10.4. Republic v. Sundiam
10.4. Republic v. Sundiam
DECISION
CAGUIOA, J : p
Before the Court is the Petition 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic), represented by the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), assailing the Decision 2 dated
December 19, 2017 of the Court of Appeals 3 in CA-G.R. CV No. 107773
affirming the Order 4 dated October 7, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of
Angeles City, Branch 56 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 79-3209, dismissing the
reversion complaint filed by the Republic on the ground of equitable
estoppel.
The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
The CA Decision narrates the facts of the case as follows:
In a Complaint dated [October 16, 1979] filed before then Court
of First Instance of Pampanga [(CFI)], the Republic, through the
[OSG], alleged that a portion of the Fort Stotstenberg Military
Reservation in Pampanga, now Clark Air Force Base, was surveyed,
segregated and designated as Lot 727, Psd-528, Angeles Cadastre, in
favor of one Jose P. Henzon. It was further subdivided into seven (7)
lots, including Lot 727-G, allegedly without the approval or signature
of the Director of Lands.
On [October 27, 1967], Lot No. 727-G was further subdivided
into 63 lots, known as Csd-11198 and approved by the Director of
Lands. One of the registered owners thereof, Sixto Sundiam
[(Sundiam)], [respondent] herein, caused the registration of Lot No.
986 and thus, [Original Certificate of Title (OCT)] No. 80 was issued.
Later on, Sundiam sold the said property to [respondent] L & F
Marketing, Inc. [(L & F, Inc.)], which in turn sold the same, until the
property passed on to [respondent] Liberty Engineering Corporation
[(Liberty Corp.)], now under [Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)] No.
34959. However, it was later on discovered that the said lot is within
the Clark Air Force Base, a military reservation, prompting the
Republic to file a reversion case to declare the titles on the said
property null and void.
After the CFI issued summons, [respondents] Jose Ma. Lopez,
Rosendo D. Bondoc, Augusto F. del Rosario and Liberty [Corp.], as
transferees of the property, filed an Urgent Motion praying that the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
court direct the Republic to furnish them a copy of the sketch plan
showing the disputed lot being within the Clark Air Force Base. The
CFI granted the same through an Order dated [March 10, 1980],
suspending the filing of the Answer until the said sketch plan had
been furnished [respondents].
The Republic, however, failed to comply, hence, the CFI ordered
the case be sent to the archives via an Order dated [April 30, 1982].
A year thereafter, the Republic filed a Motion to Declare Defendants
in Default but the CFI issued an Order on [February 17, 1983] holding
in abeyance action thereon pending motion from the Republic for the
revival of the case.
Now, after twenty-four (24) years, the Republic, through the
OSG, filed a Manifestation and Motion before the [RTC] praying for
the revival of the case and the service of summons through
publication on [respondents] Sundiam and L & F, Inc.
[Respondent] Liberty [Corp.] filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing
that the Republic's cause of action was already barred by prescription
and laches. Moreover, the disputed property had already passed on
to innocent purchasers for value, including Liberty [Corp.] The
Republic opposed the same and maintained that neither prescription
nor laches would bar its claims.
On [October 7, 2015], the [RTC] rendered the assailed Order
dismissing the Complaint of the Republic, the dispositive portion of
which states:
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, in view of the above considerations,
the motion to dismiss is hereby granted. The complaint is
DISMISSED.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.
xxx xxx xxx
The Republic sought a reconsideration, but the same was
denied in an Order dated [March 15, 2016.]
xxx xxx xxx
The Republic filed its Notice of Appeal which was given due
course by the [RTC]. Hence, the x x x Appeal [to the CA.] 5
[Petitioner, then, filed an appeal to the CA, raising the sole
issue that the RTC erred in applying the doctrine of equitable
estoppel against the Government to bar it from recovering land
covered by a military reservation.] 6
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision dated December 19, 2017, the CA denied the Republic's
appeal. The CA agreed with the RTC's disquisition that the Republic is guilty
of laches. 7
The CA admitted that:
x x x [It] is aware that prescription does not run against the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
government. When the government is the real party in interest, and
is proceeding mainly to assert its own rights and recover its own
property, there can be no defense on the ground of laches or
limitation. And, [j]urisprudence also recognizes the State's immunity
from estoppel as a result of the mistakes or errors of its officials and
agents. 8
However, the CA pointed out that the disputed property, which the
Republic has alleged to be within the Clark Air Base, 9 a military reservation,
had already passed on to several third persons. 10 The CA stated that it is
only fair and reasonable to apply the equitable principle of estoppel by
laches against the government to avoid an injustice to innocent purchasers
for value. 11 Further, the CA expressed that it adheres to the Court's ruling in
Republic v. Umali , 12 that the government cannot institute reversion
proceedings against transferees in good faith and for value, upholding the
indefeasibility of a Torrens title. 13
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is
hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the assailed Order dated [October 7,
2015] issued by Branch 56, Regional Trial Court of Angeles City is
AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 14
Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 10-38, excluding Annexes.
2. Id. at 39-49. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of
the Court), with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Renato C.
Francisco concurring.
3. Seventh Division.
4. Rollo , pp. 94-97. Penned by Judge Irin Zenaida S. Buan.
5. Rollo , pp. 40-43.
6. Id. at 43.
7. Id. at 45.
8. Id. at 44. Citations omitted.
9. Clark Air Force Base in some parts of the rollo.
10. See rollo, pp. 46, 47.
11. Id. at 47. Citations omitted.
12. G.R. No. 80687, April 10, 1989, 171 SCRA 647.
21. "A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways
and for different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais , or estoppel by
deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches." Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, No. L-
21450, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29, 35.
22. Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, id. at 35.
23. Id.
24. 96 Phil. 622 (1955).
29. G.R. No. 94524, September 10, 1998, 295 SCRA 296, 313.
30. G.R. No. 79582, April 10, 1989, 171 SCRA 721, 734.
31. G.R. No. 168661, October 26, 2007, 537 SCRA 513.
32. Citing Manila Lodge No. 761 v. Court of Appeals, Nos. L-41001 & L-41012,
September 30, 1976, 73 SCRA 162, 186.
33. Citing 31 CJS 675-676, cited in Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116111,
January 21, 1999, 301 SCRA 366, 377.
34. Citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, id. at 379.
35. Supra note 12, at 653.
36. Estate of the Late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic, supra note 31, at 529-532.
37. Article 527 of the Civil Code states: "Good faith is always presumed, and upon
him who alleges bad faith on the part of a possessor rests the burden of
proof."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
38. See Nobleza v. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038, March 11, 2015, 752 SCRA 602, 611,
citing Raymundo v. Bandong, G.R. No. 171250, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 514,
529 further citing Potenciano v. Reynoso, G.R. No. 140707, April 22, 2003,
401 SCRA 391, 401. See also Baltazar v. Court of Appeals, No. L-78728,
December 8, 1988, 168 SCRA 354, 367 and Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 90380, September 13, 1990, 189 SCRA 550, 559.