de Leon V de Leon-Reyes

9/12/2020 G.R. No. 205711, May 30, 2016 - PEDRO DE LEON, Petitioner, v.
ner, v. NENITA DE LEON-REYES, JESUS REYES, MYETH REYES AND JE…
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
May 2016 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search
Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 >

May 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 205711, May 30, 2016 -
ChanRobles PEDRO DE LEON, Petitioner, v. NENITA DE LEON-REYES,
Professional JESUS REYES, MYETH REYES AND JENNETH REYES,
Review, Inc. Respondents.:
G.R. No. 205711, May 30, 2016 - PEDRO DE LEON,

Petitioner, v. NENITA DE LEON-REYES, JESUS REYES,
MYETH REYES AND JENNETH REYES, Respondents.
ChanRobles On-Line
Bar Review
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 205711, May 30, 2016
PEDRO DE LEON, Petitioner, v. NENITA DE LEON-

REYES, JESUS REYES, MYETH REYES AND JENNETH
REYES, Respondents.
DECISION
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016maydecisions.php?id=484 1/30
9/12/2020 G.R. No. 205711, May 30, 2016 - PEDRO DE LEON, Petitioner, v. NENITA DE LEON-REYES, JESUS REYES, MYETH REYES AND JE…
BRION, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Pedro de
Leon from the May 31, 2012 decision1 and January
16, 2013 resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CV No. 90307.3 The CA reversed the Regional

Trial Court's (RTC) finding of laches in Civil Case Nos.
02-08 and 02-20.4 chanrobleslaw
Antecedents
Petitioner Pedro de Leon (Pedro) and respondent Nenita

de Leon-Reyes (Nenita) are the legitimate children of
ChanRobles CPA
Alejandro de Leon (Alejandro).
Review Online
Nenita is married to respondent Jesus Reyes with whom

she has two children: respondents Myeth and Jenneth,
both surnamed Reyes.
During his lifetime, Alejandro possessed two parcels of

public land (subject lots) in Brgy. Burgos, San Jose,
Tarlac. The lots, designated as Lot No. 6952 and Lot No.
6521, have a combined area of 171,939 square meters.
Sometime between 1995 and 1996, the government

granted free patents covering the subject lots in favor
of Nenita and her family. Consequently, the Register of
Deeds issued the following Original Certificates of Title
ChanRobles Special (OCT):
Lecture Series
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. OCT No. 167575 covering Lot No. 6521 (39,270

square meters) issued on July 13, 1995, in the
name of Nenita de Leon-Reyes;
2. OCT No. 175806 covering Lot No. 6952-G (32,934

square meters) issued on March 8, 1996, in the
name of Nenita de Leon-Reyes;
3. OCT No. 175817 covering Lot No. 6952-A (14,098

name of Myeth L. Reyes; and cralawlawlibrary
4. OCT No. 175828 covering Lot No. 6952-B (10,000

name of Jenneth Reyes.
Sometime after the issuance of the titles, Pedro filed a

Protest with the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) on the grounds of fraud and
misrepresentation of facts in the acquisition of title.9 chanrobleslaw
In a complaint dated May 22, 1997, Nenita's family filed

an unlawful detainer case against Pedro before the 1st
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac.
The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 319-SJ
(97).
On May 19, 1998, the MCTC dismissed the ejectment

case without prejudice due to the pendency of Pedro's
protest before the Bureau of Lands/DENR.10 chanrobleslaw
Nenita's family appealed the dismissal to the Regional

Trial Court, Branch 68, Camiling, Tarlac, where it was
docketed as Civil Case No. 98-33.
On July 21, 1999, the RTC affirmed the MCTC's dismissal

of the complaint without prejudice to the filing of the
proper action with the proper forum.11 chanrobleslaw
Soon after, the DENR dismissed Pedro's Protest after

finding that Nenita (and her family) had met all the
requisites for a public land grant.12 The DENR upheld the
Ruling of the CA
On May 31, 2012, the CA reversed the RTC's ruling,

validated the OCTs in the name of Nenita's family, and
ordered Pedro to surrender possession of the subject lot.
As the RTC did, the CA validated Nenita's ownership of

the disputed lots. The CA found that despite Pedro's
denomination of his complaint as one for "Reconveyance
of Titles and Damages," it was, in fact, one for reversion
which he had no legal personality to file. The CA
reasoned that Pedro's failure to allege that the subject
lots were private lands, or even just alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain, and his admission
of State ownership over the subject lots were fatal to his
complaint for reconveyance.22 chanrobleslaw
Citing Banguilan v. Court of Appeals,23 the CA explained

that when the complaint admits State ownership of the
land or admits it to be public land, then the case is one
for reversion, not reconveyance.24 If the grantees'

patents were cancelled, as Pedro prayed for, the result
would have been the return of ownership over the lots to
the State, not to a contending claimant like Pedro who
had no legal interest over them.
The CA emphasized that Pedro failed to prove, or even

allege, the private or alienable character of the subject
lots. Thus, he had no personality to ask for their
reconveyance because that right belongs to the State,
the previous owner of the subject lots.
The CA further pointed out that Pedro failed to appeal

the DENR's dismissal of his Protest case against the
grant of the patents to Nenita's family.25 cralawred Thus, the
DENR's findings that (1) the free patents and OCTs

granted to Nenita's family were valid and that (2) Pedro
and his family already owned a total of 30 hectares of
land - and therefore, no longer entitled to a grant of any

more alienable and disposable public lands - had
attained finality.
On the issue of laches, the CA held that the length of

time between the formal grant of the patents and the
issuance of the OCTs in 1995-1996, and the filing of the
complaint for Recovery of Possession in 2002 was
insufficient to constitute laches. As Nenita alleged in her
complaint in Civil Case No. 02-08, Pedro's occupation of
a portion of the properties was out of mere tolerance,
without any contract and without paying any rentals; her
generosity to her estranged brother should not be used
against her.26 chanrobleslaw
Pedro moved for reconsideration but the CA denied the

motion on January 16, 2013. The denial paved the way
for the present petition.
The Parties' Arguments
Pedro insists that he is the rightful owner of the

property. He argues that the CA erred in not finding the
existence of fraud and/or forgery and that a title
emanating from a fraudulently secured free patent does
not become indefeasible.
Citing Lorzano v. Tabayag,27 Pedro concedes that a

fraudulently secured patent can only be assailed by the
government in an action for reversion, but emphasizes
that direct reconveyance is available when public land
was fraudulently and in breach of trust titled in the name
of the defendant. Reconveyance exists as an
enforcement of a constructive trust.28 chanrobleslaw
Moreover, Pedro claims that as of the date of the grant of

the free patent to Nenita's family, the properties had
already ceased to be part of the public domain on
account of his continued occupation and possession for

the period required by law. Thus, the lots were beyond
the DENR's jurisdiction to dispose of.29 chanrobleslaw
He also argues that the MCTC's dismissal of the
ejectment case [Civil Case No. 319-SJ (97)]30 that

Nenita filed against him in 1997, which was
subsequently affirmed by the RTC in Civil Case No. 98-
33, conclusively proves that he had possessed the
subject lots since 1971.
Nenita counters that: (1) Pedro raises questions of fact

that are improper in a petition for review on certiorari;
(2) despite the denomination of Pedro's original
complaint before the RTC, it was, in fact, an action for
reversion; (3) as established during the trial, Pedro had
already received 211,846 square meters of property as
his share in the inheritance of their father; and (4) the
subject lots were her rightful share from the estate of
their father.
Our Ruling
We DENY the petition for lack of merit.
First, we emphasize that this Court is not a trier of facts.

May-2016
An appeal by certiorari to this Court under Rule 45 of the
Jurisprudence
Rules of Court is limited to questions of law. Save for a
few judicially carved exceptions,31 this Court will not

disturb the factual findings of trial courts.
A.C. No. 10675,
May 31, 2016 - DATU
Pedro unjustifiably faults the CA for not finding the
ISMAEL MALANGAS,
existence of fraud and forgery. However, the RTC already
Complainant, v. ATTY.
passed upon this question and found no basis to
PAUL C. ZAIDE,
conclude that the grant of the patent to Nenita was
Respondent.
accompanied by fraud or forgery.
G.R. No. 211698,

Other than his self-serving testimony, Pedro failed to
May 30, 2016 -
REPUBLIC OF THE substantiate his allegation of forgery with clear and

PHILIPPINES, convincing evidence. Pedro has nobody to blame but
Petitioner, v. CESAR P. himself for his failure to formally offer any documentary
RAYOS DEL SOL, evidence that could have supported his claim.32 chanrobleslaw
LYDIA P. RAYOS DEL

SOL, GLORIA P.
As the rules clearly state, courts will not consider
RAYOS DEL SOL AND
evidence unless it has been formally offered.33 A
ELVIRA P. RAYOS DEL
litigant's failure to make a formal offer of evidence within
SOL, Respondents.
a considerable period of time is considered a waiver of
its submission; evidence that has not been offered shall
G.R. No. 195669,
be excluded and rejected.
May 30, 2016 -
BRADFORD UNITED
Notably, both the RTC and the CA agree that Nenita with
CHURCH OF CHRIST,
her family are the true owners of the subject lots and
INC., Petitioner, v.
that the free patents and the OCTs issued to them are
DANTE ANDO,
valid. We find no reason to revisit this factual finding of
ABENIGO AUGIS,
the lower courts.
EDGAR CARDONES,
ZACARIAS
Second, Pedro's contention that the judgment in the
GUTIERREZ,
ejectment case conclusively proves his prior possession
CORNELIO IBARRA,
since 1971 - and therefore proves fraud - is
JR., ZENAIDA IBARRA,
unwarranted.
TEOFILOI LIRASAN,
EUNICE LIRASAN,
The dispositive portion of the MCTC's decision reads:
RUTH MISSION,
DOLLY ROSALES &
EUNICE TAMBANGAN,
IN THEIR CAPACITIES
WHEREFORE, in the meantime that the
AS MANDAUE
Protest is pending with the Bureau of
BRADFORD CHURCH
Land[s], this case is dismissed without
COUNCIL MEMBERS;
prejudice.
MANDAUE BRADFORD
CHURCH; AND
The Counterclaims are likewise dismissed.
UNITED CHURCH OF
CHRIST IN THE
SO ORDERED, (Emphasis supplied)
PHILIPPINES, INC.,
Respondents.
While the fallo of the RTC's decision reads:
G.R. No. 200973,

May 30, 2016 - chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
REPRESENTED BY THE Decision appealled [sic] from is hereby
REGIONAL EXECUTIVE AFFIRMED and this case be [sic] DISMISSED
DIRECTOR, without prejudice to the filing of the proper
DEPARTMENT OF action in a proper forum.
ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES SO ORDERED, [emphases supplied,
(DENR) - REGION IV, underscoring retained]
MANILA, Petitioner, v.
AMOR HACHERO AND
As Pedro himself admits, the MCTC's dismissal of
THE REGISTER OF
Nenita's ejectment case was based on the pendency of
DEEDS OF PALAWAN,
his protest before the Bureau of Lands. While the Courts
Respondents.
may appear to have passed upon the issue of prior
physical possession, the fallo clearly shows that the
G.R. No. 201289,
dismissal was not made based on the merits of the case.
May 30, 2016 -
When a conflict exists between the dispositive portion (or
SPOUSES ROLANDO
the fallo) and the opinion of the court in the body of the
AND SUSIE GOLEZ,
decision, the former must prevail.34 chanrobleslaw
Petitioners, v. HEIRS
OF DOMINGO
Ultimately, the MCTC's dismissal cannot produce the
BERTULDO, NAMELY:
effect of conclusiveness of judgment. In Spouses Antonio
ERINITA BERTULDO-
BERNALES, v. Sayman35 we clearly explained the concept of res
FLORENCIO judicata by conclusiveness of judgment.
BERTULDO,
DOMINADOR
The principle of res judicata is applicable by
BERTULDO, RODEL
way of (1) "bar by prior judgment" and (2)
BERTULDO AND
"conclusiveness of judgment." This Court had
ROGER BERTULDO,
occasion to explain the difference between
HEREIN
these two aspects of res judicata as follows:
REPRESENTED BY
THEIR CO-HEIR AND
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as
DULY APPOINTED
between the first case where the judgment
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
was rendered and the second case that is
ERINITA BERNALES,
sought to be barred, there is identity of
Respondents.
parties, subject matter, and causes of action.

G.R. No. 190520, In this instance, the judgment in the first
May 30, 2016 - LAND case constitutes an absolute bar to the
BANK OF THE second action. Otherwise put, the judgment
PHILIPPINES, or decree of the court of competent
Petitioner, v. SPOUSES jurisdiction on the merits concludes the
ANTONIO AND litigation between the parties, as well as their
CARMEN AVANCENA, privies, and constitutes a bar to a new action
Respondents. or suit involving the same cause of action
before the same or other tribunal.
G.R. No. 180110,
May 30, 2016 - But where there is identity of parties in the
CAPITOL WIRELESS, first and second cases, but no identity of
INC., Petitioner, v. THE causes of action, the first judgment is
PROVINCIAL conclusive only as to those matters actually
TREASURER OF and directly controverted and determined and
BATANGAS, THE not as to matters merely involved therein.
PROVINCIAL This is the concept of res judicata known as
ASSESSOR OF "conclusiveness of judgment." Stated
BATANGAS, THE differently, any right, fact or matter in
MUNICIPAL issue directly adjudicated or necessarily
TREASURER AND involved in the determination of an
ASSESSOR OF action before a competent court in which
NASUGBU, judgment is rendered on the merits is
BATANGAS, conclusively settled by the judgment
Respondents. therein and cannot again be litigated
between the parties and their privies
G.R. No. 183129, whether or not the claim, demand,
May 30, 2016 - purpose, or subject matter of the two
COCOPLANS, INC. actions is the same.
AND CAESAR T.
MICHELENA, Stated differently, conclusiveness of
Petitioners, v. MA. judgment finds application when a fact or
SOCORRO R. question has been squarely put in issue,
VILLAPANDO, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in
Respondent. a former suit by a court of competent
jurisdiction. The fact or question settled by
G.R. No. 218363, final judgment or order binds the parties to
May 31, 2016 - ENGR. that action (and persons in privity [sic] with
ARTEMIO A. them or their successors-in-interest), and

QUINTERO, JR., continues to bind them while the judgment or
GENERAL MANAGER, order remains standing and unreversed by
CAUAYAN CITY WATER proper authority on a timely motion or
DISTRICT (CCWD) petition; the conclusively settled fact or
CAUAYAN CITY, question cannot again be litigated in any
ISABELA, Petitioner, v. future or other action between the same
COMMISSION ON parties or their privies and successors-in-
AUDIT, Respondent. interest, in the same or in any other court of
concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or
G.R. No. 207597, for a different cause of action. Thus, only the
May 30, 2016 - identities of parties and issues are required
ANECITO CAMPOS, for the operation of the principle of
Petitioner, v. BANK OF conclusiveness of judgment, [emphases
THE PHILIPPINE supplied]
ISLANDS, NOW
SUBSTITUTED BY
Evidently, the MCTC's dismissal of Nenita's ejectment
HOUSTON
complaint, as affirmed by the RTC, produced no such
HOMEDEPOT, INC.,
effect because the dismissal was not on the merits
Respondent.
and was without prejudice to the re-filing of the
case. Any pronouncements made with respect to the
G.R. No. 222236,
issue of possession were merely obiter dicta.
May 03, 2016 -
HARLIN C. ABAYON,
Third, the public character of the subject lands precludes
Petitioner, v. HOUSE
the RTC from resolving the conflicting claims of
OF REPRESENTATIVES
"ownership" between Pedro and Nenita.
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
(HRET) AND RAUL A.
Under Section 11 of the Public Land Act (PLA),36 there
DAZA, Respondents.;
are two modes of disposing public lands through
G.R. No. 223032 -
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles: (1) by
HARLIN C. ABAYON,
judicial confirmation; and (2) by administrative
Petitioner, v. HOUSE
legalization, otherwise known as the grant of free
OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL patents.37 chanrobleslaw
(HRET) AND RAUL A.

DAZA, Respondent. The substantive provisions governing the first mode are
found in Chapter VIII (Sections 47-57) of the PLA while
G.R. No. 204277, its procedural aspect is governed by Chapter III
May 30, 2016 -
PROCTER AND (Sections 14-38) of the Property Registration Decree.38 chanrobleslaw
GAMBLE ASIA PTE

LTD., Petitioner, v.
Section 48 of the PLA particularly specifies who are
COMMISSIONER OF
entitled to judicial confirmation or completion of
INTERNAL REVENUE,
imperfect titles:
Respondent.
A.C. No. 10373

[Formerly CBD Case (b) Those who by themselves or through their
No. 08-2280], May predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
31, 2016 - FLORA C. continuous, exclusive, and notorious
MARIANO, Petitioner, possession and, occupation of agricultural
v. ATTY. ANSELMO lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
ECHANEZ, claim of acquisition or ownership, since June
Respondent. 12, 1945, immediately preceding the filing of
the application for confirmation of title,
A.C. No. 10373 except when prevented by war or force
[Formerly CBD Case majeure. Those shall be conclusively
No. 08-2280], May presumed to have performed all the
31, 2016 - FLORA C. conditions essential to a government
MARIANO, Petitioner, grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of
v. ATTY. ANSELMO
title under the provisions of this chapter.39
ECHANEZ,
[Emphasis supplied]
Respondent.
A.C. No. 10373 Upon compliance with the conditions of Sec. 48 (b) of
[Formerly CBD Case the PLA, the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by
No. 08-2280], May operation of law, right to a grant over the land. For all
31, 2016 - FLORA C. legal intents and purposes, the land is segregated from
MARIANO, Petitioner, the public domain, because the beneficiary is
v. ATTY. ANSELMO conclusively presumed to have performed all the
ECHANEZ, conditions essential to a Government grant.40 The land

Respondent. becomes private in character and is now beyond the
authority of the director of lands to dispose of.41 chanrobleslaw
G.R. No. 217725,

May 31, 2016 -
At that point, original registration of the title, via judicial
GLENN A. CHONG
proceedings, takes place as a matter of course; the
AND ANG KAPATIRAN
registration court does not grant the applicant title over
PARTY, REPRESENTED
BY NORMAN V. the property but merely recognizes the applicant's

CABRERA, Petitioners, existing title which had already vested upon the
v. SENATE OF THE applicant's compliance with the requirement of open,
PHILIPPINES, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
REPRESENTED BY occupation of the land since June 12, 1945.
SENATE PRESIDENT
FRANKLIN M. DRILON; On the other hand, Chapter VII (Sections 44-46) of the
HOUSE OF PLA substantively governs administrative legalization
REPRESENTATIVES, through the grant of free patents. Section 44 particularly
REPRESENTED BY identifies who are entitled to a grant of a free patent:
SPEAKER FELICIANO
S. BELMONTE, JR.; chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Sec. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the
REPRESENTED BY Philippines who is not the owner of more than
ACTING twelve (12) hectares and who, for at least
CHAIRPERSON thirty (30) years prior to the effectivity
CHRISTIAN ROBERT of this amendatory Act, has continuously
S. LIM; ADVISORY occupied and cultivated, either by himself
COUNCIL, or through his predecessors-in-interest a
REPRESENTED BY tract or tracts of agricultural public lands
UNDERSECRETARY subject to disposition, who shall have paid
LOUIS NAPOLEON C. the real estate tax thereon while the same
CASAMBRE; has not been occupied by any person shall be
TECHNICAL entitled, under the provisions of this Chapter,
EVALUATION to have a free patent issued to him for such
COMMITTEE, tract or tracts of such land not to exceed
REPRESENTED BY twelve (12) hectares x x x. 42 [Emphasis

DOST SECRETARY supplied]
MARIO G. MONTEJO;
DEPARTMENT OF
Unlike an applicant in judicial confirmation of title who
BUDGET AND
claims ownership over the land, the applicant for a free
MANAGEMENT,
patent recognizes that the land applied for belongs to
HEADED BY
the government. A patent, by its very definition, is a
SECRETARY
governmental grant of a right, a privilege, or authority.43
FLORENCIO B. ABAD,
A free patent, like the one issued to Nenita, is an
Respondents.
instrument by which the government conveys a grant of
public land to a private person.44 chanrobleslaw
G.R. No. 211485,

May 30, 2016 - Pursuant to the Administrative Code45 and the PLA,46
MAGALLANES the DENR has exclusive jurisdiction over the
WATERCRAFT management and disposition of public lands. In the
ASSOCIATION, INC., exercise of this jurisdiction, the DENR has the power to
AS REPRESENTED BY resolve conflicting claims over public lands and
ITS BOARD OF determine an applicant's entitlement to the grant of a
TRUSTEES, NAMELY:
free patent.47 chanrobleslaw
EDILBERTO M. BAJAO,
GERARDO O. PLAZA,
Unless it can be shown that the land subject of a free
ISABELITA MULIG,
patent had previously acquired a private character,
EDNA ABEJAY,
regular courts would have no power to conclusively
MARCELO DONAN,
resolve conflicting claims of ownership or possession
NENITA O. VARQUEZ,
dejure owing to the public character of the land.48 The
MERLYN ALVAREZ,
Director of Lands (ultimately, the DENR Secretary), not
EDNA EXCLAMADOR,
the court, has jurisdiction to determine, as between two
AND CESAR MONSON,
or more applicants for a free patent, who has
Petitioner, v.
satisfactorily met the requirements of the law for the
MARGARITO C.
AUGUIS AND issuance of a free patent.49 The court has no jurisdiction
DIOSCORO C. over that matter.
BASNIG,
Respondents. In this case, Pedro failed to prove that the subject land
had attained a private character; as the CA observed,
G.R. No. 217680, Pedro's complaint in Civil Case No. 02-20 failed to even
May 30, 2016 - FELIX allege that the subject lands were private lands or
L. ARRIOLA, alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.50

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE What Pedro alleged was that the subject lands were
OF THE PHILIPPINES, public land which he had possessed since 1971, "thereby
Respondent. (he) had acquired a right to a grant, a government
grant, without the formality of application for
A.C. No. 5179, May confirmation of title thereto"51 chanrobleslaw
31, 2016 - DIONNIE

RICAFORT,
Under the PLA, for public land to attain a private
Complainant, v. ATTY.
character by operation of law, the applicant must have
RENE O. MEDINA,
openly, continuously, exclusively, and notoriously
Respondent.
possessed and occupied alienable agricultural land of the
public domain, in the concept of an owner, since June 12,
G.R. No. 205711, 1945.52 Pedro's failure to prove the private character of
May 30, 2016 - the subject lands divests the regular courts of
PEDRO DE LEON, jurisdiction to resolve his claim of ownership thereon.
Petitioner, v. NENITA The courts may not usurp the authority of the Director of
DE LEON-REYES, Lands and of the DENR to dispose of lands of the public
JESUS REYES, MYETH domain through administrative proceedings under the
REYES AND JENNETH
PLA.53 chanrobleslaw
REYES, Respondents.
Pedro had the opportunity to assert his claim over the

subject lands before the DENR when he filed his Protest.
However, he did not appeal the dismissal of his claim.
The PLA54 and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction render

the DENR's factual findings conclusive on the courts in
the absence of grave abuse of discretion; the doctrine of
res judicata bars Pedro from re-litigating his claim before
a different tribunal.
Fourth, the remedy of reconveyance is only available to

a landowner whose private property was erroneously or
fraudulently registered in the name of another. It is not
available when the subject property is public land
because a private person, who is evidently not the
landowner, would have no right to recover the property.
It would simply revert to the public domain.
Thus, reconveyance cannot be resorted to by a rival
applicant to question the State's grant of a free patent.55

The exception to this rule is when a free patent was
issued over private lands that are beyond the
jurisdiction of the Director of Lands/DENR to dispose
of.56 chanrobleslaw
Lastly, we agree with the CA that Nenita's right to

recover possession of the property had not been barred
by laches. As the registered owners of the subject
properties, Nenita and her family have the
imprescriptible right to recover possession thereof from
any person illegally occupying it.
As we held in Spouses Ocampo v. Heirs of Dionisio,57

prescription and laches cannot apply to land registered
under the Torrens system.58 No title to registered land,

in derogation of that of the registered owner, shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession.59 chanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, in the light of these considerations, we

hereby DENY the petition for lack of merit. Accordingly,
we AFFIRM the May 31, 2012 decision and the January
16, 2013 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV No. 90307.
SO ORDERED. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and

Leonen, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, p. 38.
2 Id. at 62.
3 Both penned by Associate Justice Rebecca

de Guia-Salvador and concurred in by
Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and
Rodil V. Zalameda.
4 RTC, Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68, through

Presiding Judge Jose S. Vallo; rollo, pp. 90-
100.
5Rollo, p. 63.
6 Id. at 70.
validity of the grant of patents to Nenita's family.13

Pedro did not appeal the DENR's dismissal of his
protest.14 chanrobleslaw
On February 5, 2002, Nenita and her family filed a

complaint against Pedro for Recovery of Possession and
Damages. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 02-
08.
On April 16, 2002, Pedro likewise filed a complaint

against Nenita's family for Reconveyance of Title and
Damages. His complaint was docketed as Civil Case No.
02-20.
Nenita claimed that Alejandro transferred his

possessory rights over the property to her in a document
dated May 5, 1970.15 The document became the basis

for her free patent application with the DENR. She also
denied that any fraud or wrongdoing attended her
application and invoked the DENR's dismissal of Pedro's
protest for his failure to rebut the presumption of
regularity in the issuance of the patent.16 chanrobleslaw
Pedro claimed that Alejandro transferred possession

over the subject lots to him in 1971 and that he had
been in possession of it ever since.17 He claimed that he

asked Nenita for assistance to cause the titling of the
properties in his name but the latter took advantage of
his lack of education and fraudulently acquired a free
patent in her name instead. Pedro further contested the
May 5, 1970 Transfer of Rights in favor of Nenita as a
forgery.18 chanrobleslaw
The RTC consolidated and jointly heard the two cases.

After the presentation of testimonial evidence, Pedro was
given several opportunities to make a Formal Offer of his
documentary evidence. However, he failed to do so and
the consolidated case was submitted for decision without
his documentary evidence.19 chanrobleslaw
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC divided the issues in two: first, whether the

Transfer of Rights and the subsequent grant of free
patents to Nenita's family were valid; and second,
whether Nenita's family were entitled to possession of
the subject lots.
On the first issue, the court found the transfer of rights,

as well as the subsequent issuance of free patents, valid.
Pedro, the RTC reasoned, failed to adduce sufficient
evidence to invalidate the deed of transfer and the
issuance of the patents. The RTC added that there were
no clear and convincing evidence to substantiate his
allegations of forgery; in fact, Pedro did not even
make a formal offer of his documentary
evidence.20 chanrobleslaw
However, on the second issue, the RTC held that Nenita's

family was no longer entitled to recover possession of
the subject lots due to the principle of laches. It held
that Nenita failed to raise a restraining arm against
Pedro's introduction of several improvements on the
subject lots, such as the construction of his house, the
planting of several fruit-bearing and several teak trees,
and his sole appropriation of the entirety of the harvests;
Nenita's inaction for over 32 years (since the execution
of the Transfer of Rights); and her undeniable knowledge
of Pedro's adverse possession extinguished her right to
recover the properties due to her own inexcusable
negligence.21 chanrobleslaw
The RTC then declared Nenita and her family's titles as

null and void and ordered them to pay Pedro damages.
7 Id. at 72.
8 Id. at 74.
9 Id. at 43.
10 Id. at 78.
11 Id. at 84.
12 Id at 48.
13 Id. at 43.
14 Id. at 57.
15 Id at 45.
16 Id at 43, 93.
17 Id at 41.
18 Id. at 47
19 Id at 50.
20 Id. at 98.
21 Id. at 99.
22 Id. at 54.
23 550 Phil. 739 (2007).
24Rollo, pp. 54-55.
25 cralawred Id. at 57.
26 Id. at 59.
27 681 Phil. 39(2012).
28Rollo, pp. 20-25.
29 Id. at 17.
30 Id. at 76.
31 (1) When the findings are grounded

entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures; (2) when the inference made is
manifestly mistaken absurd or impossible;
(3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;
(4) when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the
findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in
making its findings the Court of Appeals went
beyond the issues of the case, or its findings
are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee; (7) when the
findings are contrary to the trial court; (8)
when the findings are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are
based; (9) when the facts set forth in the
petition as well as in the petitioner's main
and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondent; (10) when the findings of fact
are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals
manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts
not disputed by the parties, which, if properly
considered, would justify a different
conclusion.
32Rollo, p. 50.
33 Rule 132, Sec. 34, Rules of Court.
34 697 Phil. 619, 630(2012).
35 646 Phil. 90, 99-100(2010).
36 Commonwealth Act No. 141 [PUBLIC Land

Act] (1936), as amended.
37 Sec. 11. Public lands suitable for

agricultural purposes can be disposed of only
as follows:
1. For homestead settlement;

2. By sale;
3. By lease; and cralawlawlibrary
4. By confirmation of imperfect or
incomplete titles:
(a) By judicial legalization

(b) By administrative legalization (free

patent), [emphases supplied]
38 Presidential Decree No. 1529 (1978).
39 Sec. 44, PUBLIC LAND ACT, as amended

by P.D. 1073 (1977).
40Martinez v. Court of Appeals, 566 Phil. 590,

600 (2008).
41 Id.
42 Sec. 44, PUBLIC LAND Act, as amended by

Republic Act No. 6940 (1990).
43Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), p.

3554.
44 Id. at 3555.
45 Book IV, Title XIV, Chap. 1, Sec. 4,

Executive Order No. 292 [Administrative
Code] (1987):
Section 4. Powers and Functions. - The

Department fof Environment and Natural

Resources] shall: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(4) Exercise supervision and

control over forest lands, alienable
and disposable public lands,
mineral resources and, in the
process of exercising such control,
impose appropriate taxes, fees,
charges, rentals and any such
form of levy and collect such
revenues for the exploration,
development, utilization or
gathering of such resources; x xx
(15) Exercise exclusive jurisdiction

on the management and
disposition of all lands of the
public domain and serve as the
sole agency responsible for
classification, sub-classification,
surveying and titling of lands in
consultation with appropriate

agencies[.] (Underscoring
supplied.
46 PUBLIC LAND ACT. as amended:
Section 3. The Secretary of [Environment

and Natural Resources] shall be the executive

officer charged with carrying out the
provisions of this Act through the Director of
Lands, who shall act under his immediate
control.
47Bagunu v. Sps. Aggabao, 671 Phil. 183,

196-198 (2011).
48 Id. at 199-200.
49Maximo v. CFI of Capiz, 261 Phil. 534, 539

(1990).
50Rollo, p. 54.
51 Id.
52 In Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, G.R.

No. 179987, September 3, 2013, 704 SCRA
561, the majority of the Court ruled: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(1) In connection with Section

14(1) of the Property Registration
Decree, Section 48(b) of the
Public Land Act recognizes and
confirms that "those who by
themselves or through their
predecessors in interest have
been in open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious

possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain, under a bona
fide claim of acquisition of
ownership, since June 12, 1945"
have acquired ownership of, and
registrable title to, such lands
based on the length and quality of
their possession.
(a) Since Section

48(b) merely
requires possession
since 12 June 1945
and does not require
that the lands
should have been
alienable and
disposable during
the entire period of
possession, the
possessor is entitled to
secure judicial
confirmation of his title
thereto as soon as it is
declared alienable and
disposable, subject to
the timeframe imposed
by Section 47 of the
Public Land Act.
(b) The right to

register granted under
Section 48(b) of the
Public Land Act is
further confirmed by
Section 14 (1) of the
Property Registration
Decree.
(2) In complying with Section

14(2) of the Property Registration
Decree, consider that under the
Civil Code, prescription is
recognized as a mode of acquiring
ownership of patrimonial property.
However, public domain lands
become only patrimonial property
not only with a declaration that
these are alienable or disposable.
There must also be an express
government manifestation that
the property is already patrimonial
or no longer retained for public
service or the development of
national wealth, under Article 422
of the Civil Code. And only when
the property has become
patrimonial can the prescriptive
period for the acquisition of
property of the public dominion
begin to run.
(a) Patrimonial
property is private
property of the
government. The
person acquires
ownership of
patrimonial property
by prescription under
the Civil Code is
entitled to secure
registration thereof
under Section 14(2) of
the Property
Registration Decree.
(b) There are two

kinds of prescription by
which patrimonial
property may be
acquired, one ordinary
and other
extraordinary. Under
ordinary acquisitive
prescription, a person
acquires ownership of
a patrimonial property
through possession for
at least ten (10) years,
in good faith and with
just title. Under
extraordinary
acquisitive
prescription, a person's
uninterrupted adverse
possession of
patrimonial property
for at least thirty (30)
years, regardless of
good faith or just title,
ripens into ownership.
[Emphasis supplied]
In his Concurring and Dissenting

Opinion, J. Brion, on the other
hand, discussed:
The ponencia assumes, based

on its statutory construction

reasoning and its reading of
Section 48(b) of the PLA, that all
that the law requires is possession
from June 12, 1945 and that it
suffices if the land has been

classified as alienable at the time
of application for registration. As
heretofore discussed, this cut-off
date was painstakingly set by law
and should be given full
significance. Under its
formulation, it appears clear
thatPD 1073 did not expressly
state what Section 48(b) should
provide under the amendment PD
1073 introduced in terms of the
exact wording of the amended
Section 48(b). But under the PD
1073 formulation, the intent to
count the alienability to June 12,
1945 appears very clear. The
provision applies only to alienable
and disposable lands of the public
domain that is described in terms
of the character of the possession
required since June 12, 1945. This
intent seen in the direct,
continuous and seamless linking
of the alienable and disposable
lands of the public domain to June
12, 1945 under the wording of the
Decree is clear and should be
respected.
xxxx
To summarize, I submit in this

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion
that:
1. The hierarchy of laws on

public domain must be given full

application in considering lands of
the public domain. Top

consideration should be accorded
to the Philippine Constitution,
particularly its Article XII, followed
by the consideration of applicable
special laws the PLA and the PRD,
insofar as this Decree applies to
lands of the public domain. The
Civil Code and other general laws
apply to the extent expressly
called for by the primary laws or
to supply any of the latters
deficiencies.
2. The ruling in this

ponencia and in Naguit
that the classification
of public lands as
alienable and
disposable does not
need to date back to
June 12, 1945 at the
latest, is wrong
because:
a.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Under the
Constitutions regalian
doctrine, classification
is a required step
whose full import
should be given full
effect and recognition;
giving legal effect to
possession prior to
classification runs
counter to the regalian
doctrine.
b. The Public Land

Act applies only
from the time a
public land is
classified as
alienable and
disposable; thus,
Section 48(b) of this
law and the
possession it
requires cannot be
recognized prior to
any classification.
c. Under the Civil

Code, [O]nly things
and rights which are
susceptible of being
appropriated may be
the object of
possession. Prior to the
classification of a
public land as alienable
and disposable, a land
of the public domain
cannot be
appropriated; hence,
any claimed possession
cannot have legal
effects.
d. There are other

modes of acquiring
alienable and
disposable lands of the
public domain under
the Public Land Act;
this legal reality
renders the ponencias
absurdity argument
misplaced.
e. The alleged
absurdity of the law
addresses the wisdom
of the law and is a
matter for the
Legislature, not for this
Court, to address.
Consequently, Naguit must be

abandoned and rejected for being
based on legally-flawed premises
and for being an aberration in land
registration jurisprudence. At the
very least, the present ponencia
cannot be viewed as an authority
on the effective possession prior
to classification since this ruling,
by the ponencias own admission,
is not necessary for the resolution
of the present case, [Emphasis
supplied]
53Maximo v. CFI of Capiz, supra note 49, at

539.
54 Public LAND Act, Section 4. Subject to

said control, the Director of Lands shall have
direct executive control of the survey,
classification, lease, sale or any other form of
concession or disposition and management of
the lands of the public domain, and his
decisions as to questions of fact shall be
conclusive when approved by the Secretary
of Environment and Natural Resources.
55Maximo v. CFI of Capiz, supra note 49, at
540;
56 See the cases of Hortizuela v. Tagufa, G.R

No. 205867, February 23, 2015 and Lorzano
v. Tabayag, supra note 27.
57 G.R. No. 191101, October 1,2014, 737

SCRA 381.
58 Id. at 381, 394.
59 Section 47, P.D. 1529.
Back to Home | Back to Main
Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

de Leon V de Leon-Reyes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

de Leon V de Leon-Reyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/12/2020 G.R. No. 205711, May 30, 2016 - PEDRO DE LEON, Petitioner, v.

ner, v. NENITA DE LEON-REYES, JESUS REYES, MYETH REYES AND JE…

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

May 2016 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 >

G.R. No. 205711, May 30, 2016 - PEDRO DE LEON,

G.R. No. 205711, May 30, 2016

PEDRO DE LEON, Petitioner, v. NENITA DE LEON-

This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Pedro de

Leon from the May 31, 2012 decision1 and January

16, 2013 resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in

CA-G.R. CV No. 90307.3 The CA reversed the Regional

02-08 and 02-20.4 chanrobleslaw

Petitioner Pedro de Leon (Pedro) and respondent Nenita

Nenita is married to respondent Jesus Reyes with whom

During his lifetime, Alejandro possessed two parcels of

Sometime between 1995 and 1996, the government

ChanRobles Special (OCT):

1. OCT No. 167575 covering Lot No. 6521 (39,270

2. OCT No. 175806 covering Lot No. 6952-G (32,934

name of Nenita de Leon-Reyes;

3. OCT No. 175817 covering Lot No. 6952-A (14,098

4. OCT No. 175828 covering Lot No. 6952-B (10,000

Sometime after the issuance of the titles, Pedro filed a

misrepresentation of facts in the acquisition of title.9 chanrobleslaw

In a complaint dated May 22, 1997, Nenita's family filed

On May 19, 1998, the MCTC dismissed the ejectment

protest before the Bureau of Lands/DENR.10 chanrobleslaw

Nenita's family appealed the dismissal to the Regional

On July 21, 1999, the RTC affirmed the MCTC's dismissal

proper action with the proper forum.11 chanrobleslaw

Soon after, the DENR dismissed Pedro's Protest after

requisites for a public land grant.12 The DENR upheld the

On May 31, 2012, the CA reversed the RTC's ruling,

As the RTC did, the CA validated Nenita's ownership of

complaint for reconveyance.22 chanrobleslaw

Citing Banguilan v. Court of Appeals,23 the CA explained

for reversion, not reconveyance.24 If the grantees'

The CA emphasized that Pedro failed to prove, or even

The CA further pointed out that Pedro failed to appeal

grant of the patents to Nenita's family.25 cralawred Thus, the

DENR's findings that (1) the free patents and OCTs

land - and therefore, no longer entitled to a grant of any

On the issue of laches, the CA held that the length of

against her.26 chanrobleslaw

Pedro moved for reconsideration but the CA denied the

The Parties' Arguments

Pedro insists that he is the rightful owner of the

Citing Lorzano v. Tabayag,27 Pedro concedes that a

enforcement of a constructive trust.28 chanrobleslaw

Moreover, Pedro claims that as of the date of the grant of

account of his continued occupation and possession for

the DENR's jurisdiction to dispose of.29 chanrobleslaw

He also argues that the MCTC's dismissal of the

ejectment case [Civil Case No. 319-SJ (97)]30 that

Nenita counters that: (1) Pedro raises questions of fact

We DENY the petition for lack of merit.

First, we emphasize that this Court is not a trier of facts.

few judicially carved exceptions,31 this Court will not

G.R. No. 211698,

REPUBLIC OF THE substantiate his allegation of forgery with clear and

LYDIA P. RAYOS DEL