HEIRS OF AMBROCIO KIONISALA, NAMELY, ANA, ISABEL, GRACE, JOVEN AND CARMELO, ALL SURNAMED KIONISALA, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF HONORIO DACUT, NAMELY: VISAMINDA D. OREVILLO, VIOLE…

Heirs of Kionisala versus Heirs of Dacut

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the Heirs of Ambrocio Kionisala against the Heirs of Honorio Dacut. The private respondents, the Dacut heirs, sued the Kionisala heirs to have the latter's free patents and certificates of title over two parcels of land declared null and void, or in the alternative, to compel reconveyance of those parcels to them, with damages. The trial court threw the complaint out; the Court of Appeals revived it; and the Kionisala heirs came to the Supreme Court insisting the dismissal was correct. The case matters because it draws the line between an action for reversion, which only the State may bring, and an ordinary civil action for nullity of a patent or for reconveyance, which the private claimant himself may bring — and because it reminds us that the elementary rules of pleading are not to be applied so fastidiously as to bury a genuine claim before trial.

Procedural History

The Dacut heirs filed their complaint for declaration of nullity of titles, reconveyance and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon. The Kionisala heirs answered, raising affirmative defenses, among them that the complaint stated no cause of action, that the claim was barred by prescription and laches, that only the Director of Lands through the Office of the Solicitor General could seek annulment of a free patent, and that the certificate of non-forum shopping did not comply with the required form. After hearing the affirmative defenses, the trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the cause of action was truly one for reversion, which only the Director of Lands could file, and that the certificate of non-forum shopping did not follow the standard form. The Dacut heirs moved for reconsideration; the trial court denied it. They appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the dismissal, ruling that while the allegations might be insufficient for an ordinary action for nullity of title, they were comprehensive enough to constitute a cause of action for reconveyance, and that the certificate of non-forum shopping was in substantial compliance. The Kionisala heirs moved for reconsideration; the appellate court denied it. Hence this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

The Dacut heirs claimed that their father, Honorio Dacut, had acquired two parcels of land in Pongol, Libona, Bukidnon — Lot 1017 with an area of 117,744 square meters and Lot 1015 with an area of 69,974 square meters — from a certain Blasito Yacapin, and that he possessed them openly, adversely and in the concept of owner for more than thirty years, even renting them out to the Philippine Packing Corporation for more than twenty years. On the strength of that inheritance, the Dacut heirs claimed to be the absolute and exclusive owners and actual possessors of both lots.

Meanwhile, free patents were issued over the same lots: Lot 1017 to the Heirs of Ambrocio Kionisala in September 1990, and Lot 1015 to Isabel Kionisala in November 1991. Lot 1017 was registered under the Torrens system in November 1990 under Original Certificate of Title No. P-19819 in the petitioners' name, and Lot 1015 was registered in December 1991 in the name of Isabel Kionisala under Original Certificate of Title No. P-20229.

The Dacut heirs alleged that they discovered the patents and titles only recently, that the Kionisala heirs had fraudulently applied for the patents without their knowledge and consent, that the applicants were not in actual possession and made false statements in their applications, and that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources had no jurisdiction over the lots because these were already private property. In December 1995 they filed their complaint, accompanied by a verification and certificate of non-forum shopping signed by Visaminda Dacut Orevillo, which stated that the allegations were true and correct to her knowledge and that they had not filed any case in any court or body affecting the same subject matter.

Issues

• Whether or not the complaint alleged an action for reversion, which the private respondents would have no right to file, rather than a sufficient cause of action for declaration of nullity of the free patents and certificates of title, or alternatively for reconveyance.
• Whether or not the cause of action, if any, had prescribed.
• Whether or not the certificate of non-forum shopping substantially complied with the standard requirement.

Applicable Provisions

The decision grounds the action for reconveyance on the implied trust provision of the Civil Code, Article 1456, which provides:

If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.

This is the provision that makes the complaint state a cause of action for reconveyance: the Dacut heirs allege that the Kionisala heirs acquired the lots through fraud, and so by force of law hold them in trust for the true owners.

The decision also refers to Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, the Public Land Act, which provides:

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 Commonwealth of the Philippines.

This is the provision that marks off reversion from the ordinary civil action: where the complaint admits State ownership, only the Solicitor General may sue, but where the plaintiff asserts pre-existing private ownership, he is the real party in interest and may sue in his own name.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the complaint does not allege an action for reversion but sufficiently states either a cause of action for declaration of nullity of the free patents and certificates of title, or alternatively one for reconveyance, in either of which the Dacut heirs are the real parties in interest. The test of sufficiency is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer, and only the facts in the complaint are considered. The difference between reversion and nullity lies in the allegations as to ownership: in reversion the complaint admits State ownership, so only the Director of Lands may sue; in an action for nullity of a free patent and certificate of title, the plaintiff must allege his ownership of the lot prior to the issuance of those documents and the defendant's fraud or mistake, and the nullity arises not from the fraud but from the fact that the land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow, so that the patent is void from the beginning. The Court found the complaint's allegations — ownership by inheritance, possession for more than thirty years, fraudulent application, and the assertion that the lands were already private — adequate to oust the State of jurisdiction. The failure to state the exact date ownership accrued was a mere deficiency in detail, remediable not by a motion to dismiss but by a motion for a bill of particulars. On reconveyance, the Court held that the complaint sufficiently pleaded an action based on implied trust, for which only two facts need be alleged: that the plaintiff owned the land, and that the defendant illegally dispossessed him. The Court rejected the petitioners' demand that the complaint allege the absence of an innocent purchaser for value, since that is a matter of defense, and their demand for the documents of title, since those are evidentiary details.

On the second issue, the Court held that neither action had prescribed. A free patent issued over private land is null and void and produces no legal effect whatsoever — as the Court put it, what is null produces no effect. The claim of open, public, peaceful, continuous and adverse possession, with the illegal inclusion of the lots in the patents and titles, also amounts to an action for quieting of title, which is imprescriptible. The action for reconveyance based on implied trust prescribes only after ten years from the registration of the patents and titles in 1990 and 1991, and the complaint was filed in December 1995, well within that period.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the certificate of non-forum shopping, though short of the standard form, showed the intention to comply, and since no related case had been filed elsewhere, it was substantial compliance. The Court ruled so for this case, and warned that to hold otherwise would only further delay a dispute already stalled some seven years by an overly fastidious adherence to technicality.

Doctrine

First, an action for reversion is distinct from an ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of a free patent and certificate of title. In reversion the complaint admits State ownership, and under Section 101 of the Public Land Act only the Solicitor General may institute it. In an action for nullity, the plaintiff alleges ownership of the land prior to the issuance of the patent and the defendant's fraud or mistake; the nullity arises from the land being beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands, and the plaintiff is the real party in interest.

Second, in an action for reconveyance based on implied trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, the patent and certificate of title are respected as incontrovertible; what is sought is the transfer of the property wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name. The complaint need only allege that the plaintiff owned the land and that the defendant illegally dispossessed him. Absence of an innocent purchaser for value is a matter of defense, and the documents of title are evidentiary details.

Third, a free patent issued over private land is null and void and produces no legal effect. An action for reconveyance based on implied trust prescribes in ten years from registration, while an action to quiet title is imprescriptible.

Fourth, a certificate of non-forum shopping that falls short of the standard form may be accepted as substantial compliance where it shows the intention to comply and no related case has been filed elsewhere.

Disposition

The petition for review was denied for lack of merit, and the Decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the order of dismissal was affirmed, with the private respondents allowed to proceed on their causes of action for declaration of nullity of the free patents and certificates of title and for reconveyance based on implied trust, with damages, the trial to commence within thirty days from notice of finality.

Remember This

Memorize the dividing line: if the complaint admits the land is public, it is reversion and only the Solicitor General may sue; if it asserts private ownership before the patent, it is an action for nullity or reconveyance and the private claimant is the real party in interest. Examiners use this case to test the sufficiency of a complaint, the distinction between reversion and reconveyance, prescription of reconveyance based on implied trust, and substantial compliance with the certificate of non-forum shopping.