Republic v. Heirs of Alejaga
Republic v. Heirs of Alejaga
Republic v. Heirs of Alejaga
2) 3358 and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. P-15 in the
name of [respondent].
xxx
xxx
reversion should have been brought within one (1) year from the
registration of the patent with the Registry of Deeds.[5]
raises
the
following
issues
for
this
Courts
I
The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the case is already
final and executory as against respondent PNB.
II
The Court of Appeals erred in not considering that petitioner has proven the
allegations to the Complaint.
III
The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the action for
reversion is unavailing.[9]
Simply stated, the issues can be summed up into two: (1) the
efficacy of the grant of the free patent and (2) the indefeasibility of the
Certificate of Title issued in consequence thereof.
This Courts Ruling
The Petition is meritorious.
First Issue:
Efficacy of the Grant
Petitioner argues that it has proven fraud in the issuance of
Respondent Alejagas free patent and Certificate of Title. [10] It also
avers that Respondent PNB has failed to file a timely Notice of Appeal.
On the other hand, the Alejagas contend that they have acquired
a vested right over the parcel of land covered by OCT No. P-15 by
virtue of their proven open, actual, exclusive and undisputed
possession of the land for more than 30 years.[11]
At the outset, we must immediately clarify that the records show
receipt by Respondent PNB of a copy of the Decision on October 27,
not on October 3, 1993 as alleged by petitioner.[12] Further, the bank
filed its Notice of Appeal on November 9, 1993, within the 15-day
reglementary period.
In addition, we must point out that the essential issue raised in
this Petition -- the presence of fraud -- is factual. As a general rule,
this Court does not review factual matters. [13] However, the instant case
[49]
action for the reversion to the public domain of land that has been
fraudulently granted to private individuals.[50] Further, this indefeasibility
cannot be a bar to an investigation by the State as to how the title has
been acquired, if the purpose of the investigation is to determine
whether fraud has in fact been committed in securing the title.[51]
In the case before us, the indefeasibility of a certificate of title
cannot be invoked by the Alejagas, whose forebear obtained the title
by means of fraud.[52] Public policy demands that those who have done
so should not be allowed to benefit from their misdeed. [53] Thus,
prescription and laches will not bar actions filed by the State to recover
its own property acquired through fraud by private individuals. [54] This is
settled law.[55]
Prohibition Against Alienation
or Encumbrance
Assuming arguendo that the Alejagas title was validly issued,
there is another basis for the cancellation of the grant and the
reversion of the land to the public domain. Section 118 of
Commonwealth Act No. 141[56] proscribes the encumbrance of a parcel
of land acquired under a free patent or homestead within five years
from its grant.[57] The prohibition against any alienation or
encumbrance of the land grant is a proviso attached to the approval of
every application.[58]
Further, corporations are expressly forbidden by law to have any
right or title to, or interest in, lands that are granted under free or
homestead patents; or any improvements thereon. They are
forbidden from enjoying such right, title or interest, if they have not
secured the consent of the grantee and the approval of the
secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources;
and if such lands are to be devoted to purposes other than
education, charity, or easement of way.[59]
In the case at bar, Free Patent No. (VI-2) 3358 [60] was approved
and issued on March 14, 1979. Corresponding Original Certificate of
Title No. P-15[61] was issued on the same date. On August 18, 1981, or
two (2) years after the grant of the free patent, Felipe Alejaga
Sr. obtained from Respondent PNB a loan [62] in the amount
of P100,000. Despite the statement on the title certificate itself that the
land granted under the free patent shall be inalienable for five (5) years
from the grant, a real estate mortgage was nonetheless constituted on
the parcel of land covered by OCT No. P-15. [63] In his testimony,
Gabriel D. Aranas Jr., then Cashier III of respondent bank, even
admitted that the PNB was aware of such restriction.
COURT You testified Mr. Aranas that you inspected the
title also when you credit investigated the
loan applicant Felipe Alejaga and you have
personally examined this?
A
COURT
COURT
COURT