Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agne vs. Director of Lands
Agne vs. Director of Lands
60388-
SUPREME COURT R, entitled "Presentacion Agpoon Gascon vs. Marcelino
Manila C. Agne et al.," promulgated on January 30, 1985,
SECOND DIVISION affirming in toto the decision of the trial court in favor
of herein private respondents 2 which cases are
G.R. No. L-40399 February 6, 1990 docketed herein as G.R. No. L-40399 and G.R. No.
MARCELINO C. AGNE, FELIX ORIANE, AGATON 72255, respectively.
TAGANAS, HILARIO ESCORPIZO, ISABELO MAURICIO,
HEIRS OF ROMAN DAMASO, NAMELY: JORGE DAMASO These two petitions, arising from the same facts and
and ALEJANDRO DAMASO, HEIRS OF FRANCISCO involving the same parties and common questions of
RAMOS, NAMELY: ENCARNACION R. LEANO and law, were ordered consolidated in our resolution of
DOMINGA R. MEDRANO, HEIRS OF SABINA GELACIO August 9, 1989.
AGAPITO, NAMELY: SERAPIO AGAPITO, and NICOLASA
AGAPITO, FELISA DICCION AGNE, ESTANISLAO As found by respondent court and disclosed by the
GOROSPE, LIBRADO BADUA, NICOLAS VILLANUEVA, records, the land subject matter of this case was
HEIRS OF CARLOS PALADO, NAMELY: FORTUNATA originally covered by Free Patent No. 23263 issued on
PALADO and ISABELITA PALADO, PRIMITIVO April 17, 1937 in the name of Herminigildo Agpoon. On
TAGANAS, PANFILO SOINGCO, BERNARDO PALATTAO, May 21, 1937, pursuant to the said patent, the Register
MARCELINO S. SANTOS and PAULINO D. AGNE JR. of Deeds of Pangasinan issued to said Herminigildo
(Minor), represented by his mother FELISA DICCION Agpoon Original Certificate of Title No.
AGNE, petitioners, 2370. 3 Presentacion Agpoon Gascon inherited the said
vs. parcel of land upon the death of her father,
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PRESENTACION AGPOON Herminigildo, and was issued Transfer Certificate of
GASCON, JOAQUIN GASCON and HON. ROSALIO C. Title No. 32209 on April 6,1960. Respondent
SEGUNDO, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Presentacion declared the said land for taxation
Pangasinan, Branch V, respondents. purposes in her name under Tax Declaration No. 11506
G.R. No. L-72255 February 6,1990 and taxes were paid thereon in her name. 4
MARCELINO C. AGNE, FELIX ORIANE, AGATON
TAGANAS (deceased), represented by FLORENTINO C. On April 13, 1971, private respondent spouses filed Civil
TAGANAS, FELISA DICCION AGNE, HILARIO ESCORPIZO, Case No. U-2286 in the then Court of First Instance of
NICOLAS VILLANUEVA, ISABELO MAURICIO, Pangasinan for recovery of possession and damages
ESTANISLAO GOROSPE (deceased), represented by against petitioners. Their complaint states that they are
ELIZABETH G. BADUA and SILVINA G. VALERIO, the registered owners under the aforesaid Transfer
LIBRADO BADUA, JOSE ALSISTO, SERAPIO AGAPITO, Certificate of Title No. 32209 of the parcel of land
NICOLASA AGAPITO, JORGE DAMASO, ALEJANDRO situated in Barrio Bantog, Asingan, Pangasinan which is
DAMASO, ENCARNACION RAMOS, DOMINGA RAMOS now in the possession of petitioners; that during the
and CARLOS PALADO, petitioners, Japanese occupation, petitioners, taking advantage of
vs. the abnormal conditions then obtaining, took
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, possession of said land by means of fraud, stealth,
PRESENTACION AGPOON GASCON and JOAQUIN strategy and intimidation; that private respondents
GASCON, respondents. repeatedly demanded the surrender of the physical
Espiritu Taganas for petitioners. possession of said property but the latter refused. 5
Adriatico T. Bruno for private respondents.
Petitioners, in answer to said complaint, alleged that
REGALADO, J.: the land in question was formerly a part of the river bed
Before us are two separate petitions for review of the Agno-Chico River; that in the year 1920, a big
on certiorari of the order of the defunct Court of First flood occurred which caused the said river to change its
Instance of Pangasinan, Branch V, in Civil Case No. 2649, course and abandon its original bed; that by virtue of
entitled "Marcelino Agne et al. vs. The Director of the provisions of Article 370 of the Spanish Civil Code
Lands, et al.," dismissing the complaint filed by herein which was then the law in force, petitioners, by
petitioners in said case; 1 and the decision of the then operation of law, became the owners by accession or
1
accretion of the respective aliquot parts of said river with the former Court of First Instance of Pangasinan
bed bordering their properties; that since 1920, they for annulment of title, reconveyance of and/or action to
and their predecessors in interest occupied and clear title to a parcel of land, which action was docketed
exercised dominion openly and adversely over said as Civil Case No. U-2649. Petitioners alleged in their said
portion of the abandoned river bed in question abutting complaint that the land in question, which was formerly
their respective riparian lands continuously up to the a portion of the bed of Agno-Chico river which was
present to the exclusion of all other persons, abandoned as a result of the big flood in 1920, belongs
particularly Herminigildo Agpoon; that they have to them pursuant to the provision of Article 370 of the
introduced improvements thereon by constructing old Civil Code; that it was only on April 13, 1971, when
irrigation canals and planting trees and agricultural respondent spouses filed a complaint against them, that
crops thereon 6 and converted the land into a they found out that the said land was granted by the
productive area. Government to Herminigildo Agpoon under Free Patent
No. 23263, pursuant to which Original Certificate of
In their joint stipulation of facts, the parties agreed as Title No. 2370 was issued in the latter's name; and that
follows: the said patent and subsequent titles issued pursuant
1. That the parties admit the identity and area of the thereto are null and void since the said land, an
land in question, which forms part of the river bed of abandoned river bed, is of private ownership and,
the Agno-Chico River, and further admit that the said therefore, cannot be the subject of a public land grant. 8
river bed was abandoned as a result of a flood in 1920
and opened a new bed. The location and course of the On June 21, 1974, the trial court rendered a decision in
aforesaid abandoned river bed as well as the relative Civil Case No. U-2286, the dispositive part of which
position of the lands bordering the same can be gleaned reads as follows:
from Cadastral Survey Plan of Asingan, Pangasinan, WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the
Street No. 49 thereof, as approved by the Director of Court renders judgment:
Lands on October 12, 1912, a photostat copy of which is 1. Ordering the defendants to surrender to the plaintiffs
hereto attached and made an integral part hereof a the physical possession of the land in question
Annex "A". described in paragraph 3 of the amended complaint;
2. That the parties admit that the defendants are the 2. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally
riparian owners of the area in question and further to the plaintiff the produce of the land in question in
admit that the defendants are in possession thereof but the total sum of P5,000.00 per year from the date of the
that each of them is in possession only of an aliquot filing of the present action at the rate of 6% interest per
part of the said area proportionate to the length of their annum until fully paid;
respective lands. (As amended). 3. Ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally
3. That the parties likewise admit that a Free Patent No. the amount of P800.00 representing attorney's fees;
23263 in the name of Herminigildo Agpoon covering the 4. And to pay the costs.
area in question was issued on April 17, 1937 and that SO ORDERED. 9
they admit O.C.T. No. 2370 of the Register of Deeds of
Pangasinan covering the same parcel of land was issued Not satisfied with said decision, petitioners appealed to
to the same Herminigildo Agpoon on May 21, 1937, a respondent court. As earlier stated, on January 30, 1985
photostat copy of said O.C.T. is hereto attached as the former Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed in
Annex "B". toto in AC-G.R. CV No. 60388-R the said decision of the
4. That the parties admit that the property in court a quo, 10 and with the denial of petitioner's motion
controversy is now covered by T.C.T. No. 32209 in the for reconsideration, 11 the case came up to us as G.R. No.
name of Presentacion Agpoon Gascon and by Tax 72255.
Declaration No. 11506 in the name of said Presentacion
Agpoon Gascon, a photostat reproduction of said T.C.T. On June 24, 1974, the aforesaid Court of First Instance
No. and Tax Declaration are hereto attached and of Pangasinan, acting on the motion to dismiss filed by
marked as Annexes "C" and "F", respectively. 7 respondents Director of Lands and spouses Agpoon,
On March 6, 1974, while the above-mentioned case was issued an order dismissing Civil Case No. U-2649 for
still pending, petitioners filed a complaint against the annulment of title by merely citing the statement in the
respondents Director of Lands and spouses Agpoon case of Antonio, et al. vs. Barroga, et al. 12 that an action
2
to annul a free patent many years after it had become the land in dispute during an interval of 50 or 30
final and indefeasible states no cause of action years. 16
. 13 Petitioners' motion for the reconsideration of said
order was denied on September 11, 1974, 14 hence the The issues and arguments raised by the proponents in
recourse to us in G.R. No. L-40399. these petitions are well taken.
In these petitions, petitioners raise the following issues: We agree with petitioners that the lower court erred in
1. Whether or not the lower court is justified in ordering the dismissal of Civil Case No. U-2649. The
dismissing the complaint by simply invoking the ruling in aforesaid case of Antonio relied upon by the lower court
the aforestated case of Antonio although the facts and in its dismissal order is not controlling. In that case, the
circumstances set forth in the complaint show that the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of
land in question was private land under Article 370 of action, not only because of the delay in the filing of the
the old Civil Code and that the subsequent derivative complaint but specifically since the ground relied upon
certificates of title in question were null and void ab by the plaintiff therein, that is, that the land was
initio because the said land was not within the authority previously covered by a titulo real, even if true, would
of the government to dispose of in favor of any party not warrant the annulment of the free patent and the
and must be ordered annulled, cancelled or rescinded; 15 subsequent original certificate of title issued to
2. Whether or not the trial court and the former defendant. Thus:
Intermediate Appellate Court were justified in not It is true that by filing the application for a free patent
basing their judgments on the judicial admissions of Barroga impliedly admitted either the invalidity or
private respondents in the stipulation of facts of the insufficiency of Titulo Real No. 12479 issued in the
parties, since such admissions have the legal force and name of his predecessor in interest on July 22, 1894,
effect of precluding private respondents from disputing but neither the allegation made in his answer that his
such admission; aforesaid predecessor in interest was the absolute
3. Whether or not respondent court can presume that owner of the property covered by said Titulo Real nor
private respondents or their predecessor had prior his implied admission of the latter's invalidity or
possession of the land in dispute in the light of insufficiency are grounds for the annulment of the free
provisions of law which oblige them to prove such patent and original certificate of title in question.
possession, as well as the stipulated facts and other Evidently, it was Barroga's privilege to rely or not to rely
facts and circumstances on record showing that private upon his claim of private ownership in favor of his
respondents or their predecessor were not in actual predecessor in interest and of whatever the latter's
occupancy of the said land, and without appreciating Titulo Real was worth. He decided not to rely upon
the evidence put up by petitioners to prove their prior them and to consider that the property covered by the
possession thereof; Titulo Real was still part of the public domain. Acting
4. Whether or not respondent court was justified in its accordingly he applied for a free patent and was
application of Section 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure successful. It must be borne in mind that the Titulo Real
in favor of private respondents, although the private was not an indefeasible title and that its holder still had
respondents did not invoke said law in this case and did to prove that he had possessed the land covered by it
not adduce any evidence or proof that all the essential without interruption during a period of ten years by
requisites of acquisitive prescription under the said law virtue of a good title and in good faith (Royal Decree of
were present in their favor; June 25,1880). We may well presume that Barroga felt
5. Whether or not the Government had the right to that he had no sufficient evidence to prove this, for
convey by way of free patent to any party the land in which reason he decided to acquire the land as part of
dispute which belonged to the riparian owners as the public domain.
decreed by Article 370 of the old Civil Code, the law
then in force, and despite the fact that the patentee In the case at bar, the facts alleged in the complaint,
herein never occupied the said land during the period which are deemed hypothetically admitted upon the
prescribed by Act No. 2874; and filing of the motion to dismiss, constitute a sufficient
6. Whether or not private respondents are guilty of cause of action against private respondents. Petitioners
laches for not having attempted to file suit to recover in their complaint in Civil Case No. U-2649 alleged,
among others, that the disputed area was formerly an
3
abandoned river bed formed due to natural causes in property in one's possession is imprescriptible. Their
1920; that the riparian owners of the lands abutting undisturbed possession for a number of years gave
said abandoned river bed were the plaintiffs and/or them a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of
their predecessors in interest; that since then and up to equity to determine the nature of the adverse claims of
the present, they have been occupying and cultivating a third party and the effect on her title. 21 As held
aliquot portions of the said land proportionate to the in Caragay-Layno vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 22an
respective lengths of their riparian lands; that they are adverse claimant of a registered land, undisturbed in his
the real and lawful owners of the said land as decreed possession thereof for a period of more than fifty years
by Article 370 of the old Civil Code, the law then in and not knowing that the land he actually occupied had
force; that since the said area was a private land, the been registered in the name of another, is not
same could not have been the subject matter of an precluded from filing an action for reconveyance which,
application for free patent; and that all these facts were in effect, seeks to quiet title to property as against the
known to the private respondents and their registered owner who was relying upon a Torrens title
predecessor in interest. which could have been fraudulently acquired. To such
adverse claimant, the remedy of an action to quiet title
If the said averments are true, and the factual recitals is imprescriptible. In actions for reconveyance of
thereon have been admitted in the stipulation of facts property predicated on the fact that the conveyance
hereinbefore quoted, then the land in question was and complained of was void ab initio, a claim of prescription
is of private ownership and, therefore, beyond the of the action would be unavailing. 23
jurisdiction of the Director of Lands. The free patent and
subsequent title issued pursuant thereto are null and The resolution of the other assigned errors hinges on
void. The indefeasibility and imprescriptibility of a the issue of who, as between the riparian owner
Torrens title issued pursuant to a patent may be presently in possession and the registered owner by
invoked only when the land involved originally formed virtue of a free patent, has a better right over the
part of the public domain. If it was a private land, the abandoned river bed in dispute.
patent and certificate of title issued upon the patent are
a nullity. 17 We rule in favor of petitioners.
The claim of ownership of herein petitioners is based on
The rule on the incontrovertibility of a certificate of title the old Civil Code, the law then in force, which provides:
upon the expiration of one year, after the entry of the The beds of rivers which remain abandoned because
decree, pursuant to the provisions of the Land the course of the water has naturally changed belong to
Registration Act, does not apply where an action for the the owners of the riparian lands throughout their
cancellation of a patent and a certificate of title issued respective lengths. If the abandoned bed divided
pursuant thereto is instituted on the ground that they estates belonging to different owners, the new dividing
are null and void because the Bureau of Lands had no line shall run at equal distance therefrom. 24
jurisdiction to issue them at all, the land in question
having been withdrawn from the public domain prior to It is thus clear under this provision that once the river
the subsequent award of the patent and the grant of a bed has been abandoned, the riparian owners become
certificate of title to another person. Such an action is the owners of the abandoned bed to the extent
different from a review of the decree of title on the provided by this article. The acquisition of ownership is
ground of fraud. 18 automatic. 25There need be no act on the part of the
riparian owners to subject the accession to their
Although a period of one year has already expired from ownership, as it is subject thereto ipso jure from the
the time a certificate of title was issued pursuant to a moment the mode of acquisition becomes evident,
public grant, said title does not become incontrovertible without the need of any formal act of
but is null and void if the property covered thereby is acquisition. 26 Such abandoned river bed had fallen to
originally of private ownership, and an action to annul the private ownership of the owner of the riparian land
the same does not prescribe. 19 Moreover, since herein even without any formal act of his will and any
petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute, an unauthorized occupant thereof will be considered as a
action to quiet title is imprescriptible. 20 Their action for trespasser. The right in re to the principal is likewise a
reconveyance which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to right in re to the accessory, as it is a mode of acquisition
4
provided by law, as the result of the right of accretion. are not affected in any manner whatsoever thereby.
Since the accessory follows the nature of the principal, Land held in freehold or fee title, or of private
there need not be any tendency to the thing or ownership, constitute no part of the public domain and
manifestation of the purpose to subject it to our cannot possibly come within the purview of said Act No.
ownership, as it is subject thereto ipso jurefrom the 2874, inasmuch as the "subject" of such freehold or
moment the mode of acquisition becomes evident. 27 private land is not embraced in any manner in the title
of the Act 33 and the same are excluded from the
The right of the owner of land to additions thereto by provisions or text thereof.
accretion has been said to rest in the law of nature, and
to be analogous to the right of the owner of a tree to its We reiterate that private ownership of land is not
fruits, and the owner of flocks and herds to their natural affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same
increase. 28 Petitioners herein became owners of aliquot land because the Public Land Act applies only to lands
portions of said abandoned river bed as early as 1920, of the public domain. 34 Only public land may be
when the Agno River changed its course, without the disposed of by the Director of Lands. 35 Since as early as
necessity of any action or exercise of possession on 1920, the land in dispute was already under the private
their part, it being an admitted fact that the land in ownership of herein petitioners and no longer a part of
dispute, prior to its registration, was an abandoned bed the lands of the public domain, the same could not have
of the Agno River and that petitioners are the riparian been the subject matter of a free patent. The patentee
owners of the lands adjoining the said bed. and his successors in interest acquired no right or title
to the said land. Necessarily, Free Patent No. 23263
The failure of herein petitioners to register the issued to Herminigildo Agpoon is null and void and the
accretion in their names and declare it for purposes of subsequent titles issued pursuant thereto cannot
taxation did not divest it of its character as a private become final and indefeasible. Hence, we ruled
property. Although we take cognizance of the rule that in Director of Lands vs. Sisican, et al. 36that if at the time
an accretion to registered land is not automatically the free patents were issued in 1953 the land covered
registered and therefore not entitled or subject to the therein were already private property of another and,
protection of imprescriptibility enjoyed by registered therefore, not part of the disposable land of the public
property under the Torrens system. 29 The said rule is domain, then applicants patentees acquired no right or
not applicable to this case since the title claimed by title to the land.
private respondents is not based on acquisitive
prescription but is anchored on a public grant from the Now, a certificate of title fraudulently secured is null
Government, which presupposes that it was inceptively and void ab initio if the fraud consisted in
a public land. Ownership over the accession is governed misrepresenting that the land is part of the public
by the Civil Code. Imprescriptibility of registered land is domain, although it is not. As earlier stated, the nullity
a concern of the Land Registration Act. arises, not from the fraud or deceit but, from the fact
that the land is not under the jurisdiction of the Bureau
Under the provisions of Act No. 2874 pursuant to which of Lands. 37 Being null and void, the free patent granted
the title of private respondents' predecessor in interest and the subsequent titles produce no legal effects
was issued, the President of the Philippines or his alter whatsoever. Quod nullum est, nullum producit
ego, the Director of Lands, has no authority to grant a effectum. 38
free patent for land that has ceased to be a public land
and has passed to private ownership, and a title so A free patent which purports to convey land to which
issued is null and void. 30 The nullity arises, not from the the Government did not have any title at the time of its
fraud or deceit, but from the fact that the land is not issuance does not vest any title in the patentee as
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands. 31 The against the true owner. 39 The Court has previously held
jurisdiction of the Director of Lands is limited only to that the Land Registration Act and the Cadastral Act do
public lands and does not cover lands privately not give anybody who resorts to the provisions thereof
owned. 32 The purpose of the Legislature in adopting the a better title than what he really and lawfully has.
former Public Land Act, Act No. 2874, was and is to limit
its application to lands of the public domain, and lands . . . The Land Registration Act as well as the Cadastral
held in private ownership are not included therein and Act protects only the holders of a title in good faith and
5
does not permit its provisions to be used as a shield for from petitioners has, by long inaction or inexcusable
the commission of fraud, or that one should enrich neglect, been converted into a stale demand. 46
himself at the expense of another (Gustilo vs. Maravilla, Considering that petitioners were well within their
48 Phil. 838). The above-stated Acts do not give rights in taking possession of the lot in question, the
anybody, who resorts to the provisions thereof, a better findings of respondent court that herein petitioners
title than he really and lawfully has. If he happened to took advantage of the infirmities and weakness of the
obtain it by mistake or to secure, to the prejudice of his preceding claimant, Herminigildo Agpoon, in taking
neighbor, more land than he really owns, with or possession of said land during the Japanese occupation
without bad faith on his part, the certificate of title, is neither tenable in law nor sustained by preponderant
which may have been issued to him under the evidence in fact.
circumstances, may and should be cancelled or
corrected (Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil., 590). Where the evidence show that the plaintiff is the true
. . . 40 owner of the land subject of the free patent and title
We have, therefore, to arrive at the unavoidable granted to another and that the defendant and his
conclusion that the title of herein petitioners over the predecessor in interest were never in possession
land in dispute is superior to the title of the registered thereof, the Court, in the exercise of its equity
owner which is a total nullity. The long and continued jurisdiction and without ordering the cancellation of
possession of petitioners under a valid claim of title said title issued upon the patent, may direct the
cannot be defeated by the claim of a registered owner defendant registered owner to reconvey the property
whose title is defective from the beginning. to the plaintiff. 47 Further, if the determinative facts are
before the Court and it is in a position to finally resolve
The quality of conclusiveness of a Torrens title is not the dispute, the expeditious administration of justice
available for use to perpetrate fraud and chicanery. To will be subserved by such a resolution and thereby
paraphrase from Angeles vs. Samia, supra, the Land obviate the needless protracted proceedings
Registration Act does not create or vest title. It only consequent to the remand of the case of the trial
confirms and records title already existing and vested. It court. 48 On these considerations, as well as the fact that
does not protect a usurper from the true owner. It these cases have been pending for a long period of
cannot be a shield for the commission of fraud. It does time, we see no need for remanding Civil Case No. 2649
not permit one to enrich himself at the expense of for further proceedings, and we hold that the facts and
another. Stated elsewise, the Torrens system was not the ends of justice in this case require the reconveyance
established as a means for the acquisition of title to by private respondents to petitioners of the disputed
private land. It is intended merely to confirm and lot.
register the title which one may already have on the
land. Where the applicant possesses no title or WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of respondent court
ownership over the parcel of land, he cannot acquire in its AC-G.R. CV No. 60388-R and the questioned order
one under the Torrens system of registration. 41 Resort of dismissal of the trial court in its Civil Case No. 2649
to the provisions of the Land Registration Act does not are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and judgment is
give one a better title than he really and lawfully hereby rendered ORDERING private respondents to
has. 42 Registration does not vest title. It is not a mode of reconvey the aforesaid parcel of land to petitioners.
acquiring property. It is merely evidence of such title
over a particular property. It does not give the holder
any better title than what he actually has, especially if
the registration was done in bad faith. The effect is that
it is as if no registration was made at all. 43