SPOUSES GEMINIANO AND AMPARO DE OCAMPO AND SPOUSES PEDRO AND CRISANTA SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. FEDERICO ARLOS, MARY ARLOS, TEOFILO OJERIO AND BELLA OJERIO, RESPONDENTS.

Under the Public Land Act as amended, only titles to alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain may be judicially confirmed. Unless a
public land is reclassified and declared as such, occupation thereof in the
concept of owner, no matter how long ago, cannot confer ownership or possessory
rights. A suit for the reversion of such property to the State may be instituted
only by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the August
28, 1998 Decision^[1] of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 52048, the decretal portion of which reads as
follows:^[2]

“ACCORDINGLY, for want of merit, the appeal is DENIED and the
challenged Decision dated 26 November 1993 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
2, Balanga, Bataan, is AFFIRMED. No costs.”

The affirmed Decision^[3] of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled on the following: (1) Land Registration Case
No. N-340, filed in 1977 for confirmation of respondent’s title to three parcels
of land; and (2) Civil Case No. 4739, filed in 1981 for cancellation of
petitioners’ Sales Patents and Transfer Certificates of Title covering two of
the said lots. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:^[4]

“ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered: I. In Civil Case No. 4739 –

1. Ordering the cancellation of Sales Patent Nos. 5387 and 5388 as well as
   Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-43298 and T-44205 in the names of [herein
   petitioner-]spouses Geminiano de Ocampo and Amparo de Ocampo and x x x Pedro
   Santos and Crisanta Santos.
2. Taking judicial cognizance of the decision in Civil Case No. 3769, which
   ordered the cancellation of Free Patent Nos. 522697 and 502977 as well as
   Original Certificate of Title Nos. 296 and 297, which decision has already
   become final and executory;
3. Ordering [Petitioners] Geminiano de Ocampo and Amparo de Ocampo and x x x
   Pedro Santos and Crisanta Santos to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs
   attorney’s fees in the sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and the costs of
   suit.

II. In Land Registration Case No. N-340 –

1. Confirming [herein respondents’] title [to] the land subject of registration
   and ordering the registration thereof in the names of [Respondent] Teofilo D.
   Ojerio, of legal age, Filipino, married to Bella V. Ojerio and a resident of
   Cabcaben, Mariveles, Bataan – ½ share; and Cecilia P. Arlos, Jose P. Arlos,
   Gloria P. Arlos, Luisito P. Arlos, all of legal age, Filipinos, single and
   residents of 500-A, Fifth Avenue corner Baltazar Street, Grace Park, Caloocan
   City, Metro Manila, and Alberto U. Arlos, minor, Filipino, and a resident of
   500-A, Fifth Avenue corner Baltazar Street, Grace Park, Caloocan City, Metro
   Manila – ½ share; and
2. As soon as this decision becomes final and executory, let an order for the
   issuance of the corresponding decrees be issued.

SO ORDERED.”

The Facts

The undisputed facts are quoted by the CA from the RTC judgment, as
follows:^[5]

“On 14 April 1977, Federico S. Arlos and Teofilo D. Ojerio filed an
application for registration, docketed as Land Registration Case No. N-340,
wherein they seek judicial confirmation of their titles [to] three parcels of
land, namely: (1) a parcel of land covered by SGS 4140 [PLAN] with an area of
226,105 square meters; (2) a parcel of land identified as Lot 1, SGS 41241
[PLAN] with an area of 111,333 square meters; and (3) a parcel of land
identified as Lot 2, SGS 4141 [PLAN] with an area of 63,811 square meters, all
located at Cabcaben, Mariveles, Bataan, and having a total area of 401,159
square meters or 40.1159 hectares.

“Spouses Geminiano de Ocampo and Amparo De Ocampo and spouses Pedro Santos
and Crisanta Santos opposed the application for registration, alleging that they
are the co-owners of Lots 1 and 2 of Plan SGS 3062, situated at Cabcaben,
Mariveles, Bataan, and their ownership is evidenced by Transfer Certificate of
Title Nos. T-43298 and T-44205, and that they became owners of said lots by
purchase from the government through sales patents.

“The Republic of the Philippines also opposed the application, contending
that neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interests have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the lands
in question for at least 30 years immediately preceding the filing of the
application; and that the parcels of land applied for are portions of the public
domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines not subject to private
appropriation.

“Spouses Placido Manalo and Rufina Enriquez and spouses Armando Manalo and
Jovita Baron also opposed the application for registration.

“Almost four years after the filing of the land registration case or, to be
exact, on 20 February 1981, applicant Arlos and his spouse, Mary Alcantara
Arlos, and applicant Ojerio and his spouse Bella V. Ojerio, filed Civil Case No.
4739, seeking to cancel; (1) the free patent title of defendants-spouses Placido
Manalo and Rufina Enriquez, that is, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
296-Bataan, covering Lot, 1, Plan F-(III-4) 508-D with an area of 155,772 square
meters, and Lot 2, same plan, containing an area of 43,089 square meters, or a
total area of 198,861 square meters or 19.8861 hectares; (2) the free patent
title of defendants Armando Manalo and Jovito Baron, that is, OCT No.
297-Bataan, covering Lot, 1, F-(III-4) 510-D with an area of 72,065 square
meters or 7.2065 hectares; and (3) the sales patent title of defendants-spouses
Geminiano de Ocampo and Amparo de Ocampo and defendants-spouses Pedro Santos and
Crisanta Santos, that is, Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-44205-Bataan with
an area of 225,011 square meters or 22.5011 hectares, and T-43298-Bataan with an
area of 111,333 square meters or 11.1333 hectares.

“In the Order dated 31 July 1991 of the RTC, Branch 1, Balanga, Bataan, Civil
Case No. 4739 which was then assigned to said Branch was ordered consolidated
with the land registration cases assigned to Branch 2.

“Of relevance to this case on appeal is the Decision of the Supreme Court
dated 26 April 1989 in G.R. 64753 involving Civil Case No. 3769 entitled
`Spouses de Ocampo et al. v. Manalo, et al.’ which annulled the free
patent titles of the spouses Manalo and declared as valid the sales patent title
issued in favor of the spouses De Ocampo and spouses Santos involving the same
properties subject of this appeal.”

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Affirming the factual findings of the trial court, the CA ruled that
petitioners had failed to comply with the Public Land Act, which required sales
patent applicants to be the actual occupants and cultivators of the land. It
held that the testimonies of petitioners, which were “incongruous with reality,”
bolstered the “finding that [they had] never occupied, cultivated or made
improvements on the property.” It explained:

“On the basis of its own findings, the trial court, after evaluating the
evidence presented, concluded that [herein respondents] and their
predecessors-in-interest were in actual possession of the subject lands in 1947
and continuously up to the present. In contrast, the checkered testimonies of
[petitioners] reveal that they have never been in possession of the lands. And
because of the absence of the actual occupancy on their part, the sales patents
and titles issued in their favor are null and void citing therein the ruling in
Republic v. Mina (114 SCRA 946) that `the alleged misrepresentation of
the applicant that he had been occupying and cultivating the land are sufficient
grounds to nullify the patent and title under Section 9 of the Public Land
Laws.’

“On this particular note, we find no reason to disturb the factual findings
of the trial court. x x x.”^[6]

Debunking petitioners’ reliance on Manalo v. IAC and de Ocampo,^[7] the CA ratiocinated as follows:

“[Herein respondents] do not challenge the Decision of the High Court dated
26 April 1989 in GR No. 64753 which annulled the free patent titles of
defendants-appellants Manalos and granted the issuance of sales patent titles of
[Petitioners] De Ocampos and Santoses.

“What is being disputed is that the issuance of the sales patents of the
subject property in favor of the Santoses and the De Ocampos was allegedly
tainted by fraud and misrepresentation on their part by misrepresenting
themselves to be actual occupants of the subject properties when in fact the
subject properties were being actually occupied by the [respondents] since 1947
way back when the land still formed part of the military reservation and further
on when it was declared to be public agricultural land. x x x.”^[8]

Hence, this Petition.^[9]

The Issues

In their Memorandum, petitioners submit the following issues for our
consideration:^[10]

“I

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error in disregarding the
Decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 64753 entitled, `Placido Manalo, et
al. vs. Spouses Geminiano de Ocampo and Amparo de Ocampo, et al.,’ wherein the
validity and legality of petitioners’ TCT No. T-44205 and TCT No. T-43298
[pertaining to] the land in dispute were upheld.

“II

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error in ordering the
cancellation of petitioners’ Sales Patent as well as TCT Nos. T-43298 and
T-44205 considering that private respondents are not the proper party to
institute the action for annulment of petitioners’ titles [to] the lots.

“III

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error in ruling that
petitioners committed an act of misrepresentation in their Application for Sales
Patent.

“IV

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error in ordering
petitioners to pay private respondents the amount of P50,000.00 representing
attorney’s fees.” In short, petitioners ask this Court to determine the
propriety of (1) the registration of respondents’ title under the Public Land
Act and (2) the cancellation of petitioners’ Sales Patents and Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCTs).

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition is meritorious.

First Issue:
Registration of Respondents’
Title

Respondents’ application for registration of title to the three parcels of
land that were once part of the public domain is governed by the Public Land
Act,^[11] the pertinent portion of which
reads:

“SEC. 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying
lands of the public domain or claiming to own such lands or an interest therein,
but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of
First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of
their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land
Registration Act, to wit:

x x x

x x x

x x x

(b) 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 or 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. These 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.

“x x x

x x x

x x x”

Respondents claim that they purchased the subject lots in 1967 from Bernardo
and Arsenio Obdin,^[12] who in turn had
been in possession of the property since 1947. Hence, when the former filed
their application for registration in 1977, they and their
predecessors-in-interest had been occupying and cultivating, in the concept of
owners, the said parcels of land for at least 30 years, as required by the
Public Land Act.

We are not convinced. First, a title may be judicially confirmed under
Section 48 of the Public Land Act only if it pertains to alienable lands
of the public domain.^[13] Unless such
assets are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable, occupation
thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership
and be registered as a title. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 1073^[14] clarified Section 48 (b) of the Public
Land Act by specifically declaring that the latter applied only to alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain.^[15]

In the present case, the disputed land which was formerly a part of a US
military reservation that had been turned over to the Philippine government in
1965, was declared disposable and alienable only in 1971. In Manalo v. IAC
and de Ocampo,^[16] a suit involving
the same parcel of land and instituted by herein petitioners against
other claimants, the Court held:

“As correctly pointed out by the appellate court in its questioned
decision:

`x x x. It is not correct to say that when the U.S. Military Reservation in
Bataan, of which the land in question forms part, was turned over to the
Philippine government, the same automatically became a disposable land of the
public domain. The ownership and control over said reservation was transferred
to the Philippine government, but its nature as a military reservation remained
unchanged. Said parcels of land became a disposable land of public domain
only on May 19, 1971, per certification of the Bureau of Forestry (Project No.
4-A, C-C. Map No 26-40). Its disposition only by sale was duly authorized
pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 274. If the land in question
became immediately disposable upon its turn over to the Philippine government in
1965, then why, it may be asked, was it certified disposable only in 1971.
This Court is of the conclusion that this land above referred to continued to
be a military reservation land while in the custody of the Philippine government
until it was certified alienable in 1971.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Second, respondents and their predecessors-in-interest could not have
occupied the subject property from 1947 until 1971 when the land was declared
alienable and disposable, because it was a military reservation at the time.
Hence, it was not subject to occupation, entry or settlement. This is clear from
Sections 83 and 88 of the Public Land Act, which provide as follows:

“SEC. 83. Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce, the President may designate by proclamation any tract or tracts of
land of the public domain as reservations for the use of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines or of any of its branches, or of the inhabitants thereof, in
accordance with regulations prescribed for this purpose, or for quasi-public
uses or purposes when the public interest requires it, including reservations
for highways, rights of way for railroads, hydraulic power sites, irrigation
systems, communal pastures or leguas comunales, public parks, public
quarries, public fishponds, working-men’s village and other improvements for the
public benefit.

SEC. 88. The tract or tracts of land reserved under the provisions of section
eighty-three shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to occupation,
entry, sale, lease, or other disposition until again declared under the
provision of this Act or by proclamation of the President.” (Emphasis
supplied.)

Verily, in Manalo, the Court debunked therein petitioners’ similar
argument that they had been occupying the property since 1944. It ruled in this
wise:

“The big tract of land in Mariveles, Bataan to which the parcels of land
involved in the case belong was formerly a portion of the US Military
Reservation in Mariveles, Bataan which was turned over to the Philippine
Government only on December 22, 1965 (Republic of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals et al., No. L-39473, April 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 648). Under the situation,
the Court seriously doubts whether Placido Mapa and their
predecessors-in-interest could have been in possession of the land since 1944 as
they claimed:

`Lands covered by reservation are not subject to entry, and no lawful
settlement on them can be acquired (Republic of the Philippines v. Hon. Court of
Appeals, et al., No. 14912, September 30, 1976, 73 SCRA 146).'”

We reiterate that the land was declared alienable only in 1971; hence,
respondents have not satisfied the thirty-year requirement under the Public Land
Act. Moreover, they could not have occupied the property for thirty years,
because it formed part of a military reservation. Clearly then, their
application for the registration of their titles was erroneously granted by the
appellate and the trial courts.

Second Issue:
Cancellation of Petitioners’
Titles

Petitioners claim that their titles can no longer be challenged, because “it
is a rule that the Torrens Title issued on the basis of a free patent becomes
indefeasible as one which was judicially secured upon registration upon
expiration of one year from date of issuance of patent.”^[17]

Petitioners further contend that the action for the cancellation of their
Sales Patents and TCTs should have been initiated by the solicitor general, not
by herein respondents, pursuant to Section 101 of the Public Land Act, which we
quote:

“SEC. 101. All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the
public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor
General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of
the Republic of the Philippines.”

Respondents argue, however, that the present proceedings are not for
reversion, but for reconveyance. Hence, they have the personality to file the
present suit.

We are not persuaded by respondents’ argument. In an action for reconveyance,
“the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible. What is sought
instead is the transfer of the property, in this case the title thereof, which
has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person’s name, to its
rightful owner or to one with a better right. That is what reconveyance is all
about.”^[18]

Reconveyance, however, is not available to respondents, because they have not
shown a title better than that of petitioners. As earlier shown, the former have
not proven any title that may be judicially confirmed.

Moreover, respondents’ invocation of Heirs of Nagano v. CA^[19] must be rejected. In that case,
the Court noted that the allegations in the Complaint, which were deemed
admitted for the purpose of resolving the Motion to Dismiss, were “an assertion
that the lot is private land, or that even assuming it was part of the public
domain, private respondents had already acquired imperfect title thereto under
Section 48 (b) of CA No. 141 x x x.” Hence, the Court ruled that respondents,
not the OSG, were the proper parties to file the suit.

In the present case, we reiterate that respondents failed to show entitlement
to the land. They have not established that they are the rightful owners of the
property; or at least, that they, not petitioners, have a better right
thereto.

Respondents vigorously contend that the Sales Patents were fraudulently
obtained by petitioners, who have allegedly failed to prove the requisite actual
occupation of the land in question. The former cite several portions of the
transcript of stenographic notes, showing that the latter have not actually
occupied or cultivated the property.

The Court, however, finds that a ruling on the veracity of these factual
averments would be improper in this Decision. If petitioners’ Sales Patents and
TCTs were in fact fraudulently obtained, the suit to recover the disputed
property should be filed by the State through the Office of the Solicitor
General. Since petitioners’ titles originated from a grant by the government,
their cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee.^[20] At the risk of being repetitive, we
stress that respondents have no personality to “recover” the property, because
they have not shown that they are the rightful owners thereof.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the
assailed Decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court are
REVERSED. No pronouncement as to costs.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Solicitor General
for a possible review, in its sound discretion, of the issuance of the Sales
Patents and Certificates of Titles in the name of herein petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, and Purisima, JJ., concur.

Gonzaga-Reyes, J., no part.

---

^[1] Penned by Justice Omar U. Amin, with
the concurrence of Justices Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes (Division chairman and now
an associate justice of the Supreme Court) and Hector L. Hofileña (member).

^[2] CA Decision, p. 11; rollo,
p. 58.

^[3] Written by Judge Vivencio S.
Baclig.

^[4] RTC Decision, pp. 6-7;
rollo, pp. 192-193.

^[5] CA Decision, pp. 3-4;
rollo, pp. 50-51.

^[6] CA Decision, p. 9; rollo,
p. 56.

^[7] Infra.

^[8] CA Decision, p. 6; rollo,
p. 53.

^[9] The case was deemed submitted for
resolution on August 17, 1999, upon receipt by this Court of petitioners’
Memorandum, signed by Attys. Benito F. Ambrosio and Saklolo A. Leaño. Filed
earlier was respondents’ Memorandum signed by Atty. Paul P. Sagayo Jr.

^[10] Petitioners’ Memorandum, pp.
8-10; rollo, pp. 236-238. Original in upper case.

^[11] Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended.

^[12] Bilihang Tuluyan, dated
September 8, 1967; Records (LRC No. 340), p. 12.

^[13] See Republic v. Damian
Ermitaño de Guzman et al., GR No. 137887, February 28, 2000; Yturalde v.
Falcasantos, 301 SCRA 293, January 20, 1999; Director of Lands vs.
Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 708, October 26, 1989; Atok Big Wedge v.
CA, 193 SCRA 71, January 18, 1991. See also Vitug, Compendium of Civil
Law and Jurisprudence, 1993 ed., p. 460.

^[14] Promulgated on January 25, 1977.

^[15] §4 thereof reads as follows:
“SEC. 4. The provisions of Section 48 (b) and Section 48 (c), Chapter VIII, of
the Public Land Act, are hereby amended in the sense that these provisions shall
apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain which have
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by
the applicant himself or thru his predecessor-in-interest, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945.”

^[16] 172 SCRA 795, April 26, 1989, per
Gutierrez, J.

^[17] Petitioners’ Memorandum, pp.
15-16; rollo, pp. 243-244.

^[18] Amerol v. Bagumbaran,
154 SCRA 396, September 30, 1987, per Sarmiento, J.; Esquivias v.
CA, May 29, 1997; De la Cruz v. CA, 286 SCRA 230, February 11,
1998; David v. Malay, GR No. 132644, November 19, 1999; Manangan v.
De los Reyes, GR No. 115794, June 10, 1999.

^[19] 282 SCRA 43, November 17, 1997,
per Davide, J. (now CJ).

^[20] Tankiko v. Cesar, GR No.
131277, February 2, 1999; Ingaran v. Ramelo, 107 Phil. 498, March 30,
1960.