HEIRS OF VALERIANO S. CONCHA SR. VS.

LUMOCSO case and if they refuse, ordering the Clerk of Court of

540 SCRA 1 | G.R. No. 158121 | Dec 12, 2007 | Quieting of Title this Honorable Court to execute the deed of
reconveyance with like force and effect as if executed
FACTS: by the defendant[s] themselves;
1. Petitioners, heirs of spouses Dorotea and Valeriano Concha, Sr., d. Ordering defendant Lomocso to pay for the forest trees
claim to be the rightful owners of a two-hectare portion of land, illegally cut plus damages;
all situated in Cogon, Dipolog City, under Section 48(b) of e. Declaring the confiscated three flitches kept in the area
Commonwealth Act No. 141 (C.A. No. 141), otherwise known as of the plaintiffs as property of the plaintiff [they] being
the Public Land Act. cut, collected and taken from the land possessed,
2. Siblings Lumocso are the patent holders and registered owners preserved, and owned by the plaintiffs.
of the subject lots. 7. Respondents moved for the dismissal of the respective cases
3. The records show that on August 6, 1997, Valeriano Sr. and his against them on the same grounds of: (a) lack of jurisdiction of
children filed a complaint for Reconveyance and/or Annulment the RTC over the subject matters of the complaints; (b) failure
of Title with Damages against “Spouses Gregorio Lomocso and to state causes of action for reconveyance; (c) prescription; and
Bienvenida Guya.” (d) waiver, abandonment, laches and estoppel. On the issue of
4. They sought to annul Free Patent and the corresponding jurisdiction, respondents contended that the RTC has no
Original Certificate of Title issued in the name of “Gregorio jurisdiction over the complaints pursuant to Section 19(2)
Lumocso” of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P.) 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691,
5. Concha alleged that: a) that on May 21, 1958, petitioners’ as in each case, the assessed values of the subject lots are less
parents acquired a 24-hectare parcel of land by homestead; b) than P20,000.00.
that since 1931, they “painstakingly preserved” the forest in the 8. RTC: The trial court denied the respective motions to dismiss of
24-hectare land, including the excess four (4) hectares “untitled respondents
forest land”; c) that they possessed this excess 4 hectares of land 9. CA: CA reversed the resolutions and order of the trial court.
“continuously, publicly, notoriously, adversely, peacefully” d)
that the Concha spouses “have preserved the forest trees ISSUE:
standing in [the subject lots to the exclusion of the defendants Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction. NO
respondents) or other persons from 1931” up to November 12,
1996 or January 1997 (for Civil Case Nos. 5433 and 5434) when DISPOSITION: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Court of Appeals
respondents, “by force, intimidation, [and] stealth forcibly is hereby AFFIRMED that the RTC has no jurisdiction.
entered the premises, illegally cut, collected, [and] disposed” of
21 trees; and j) that respondents’ free patents and the RULING:
corresponding OCTs were issued “on account of fraud, deceit, Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and
bad faith and misrepresentation”; determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in
6. Conchas prayed that judgment be rendered: question belong. It is conferred by law and an objection based on this
a. Declaring Free Patent and Original Certificate of Title ground cannot be waived by the parties. To determine whether a court
issued to defendants as null and void ab initio; has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, it is important to
b. Declaring subject lot as private property of the determine the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought.
plaintiffs; The trial court correctly held that the instant cases involve
c. Ordering the defendant Lomocsos to reconvey the actions for reconveyance. An action for reconveyance respects the
properties (sic) in question Lot in favor of the plaintiffs decree of registration as incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of
within 30 days from the finality of the decision in this property, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in other
persons’ names, to its rightful and legal owners, or to those who claim to f) [That respondents’ free patents and the
have a better right. There is no special ground for an action for corresponding original certificates of titles were
reconveyance. It is enough that the aggrieved party has a legal claim on issued] on account of fraud, deceit, bad faith and
the property superior to that of the registered owner and that the misrepresentation; and
property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for g) The land in question has not been transferred to an
value. innocent purchaser.41
The reliefs sought by the petitioners in the instant cases typify These cases may also be considered as actions to remove
an action for reconveyance. The following are also the common cloud on one’s title as they are intended to procure the cancellation
allegations in the three complaints that are sufficient to constitute causes of an instrument constituting a claim on petitioners’ alleged title
of action for reconveyance, viz.: which was used to injure or vex them in the enjoyment of their
a) That plaintiff Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. together with his alleged title.
spouse Dorotea Concha have painstakingly Being in the nature of actions for reconveyance or actions
preserve[d] the forest standing in the area [of their 24- to remove cloud on one’s title, the applicable law to determine
hectare homestead] including the four hectares which court has jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of B.P. 129, as
untitled forest land located at the eastern portion of amended by R.A. No. 7691, viz.:
the forest from 1931 when they were newly married, “Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.—Regional Trial
the date they acquired this property by occupation or Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
possession; xxx
b) That spouses Valeriano S. Concha Sr. and Dorotea P. (2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
Concha have preserved the forest trees standing in possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where
[these parcels] of land to the exclusion of the the assessed value of the property involved exceeds
defendants Lomocsos or other persons from 1931 up Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in
to November 12, 1996 [for Civil Case No. 5188] and Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand
January 1997 [for Civil Case Nos. 5433 and 5434] pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into
when defendants[,] by force, intimidation, [and] and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
stealth[,] forcibly entered the premises, illegal[ly] cut, jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan
collected, disposed a total of [twenty-one (21) trees Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
for Civil Case No. 5188, twent Trial Courts;
c) y-two (22) trees for Civil Case No. 5433 and six (6) x x x.”
trees for Civil Case No. 5434] of various sizes;
d) That this claim is an assertion that the land is private In the cases at bar, the subject lots are situated in Cogon, Dipolog
land or that even assuming it was part of the public City and their assessed values are less than P20,000.00. Hence, the MTC
domain, plaintiff had already acquired imperfect title clearly has jurisdiction over the instant cases.
thereto under Sec. 48(b) of [C.A.] No. 141[,] otherwise
known as the Public Land Act[,] as amended by [R.A.]
No. [7691];
e) That [respondents and their predecessors-in-interest
knew when they] surreptitiously filed38 [their
respective patent applications and were issued their
respective] free patents and original certificates of
title [that the subject lots belonged to the petitioners];