, but that petition was denied, as was their motion for reconsideration.

The Republic then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for the annulment of the trial court's decision, invoking the Judiciary Reorganization Act. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that the Republic, not being a party to the case, was not a real party in interest. Hence this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Sometime in 1957, Matias Bustamante applied for registration of a large tract of land in Barangay Malacapas, Dasol, Pangasinan. The Director of Forestry and the Director of Fisheries opposed the application, alleging that most of the land was part of a timber land block converted into fish ponds. Isidro Bustria and Julian Bustria also opposed, claiming they had occupied their respective portions in good faith since 1943 and converted them into fish ponds.

The trial court ruled for Bustamante, but on appeal the Court of Appeals found that a large portion of the land consisted of accretions caused by the sea, and declared that portion to be land of the public domain belonging to the Republic, without prejudice to whatever rights the oppositors Bustria might have acquired. The Supreme Court affirmed this in 1968.

The lot now in dispute forms part of that public domain land, classified and zoned as alienable and disposable land for fishpond development. The Republic, through the Secretary of Agriculture, leased it to Porfirio Morado for twenty-five years under a Fishpond Lease Agreement. Zenaida Bustria then sued Morado for ownership and possession, and because Morado was declared in default, the trial court declared her the absolute owner. The Republic, never a party to that suit, sought to annul the judgment.

Issues

• Whether or not the Republic, though not a party to the action in which the judgment was rendered, has the personality to bring an action for the annulment of that judgment.
• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to declare the land in question to belong to the private respondents, given that it is part of the public domain classified as suitable for fishpond development.

Applicable Provisions

Section 48, paragraph b, of the Public Land Law, Commonwealth Act Number 141, provides:

Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure, shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.

This provision is the basis of the private respondents' claim, but it applies only to agricultural lands of the public domain, not to lands declared suitable for fishpond development.

Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 704 provides:

The Bureau shall have jurisdiction and responsibility in the management, conservation, development, protection, utilization and disposition of all fishery and aquatic resources of the country except municipal waters which shall be under the municipal or city government concerned.

This provision vests in the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources the exclusive authority to dispose of lands declared suitable for fishpond purposes, which the trial court disregarded.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of the Republic. The Court held that the appellate court erred in ruling that the Republic lacked personality. Citing its earlier ruling in Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines versus Court of Appeals, the Court held that a person need not be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled. What is essential is that he can prove his allegation that the judgment was obtained by fraud and collusion and that he would be adversely affected thereby. The Court stressed that the State clearly stands to be adversely affected by the trial court's disposition of inalienable public land.

On the second issue, the Court again ruled in favor of the Republic. The land was classified as public land suitable for fishpond development. In controversies involving the disposition of public land, the burden of overcoming the presumption of state ownership lies upon the private claimant, and the private respondents did not discharge that burden. The Court held that the fact that the land was transformed into a fully developed fishpond did not mean it lost its character as land declared suitable for fishpond purposes. By applying for a fishpond permit with the Bureau, Isidro Bustria admitted the character of the land, and his successors are estopped from claiming otherwise.

The Court distinguished agricultural land from fishery land, holding that only public lands classified as agricultural are alienable, while lands declared for fishery purposes are not alienable, and their possession, no matter how long continued, cannot ripen into ownership. Since disposition of such lands falls within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, the trial court's decision was null and void for having disposed of inalienable public land.

Doctrine

Two rules must be retained. First, a party claiming ownership of land which is the subject of a judgment has sufficient interest to bring an action for annulment of that judgment even though he was not a party to the proceedings, provided he can prove that the judgment was obtained through fraud and collusion and that he would be adversely affected. Second, public land classified as suitable for fishpond development is inalienable and is outside the jurisdiction of the courts to adjudicate as private property; possession of such land, however long, cannot ripen into ownership, and only agricultural public land may be acquired under Section 48, paragraph b, of the Public Land Law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and declared the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan null and void.

Remember This

Memorize this line: possession of public land declared suitable for fishpond purposes, no matter how long continued, cannot ripen into ownership. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between alienable agricultural public land and inalienable fishery land, and to test the rule that a non-party adversely affected by a judgment may sue to annul it.