REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. AUGUSTO MINA AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BULACAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Republic versus Mina

The Case

This is the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, against Augusto Mina and the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. The Republic sues to declare null and void a free patent and the original certificate of title issued in Mina's name, to compel the surrender and cancellation of that title, and to decree the reversion of the land to the mass of the public domain. The case matters because it fixes the rule that a certificate of title founded on fraud in a public land application is never shielded by the one year period for reopening a decree, and that prescription does not run against the State when it sues to recover public land.

Procedural History

The Republic filed the complaint in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch Three, sitting in Valenzuela. Mina moved to dismiss on the ground that the action for reversion was barred by the statute of limitation, the patent having been issued in February 1970 while the complaint was filed only in October 1975, and on the further ground that he had already sold the property to the spouses Narciso del Rosario and Teresita Zuñiga. The trial court granted the motion in an order dated December 29, 1977, holding that Mina's title had become incontrovertible and indefeasible after the one year period. In the same order it declared the motion to amend the complaint to include the buyers unnecessary to resolve, and it granted the motion to cancel the notice of lis pendens. The Republic brought the matter to the Supreme Court by petition to review the trial court's order.

Facts

On July 7, 1967, Augusto Mina filed Free Patent Application Number (III-1) 4471-A with the Bureau of Lands for Lot Number 3745, Cadastre 337, situated in Meycauayan, Bulacan, with an area of two hectares, sixty-nine ares and forty-seven centares. In that application he affirmed that he and his alleged predecessor-in-interest had been in continuous possession and had cultivated the land since 1943, up to the filing of the application in 1967. Relying on the information and affirmations supplied by Mina, and after routine field investigation and processing, the Director of Lands approved the application on August 14, 1969, and Free Patent Number 467702 was issued to Mina on February 6, 1970. The patent was transmitted to the Register of Deeds, who registered it under Section 122 of the Land Registration Act and issued Original Certificate of Title Number P-1382 in Mina's name.

On December 16, 1972, Montano F. Esguerra, Junior, filed a petition with the Bureau of Lands assailing the validity of the patent, claiming that Mina had obtained it by fraud and misrepresentation. An investigation followed, and it revealed that neither Mina nor his predecessor-in-interest had ever occupied or worked the land. On April 2, 1973, the Director of Lands issued an order directing that court action be initiated to cancel the patent and the certificate of title and to revert the land to the State.

Mina moved for reconsideration and asked for a reinvestigation. Before that investigation could begin, he executed an affidavit dated October 10, 1974, manifesting that he was no longer interested in pursuing his claim over the land and that he was willing to surrender Free Patent Number 467702. In the meantime, on February 11, 1976, the property was sold to the spouses Narciso del Rosario and Teresita Zuñiga.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the one year period to reopen the decree had lapsed and the title had become indefeasible.
• Whether or not the action for reversion in favor of the State is barred by prescription.
• Whether or not the trial court should have allowed the amendment of the complaint to include the buyers and the intervention of Serafin R. Santos, and heard the case on the merits.

Applicable Provisions

Section 91 of the Public Land Law provides:

That statements made in the application shall be considered as essential conditions or parts of any concession, title or permit issued on the basis of such application, and any false statement thereon or omission of facts, changing or modifying the consideration of the facts set forth in such statement, 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.

This provision makes the applicant's affirmations essential conditions of the patent, so that a false statement that Mina had occupied and cultivated the land since 1943 works the cancellation of the patent itself.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court erred. The allegations that neither Mina nor his predecessor-in-interest had ever occupied or worked the property, and that the application had been fraudulently obtained, are indicative of fraud and, if proven, would override the dismissal entered without hearing. The alleged misrepresentation that the applicant had been occupying and cultivating the land is a sufficient ground to nullify the patent and the title under Section 91 of the Public Land Law. A certificate of title that is void may be ordered cancelled, and a title is void if procured through fraud, as when a person applies for registration on the claim that he has been occupying and cultivating the land. For disposable public lands, failure of the grantee to comply with the conditions imposed by law is a ground for holding the title void. The lapse of the one year period within which a decree of title may be reopened for fraud does not prevent cancellation, for to hold that a title may become indefeasible by registration even if secured through fraud or in violation of law would be the height of absurdity. Registration should not be a shield of fraud in securing title. A title founded on fraud may be cancelled, notwithstanding the lapse of one year from its issuance, through a petition filed in court by the Solicitor General.

On the second issue, the Court held that the right of reversion or reconveyance to the State is not barred by prescription. The complaint was brought by the Republic not as a nominal party but in the exercise of its sovereign functions, to protect the interests of the State over public property. Prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, does not run against the State, and the statute of limitations does not run against the right of action of the Government of the Philippines.

On the third issue, the Court set aside the order and directed the trial court to grant the motion to admit the amended complaint including the spouses del Rosario and Zuñiga, to grant the motion for leave to intervene filed by Serafin R. Santos, and thereafter to hear the case on the merits.

Doctrine

A certificate of title procured through fraud in a free patent application is void and may be cancelled even after the one year period to reopen the decree has lapsed, because registration must never become a shield of fraud. Under Section 91 of the Public Land Law, the statements in the application are essential conditions of the patent, and any false statement therein ipso facto produces the cancellation of the title granted. Finally, prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, does not run against the State, so the action for reversion of public land in favor of the Republic is imprescriptible.

Disposition

The Republic won. The Court annulled and set aside the order of dismissal and the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, and ordered the trial court to admit the amended complaint, allow the intervention, and hear the case on the merits.

Remember This

Memorize the line that registration should not be a shield of fraud in securing title, and that prescription does not run against the State. Examiners use this case on the indefeasibility of torrens titles obtained through fraud in public land patents, and on the imprescriptibility of the State's action for reversion.