FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243157. April 10, 2019.]
HEIRS OF VALENTIN D. IBARDALOZA, 1petitioners, vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 10, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243157 (Heirs of Valentin D. Ibardaloza v. Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, through its Regional Executive Director) — The petitioners' motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
This is an appeal by certiorari from the January 30, 2018 Decision 2 and November 8, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 102018 which reversed and set aside the April 25, 2012 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 01-1663. The RTC dismissed the complaint for cancellation/annulment of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1060 and the reversion of the land covered thereby to the Republic of the Philippines (Republic).
Antecedents
On May 3, 1991, Valentin D. Ibardaloza (Ibardaloza) filed Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) No. 0076-02-2561 covering Lot No. 34 Blk. No. 25, a residential land located in South Cembo, Makati City with an area of 195 square meters. 5 In his Affidavit of Direct Sale, Ibardaloza stated that he was the only occupant and possessor of the subject lot and that it was free from any adverse claim. 6
An investigation was conducted by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) per January 29, 1992 Report of the Chief, Land Management Division to the Regional Executive Director (RED)-Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), National Capital Region (NCR). Per information contained in the said report, it was found that the land applied for was "free from claims and conflicts and not needed for public use"; that Ibardaloza already introduced improvements appropriate for the purpose for which the land will be devoted, and that he was continuously occupying the house constructed thereon and was actually residing therein; that Ibardaloza was not an owner of any home lot in Makati; that the land was found to be disposable under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 274 7 and R.A. No. 730 8 in relation to the Public Land Law. 9
On June 4, 1992, the DENR-NCR awarded the subject lot to Ibardaloza and issued Miscellaneous Sales Patent (MSP) No. MP-007602-92-827 in his favor. On the basis of said sales patent, OCT No. 1060 covering the subject lot was issued in the name of Ibardaloza. 10 CAIHTE
Subsequently, however, upon investigation conducted anew by the DENR-NCR, upon protest filed by Pacifico Diaz (Diaz), it was discovered that at the time of the application, Ibardaloza "deliberately impressed" on the Republic that he was qualified to be awarded the total area of 195 square meters due to his intentional omission and concealment of material facts in his MSA, by his representation therein that he was the only occupant and possessor of the subject lot. 11
On September 26, 1997, OIC Regional Executive Director Roquesa De Castro (RED De Castro) rendered a decision directing the segregation survey of approximately 90 square meters of the subject lot in favor of Diaz and cancellation of OCT No. 1060. Ibardaloza moved for reconsideration of the said decision but his motion was denied under DENR-NCR December 15, 1997 Order. The RED's decision relates to the "intentional omission constitutive of misrepresentation and fraud committed by Ibardaloza in his [MSA] when he failed to indicate the occupancy and possession by Pacifico Diaz of about 90 square meters on the subject lot which misled the [Republic] in granting the Sales Patent to Ibardaloza." 12
Ibardaloza appealed to the Office of the President (OP) which denied his appeal under January 12, 1999 Order issued by then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora. In its February 4, 2000 Order, the OP declared its January 12, 1999 Decision final and executory. An Order of Execution was thereafter issued by RED Corazon C. Davis on April 14, 2000, addressed to the Assistant Regional Executive Director for Technical Services. 13
On November 21, 2001, the Republic represented by the DENR through its Regional Executive Director (respondent), filed a complaint for cancellation of Ibardaloza's MSA and MSP together with OCT No. 1060 and all titles emanating therefrom and the reversion of the subject land to the public domain.
Ibardaloza who was already deceased, was substituted by his heirs, herein petitioners. Petitioners filed their Answer asserting the truthfulness of Ibardaloza's claims in his application that he was a qualified beneficiary of the subject lot considering that the matters stated in his application had already been duly established after an investigation and verification conducted by the DENR-NCR. It was never controverted that he complied with all the requirements prescribed in Section 1 14 of R.A. No. 730 in relation to R.A. No. 274, such as the construction of the house on the subject land and his actual residency therein since the early 1960s. He insisted that he was the only one who constructed a house on the lot applied for to the exclusion of other persons. 15
Petitioners asserted that Ibardaloza did not commit any fraud, misstatement or omission in the MSA. Even if, for the sake of argument, he failed to indicate in his application that there was another person in the name of Diaz residing in the same property, such omission did not constitute fraud since the same was not essential and material to his application to acquire the subject land. There was really no material or essential condition of the sale cited in the law that was inconsistent with Ibardaloza's qualification as a beneficiary. As to Diaz, he cannot be considered a rightful and qualified occupant and possessor of the subject lot since he did not meet the qualifications of a beneficiary, and hence it cannot be said that Ibardaloza committed misrepresentation when he omitted to state the occupancy and residency of Diaz on the same land. The issue of rightful possession of the subject property had been settled by the February 8, 1996 Decision rendered by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City, Branch 62 in favor of Ibardaloza. 16
Petitioners further stressed that the policy of the law was to distribute public lands only to qualified beneficiaries specially to deserving soldiers of the Republic like Ibardaloza, a veteran of World War II and a member of the United States Army Forces in the Far East (USAFFE). Ibardaloza should not be denied that right simply because of an alleged omission of a non-essential or immaterial date in his application. The September 26, 1997 Decision regarding Diaz's protest cannot serve as basis for the filing of the cancellation/reversion suit by the Republic, as argued by Ibardaloza in his motion for reconsideration filed before said office. He had pointed out that such decision was null and void since the DENR-NCR had no jurisdiction over the protest of Diaz. 17
At the trial, the Republic presented as witnesses Diaz, Pablo del Valle and Laura Velarde to prove the allegation of the open and continuous possession and occupancy of about 90 square meters of the subject land by Diaz since 1977 and the construction of a two-storey house thereon. Atty. Manuelita Jatulan, Chief of Legal Division of DENR-NCR, was presented in court to authenticate the September 26, 1997 Decision of RED De Castro in connection with the protest filed by Diaz against Ibardaloza. The Republic likewise formally offered its documentary evidence. 18
On the part of petitioners, they offered the testimonies of Marilyn Ibardaloza-Robles, Leonida Atendido, Diaz and Herminia Ibardaloza to prove that Ibardaloza had constructed a house with extension on the subject lot since the early 1960s and that Diaz and his family merely rented a portion of Ibardaloza's house. Petitioners likewise formally offered their documentary evidence. DETACa
Ruling of the RTC
In its April 25, 2012 Decision, the RTC ruled that it was not convinced that the Republic was able to establish that fraud or misrepresentation attended Ibardaloza's application for MSP and the issuance of OCT No. 1060. It pointed out that the DENR-NCR decision, as basis for reversion of the subject lot awarded to Ibardaloza, was rendered only on September 26, 1997 while the application of Ibardaloza was filed on May 3, 1991. 19
The RTC held that the mere omission of an information from the patent application of Ibardaloza relating to the alleged occupancy of a portion of the subject lot by Diaz had been rendered irrelevant and immaterial by the January 29, 1992 Report submitted by Isaias Cepe, Chief, Land Management Division (LMD) to the RED, DENR-NCR and the latter's endorsement to the LMD, finding that the subject land applied for by Ibardaloza was "free from claims and conflicts." Under the circumstances, mere omission from the application of an alleged occupant of the lot subject of application does not per se cause the ipso facto cancellation of Ibardaloza's patent and title. Except for such omission, the Republic was able to establish Ibardaloza's qualification to be awarded the Sales Patent and OCT No. 1060 as contained in the aforesaid report. 20
Additionally, the RTC quoted from the February 8, 1996 Decision of the MeTC, Makati City, Br. 62, in the ejectment case filed by Ibardaloza against Joseph Diaz, son of Pacifico Diaz, which states that —
From the unrebutted antecedents aforecited, it is clear that plaintiff has prior possession as in fact he is the owner of the house in question, occupied by the defendant through an oral lease contract on a month to month basis and therefore the lease is with a definite period. Thus, it can be terminated at the end of any given month with prior notice to him. 21
The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, for failure of petitioner Republic of the Philippines represented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources through its Regional Executive Director to prove that Valentin Ibardolaza committed fraud and misrepresentation in his Miscellaneous Sales Application, the above-entitled case is hereby ordered Dismissed. Likewise, for lack of factual and legal basis, defendants counter-claim is ordered Dismissed.
SO ORDERED. 22
The Republic filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC.
CA Ruling
On appeal to the CA, the Republic argued that the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint for cancellation of OCT No. 1060 and reversion of the subject lot, notwithstanding undisputed evidence that Ibardaloza failed to disclose in his application that another person was occupying the lot. It also assailed the RTC's reliance on the decision of the MeTC in the ejectment case filed by Ibardaloza against Diaz.
Finding merit in the foregoing, the CA reversed the RTC and declared OCT No. 1060 as null and void, and ordered the reversion of the subject lot to the mass of the public domain. The appellate court found that Ibardaloza deliberately omitted in his application that Diaz was also occupying the subject lot, and misrepresented therein that the property was not occupied by any other person. The inaccurate information was not only deceptive but arguably intended to perpetuate fraud in obtaining a government patent over a public land. Had Ibardaloza been more truthful in his application, the Bureau of Lands would have hesitated to grant his application and would have conducted a thorough investigation to determine his qualifications under the Public Land Act, as amended. 23
Citing the investigation report of the LMD which stated that the land applied for was free from claims and conflicts, the CA pointed out that said report failed to state the possessors of the property. Such error on the part of the DENR Regional Office did not bind the State. Petitioners cannot invoke the presumption of regularity in the issuance of title because in this case the presumption was overcome by evidence showing that Ibardaloza secured his patent by means of fraud and misrepresentation. 24
The CA thus decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, the assailed Decisiondated 25 April 2012 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 150, City of Makati, in Civil Case No. 01-1663 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one is RENDERED GRANTING the Republic of the Philippines' Complaint for Cancellation/Annulment of Certificate of Title and Reversion, and consequently, the Court: aDSIHc
a. DECLARES Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 007602-92-827 and the corresponding OCT No. 1060 issued by the Register of Deeds of Makati City in the name of Valentin Ibardolaza as NULL and VOID AB INITIO; and,
b. ORDERS that the parcel of land covered by Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 007602-92-827 and corresponding OCT No. 1060 be REVERTED to the mass of the public domain.
SO ORDERED. 25
Issue
Whether the CA erred in declaring OCT No. 1060 as null and void on the ground of fraud/misrepresentation, and in ordering the reversion of the land covered thereby.
Petitioners' Arguments
Petitioners reiterate that their father Valentin Ibardaloza was a qualified beneficiary under the provisions of R.A. No. 730. They assail the finding of the CA that Diaz was also rightfully occupying the subject lot, emphasizing that the right to possession must be considered to ascertain the right to occupy. Thus, entitlement to occupy a property by any person must be substantiated by his right to possess the same. The South Cembo property, being part of a former military reservation, was intended for distribution to qualified soldiers and military personnel of the Republic. This is based on Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 274 which states that "x x x first priority shall be given to bona fide occupants of such lands and thereafter to war veterans of the past war including members of the USAFFE x x x." 26
Petitioners contend that contrary to the findings of the CA, the investigation and final report of the LMD, DENR Regional Office effectively proved that Ibardaloza was the rightful possessor and that he was, in fact, the owner of the structures built thereon. Said investigation also effectively settled that Ibardaloza was the only applicant, claimant, possessor and qualified beneficiary. Consistent with this administrative finding is the April 25, 2012 Decision of the RTC of Makati City, Br. 62 which clearly states that Ibardaloza had prior possession of the subject lot and was the owner of the house constructed on the lot being occupied by Diaz by virtue of an oral lease on a month-to-month basis that could be terminated at the end of any given month with prior notice to him. The MeTC of Makati City had admitted in evidence the Agreement between Ibardaloza and Diaz, which they signed and sealed before the Barangay Office of Cembo, whereby Diaz honored the ownership and possession of Ibardaloza and made a promise to vacate the premises on July 24, 1994. Consequently, the CA erred in holding that there was no evidence to show the Diaz was merely renting the house built by Ibardaloza. 27
Petitioners further reiterate their position that the alleged omission to declare the occupancy of the same land by Diaz constitutes fraud that would ipso facto invalidate the title of Ibardaloza. They claim that when Ibardaloza filed his application, he indicated in good faith that as far as he was concerned, he was the only legal possessor of the subject land, on which he had introduced improvements by constructing a house worth P30,000.00, which he owns. The accuracy of these entries in his application were verified by the DENR Regional Office through actual inspection and field investigation. Even assuming that Ibardaloza was required by law to state all those relatives or persons who were under his employ or living with them in his house, or any part thereof, like Diaz, the question of fraud or materiality or significance of this information was already mooted by the issuance of the investigation reports of the CENRO and LMD in 1992. In any case, the Republic failed to show that Ibardaloza's omission in his application had deceived or deprived anyone of his right, in fact Diaz's alleged right to possess and occupy the subject lot was adjudged to be baseless by the RTC of Makati City. Indeed, the Republic failed to overcome the presumption of regularity in the compliance with the required notices by the DENR. 28
DISCUSSION
The petition has no merit.
At the outset, it must be pointed out that the essential issue raised in this petition — fraud — is factual. Whether there was fraud and misrepresentation in the issuance of the sales patent in favor of Ibardaloza calls for a thorough evaluation of the parties' evidence. 29 This Court is not a trier of facts. As a general rule, this Court does not review factual matters, as only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court. 30
However, considering that the findings and conclusions of the RTC and CA are conflicting, we have decided to consider the issues raised in order to settle the matter once and for all.
In his miscellaneous sales patent application, Ibardaloza declared under oath that he was the only occupant and possessor of the subject lot. The investigation and final report of the LMD likewise stated that the land is free from claims and conflicts. However, upon subsequent protest filed by Diaz, it was found that the latter was also occupying the same land although it appears that he was only renting a portion of the property from Ibardaloza who also claims sole ownership of the structures built on the premises. ETHIDa
Sec. 91 of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 (Public Land Act) provides:
The statements made in the application shall be considered as essential conditions and parts of any concession, title, or permit issued on the basis of such application, and any false statements therein or omission of facts altering, changing, or modifying the consideration of the facts set forth in such statements, and any subsequent modification, alteration, or change of the material facts set forth in the application shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession, title, or permit granted. It shall be the duty of the Director of Lands, from time to time and whenever he may deem it advisable, to make the necessary investigations for the purpose of ascertaining whether the material facts set out in the application are true, or whether they continue to exist and are maintained and preserved in good faith, x x x. (emphasis supplied)
The foregoing provision is reinforced by jurisprudential rulings that stress in no uncertain terms the consequences of any fraud or misrepresentation committed in the course of applying for a land patent. 31
Misrepresentation, on the other hand, means "the act of making a false or misleading assertion about something, usually with the intent to deceive." 32
By omitting to disclose the occupation by another person of the land applied for, who was not a member of his immediate family, Ibardaloza was guilty of fraud and misrepresentation. As a measure of good faith, he was under duty to disclose the information that he was leasing out a portion of the subject lot to a third party. The making of truthful or accurate statements regarding the actual occupants of the land subject of patent application is an essential condition in a public land application.
Proclamation No. 518 33 (Proc. 518) excluded from the operation of Proc. 423 34 — which established the military reservation known as Fort Bonifacio situated in the then municipalities of Pasig, Taguig, Pateros and Parañaque, Province of Rizal and Pasay City — certain portions in said reservation known and identified as Barangays Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo, Comembo, Pembo, and Pitogo, situated in Makati, and declared the same open for disposition in accordance with Republic Act (RA) No. 274, and No. 730 in relation to the provisions of C.A. No. 141. 35
Among others, Proc. 518 allowed a maximum area of 300 square meters in areas within Barangays Cembo, South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo, Comembo, Pembo, and Pitogo. Such disposition of the subdivision lots by the Regional Executive Director of the National Capital Region of the DENR shall be limited to bona fide occupants who have been residing on the proclaimed area on or before January 7, 1986.
The relevance of actual occupancy and residency in the application for miscellaneous sales patent under the aforementioned laws and presidential issuances is thus not difficult to comprehend. Accordingly, we find no reversible error committed by the CA in holding that there was fraud and misrepresentation in the omission to declare in his sales patent application the occupancy by another person of a portion of the subject lot. Even if it was established by petitioners that Diaz was a mere lessee, such did not change the fact that there was misrepresentation in the statements made by Ibardaloza in his application. Ibardaloza could not have pre-empted the administrative determination of whether Diaz, as actual occupant and resident of the subject lot, is qualified to avail of the land distribution program under Proc. 518. As to the decision in the ejectment case he filed against Diaz, it bears to stress that the only issue in unlawful detainer cases is the right to physical possession, and does not involve the defendant's qualifications under various laws to avail of public land distribution program, such as in this case.
Ibardaloza was found guilty of making false statements in his application for a sales patent, thus justifying the annulment of his title, pursuant to Sec. 91 of C.A. No. 141. The indefeasibility of a title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation. The registration of a patent under the Torrens System merely confirms the registrant's title. It does not vest title where there is none because registration under this system is not a mode of acquiring ownership. 36
Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the Republic has overcome the presumption of regularity in the issuance of Ibardaloza's sales patent and OCT No. 1060. We have ruled that the State can assail a patent fraudulently issued by the Director of Lands. "Where public land is acquired by an applicant through fraud and misrepresentation, the State may institute reversion proceedings even after the lapse of one year." 37 The subject lot must therefore revert back to the public domain.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The January 30, 2018 Decision and November 8, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 102018 are hereby AFFIRMED. cSEDTC
SO ORDERED." Del Castillo, J., on official business. Jardeleza, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 30-38, 39-41 and 43-51; referred to as "Ibardolaza" in the CA Decision and Resolution, and the RTC Decision.
2.Id. at 30-38; penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
3.Id. at 39-41.
4.Id. at 43-51; penned by Judge Elmo M. Alameda.
5.Id. at 42.
6.Id. at 47.
7.R.A. No. 274
An Act Authorizing the Director of Lands to Subdivide the Lands within Military Reservations Belonging to the Republic of the Philippines Which are No Longer Needed for Military Purposes, and to Dispose of the Same by Sale Subject to Certain Conditions, and for Other Purposes. Approved on June 15, 1948.
8.R.A. No. 730
An Act to Permit the Sale without Public Auction of Public Lands of the Republic of the Philippines for Residential Purposes to Qualified Applicants under Certain Conditions. Approved on June 18, 1952.
9.Rollo, p. 50.
10.Supra, note 5.
11.Rollo, p. 44.
12.Id. at 49.
13.Id. at 47.
14.R.A. No. 730, Sec. 1
Section 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections sixty-one and sixty-seven of Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred forty-one, as amended by Republic Act Numbered Two hundred ninety-three, any Filipino citizen of legal age who is not the owner of a home lot in the municipality or city in which he resides and who has in good faith established his residence on a parcel of the public land of the Republic of the Philippines which is not needed for the public service, shall be given preference to purchase at a private sale of which reasonable notice shall be given to him not more than one thousand square meters at a price to be fixed by the Director of Lands with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. It shall be an essential condition of this sale that the occupants has constructed his house on the land and actually resided therein. Ten per cent of the purchase price shall be paid upon the approval of the sale and the balance may be paid in full, or in ten equal annual installments.
15.Rollo, p. 45.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 45-46.
18.Id. at 46.
19.Id. at 49-50.
20.Id. at 50-51.
21.Id. at 51.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 35-36.
24.Id. at 36.
25.Id. at 37.
26.Id. at 13-15.
27.Id. at 16-19.
28.Id. at 19-27.
29.Republic of the Phils., et al. v. Heirs of Oribello, Jr., et al., 705 Phil. 614, 629 (2013), citing Sampaco v. Lantud, 669 Phil. 304 (2011).
30.Republic of the Phils. v. Guerrero, 520 Phil. 296, 306 (2006).
31.Republic of the Phils. v. Ravelo, et al., 583 Phil. 199, 209 (2008).
32.Almagro v. Spouses Amaya, Sr., et al., 711 Phil. 493, 505 (2013), citing Black's Law Dictionary, 1091 (9th ed., 2009).
33. Proclamation No. 518, s. 1990
EXCLUDING FROM THE OPERATION OF PROCLAMATION NO. 423 DATED JULY 12, 1957 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE MILITARY RESERVATION KNOWN AS "FORT WILLIAM MCKINLEY" (NOW FORT ANDRES BONIFACIO) SITUATED IN THE MUNICIPALITIES OF PASIG, TAGUIG, PATEROS AND PARAÑAQUE, PROVINCE OF RIZAL AND PASAY CITY (NOW METROPOLITAN MANILA) AS AMENDED BY PROCLAMATION NO. 2475 DATED JANUARY 7, 1986, CERTAIN PORTIONS OF LAND EMBRACED THEREIN KNOWN AS BARANGAYS CEMBO, SOUTH CEMBO, WEST REMBO, EAST REMBO, COMEMBO, PEMBO AND PITOGO, SITUATED IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI, METROPOLITAN MANILA AND DECLARING THE SAME OPEN FOR DISPOSITION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 274, AND REPUBLIC ACT NO. 730 IN RELATION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC LAND ACT, AS AMENDED. Dated January 31, 1990.
34. Proclamation No. 423, s. 1957
RESERVING FOR MILITARY PURPOSES CERTAIN PARCELS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN SITUATED IN THE MUNICIPALITIES OF PASIG, TAGUIG, PARAÑAQUE, PROVINCE OF RIZAL AND PASAY CITY. Dated July 12, 1957.
35. Commonwealth Act No. 141 is also known as "The Public Land Act."
36. Baguio v. Republic of the Phils., et al., 361 Phil. 374, 382 (1999).
37. Republic of the Phils. v. Sps. De Guzman, et al., 383 Phil. 151, 161 (2000), citing Republic of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, 253 Phil. 698, 712-713 (1989).