REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JUAN FABIO, NAMELY: DOMINGA C. FABIO, SOCORRO D. FABIO, LYDIA D. FABIO, ROLANDO D. FABIO, NORMA D. FABIO, NORMA L. FABIO, A…

Republic of the Philippines versus Heirs of Juan Fabio

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Republic of the Philippines against the heirs of Juan Fabio. The heirs applied for registration of title to a large parcel of land in Ternate, Cavite, and both the trial court and the Court of Appeals granted the application. The Republic now asks the Supreme Court to reverse, arguing that the land lies inside the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation and is therefore not open to private ownership. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean lesson on the modes of appeal and on the difference between a question of law and a question of fact. Second, it teaches how a military reservation is read when the proclamations creating it expressly reserve private rights.

Procedural History

The heirs of Juan Fabio, through their attorney-in-fact, filed an application for registration of title with the Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite, Branch 15, under the Land Registration Act as amended by Presidential Decree Number 1529. The trial prosecutor interposed no objection, and the trial court ordered a general default against the public except the government. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment ordering the registration of the land in the name of Juan Fabio. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that the appeal was the wrong remedy, because the lone question was one of law and should have gone to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari. Nevertheless, the appellate court examined the merits and affirmed the trial court in full. The Republic then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

On 21 November 1996, the heirs of Juan Fabio filed an application to register a parcel of land with an approximate area of 1,096,866 square meters, or about 109.6 hectares, situated in Barangay Sapang, Ternate, Cavite. They alleged that they and their predecessors-in-interest had possessed the land openly, continuously, exclusively, and notoriously in the concept of an owner for more than one hundred years. They supported the application with tax declarations running from 1947 to 1994, certifications of tax payments, a survey plan, a technical description, and a letter of the Land Management Inspector stating that the land is alienable and disposable.

At trial, the heirs presented witnesses who testified to long possession. One witness testified that she was born on the land and that her grandfather owned and occupied it until his death in 1959. Another, the youngest living child of Juan Fabio, testified that her father inherited the land from his own father and that no one ever disturbed their possession. A former helper testified that he cultivated the land from 1935 to 1955. A DENR official testified that he recommended approval of the survey plan, and he confirmed that the approved plan carried a notation that the survey falls within the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation and that its disposition shall be subject to the final delimitation of that reservation.

The trial court granted the application and ordered registration in the name of Juan Fabio. The Republic appealed, arguing that the land had been classified as a military reservation and was no longer open to private ownership. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the proclamations creating the reservation recognized private rights. Hence this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Republic correctly appealed the ruling of the trial court to the Court of Appeals, rather than filing a petition for review on certiorari directly with the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not the respondents acquired a registrable right over the land despite its being situated within the Calumpang Point Naval Reservation.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

Section 2. Modes of appeal. -- (a) Ordinary appeal. -- The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner. (b) Petition for review. -- The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42. (c) Appeal by certiorari. -- In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.

This provision fixes the mode of appeal by reference to the nature of the question raised, and it is the test the Court applies to the Republic's appeal.

Section 2 of Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

Section 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by the said court.

This is the provision that should have compelled the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal outright.

Proclamation Number 307, issued on 20 November 1967, provides in its operative clause:

do hereby withdraw from sale or settlement and reserve for military purposes under the administration of the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, subject to private rights, if any there be, a certain parcel of land of the public domain situated in the municipality of Ternate, province of Cavite, Island of Luzon, more particularly described as follows:

The phrase subject to private rights, if any there be, is the clause on which the whole second issue turns.

Proclamation Number 1582-A, issued on 6 September 1976, provides:

The portion that remains after the segregation which are occupied shall be released to bona fide occupants pursuant to existing laws/policies regarding the disposition of lands of the public domain and the unoccupied portions shall be considered as alienable or disposable lands.

This provision confirms that occupied portions within the reservation may be released to bona fide occupants under existing laws.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition has merit. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while a question of fact arises when the doubt concerns the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The Republic's lone assignment of error was that the trial court erred in ruling that the heirs acquired a vested right although the land falls within the naval reservation. The Court found that this assignment raises no doubt about the facts, since it was already established that the land lies within the reservation. The only question was the interpretation of the proclamations, which is a pure question of law. The appeal under Rule 41 was therefore improperly brought to the Court of Appeals, and that court should have dismissed it under Section 2 of Rule 50. Nevertheless, because the Court of Appeals had already passed on the merits, the Court invoked equity considerations and resolved the case on the merits as well, in order to put the matter to rest.

On the second issue, the Court likewise ruled for the heirs. It traced the reservation through three instruments: United States War Department General Order Number 56 of 25 March 1904, Proclamation Number 307 of 20 November 1967, and Proclamation Number 1582-A of 6 September 1976. The Court noted that the later proclamations did not create an absolute reservation. Proclamation Number 307 reserved the land subject to private rights, if any there be, and Proclamation Number 1582-A directed that occupied portions be released to bona fide occupants. The reservation, in other words, carried its own exception, and land covered by private rights was taken out of it. The Court therefore sustained the registration of the land in favor of the heirs.

Doctrine

First, the mode of appeal is determined by the nature of the question raised, not by the label in the notice of appeal. Where only questions of law are raised, the appeal must go to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and an appeal taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41 shall be dismissed under Section 2 of Rule 50.

Second, a question of law exists when the doubt concerns what the law provides on a given set of facts, and it does not require an examination of the probative value of the evidence. A question of fact exists when the doubt concerns the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.

Third, a military reservation created by proclamation that expressly reserves the land subject to private rights, if any there be, does not foreclose private ownership. The reservation respects pre-existing private rights, and occupied portions may be released to bona fide occupants under existing laws. The notation in a survey plan that the land is subject to final delimitation is consistent with, and not contrary to, that recognition of private rights.

Disposition

The petition was denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the registration of the land in the name of Juan Fabio, was upheld.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a reservation made subject to private rights, if any there be, does not bar registration by one who proves private ownership. Examiners use this case to test the modes of appeal under Rule 41, Rule 45, and Rule 50, and to test whether a candidate can spot that a military reservation may itself yield to private rights.