Republic v. Heirs of Angeles

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 193991. June 23, 2021.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REGION III, DENR, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF AGUSTIN L. ANGELES, ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 193991 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REGION III, DENR, petitioner, v. HEIRS OF AGUSTIN L. ANGELES, ET AL., respondents). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, assailing the Decision 2 dated July 1, 2010 and Resolution 3 dated October 4, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 87501. The assailed issuances affirmed in toto the February 8, 2006 Decision 4 issued by Branch 1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga City, Bataan in Civil Case No. 6789, for Declaration of Nullity and Cancellation of Free Patent.

The Antecedents

At the core of the instant controversy is a parcel of land identified as Lot 2744, Cadastral 241 of the Orion Cadastre, located in Barangay Capunitan, Orion, Bataan and covering an area of 3,578 square meters, more or less (subject property). 5

On July 30, 1963, the late Agustin L. Angeles (Agustin) filed Free Patent Application No. 7-1-2021 over the subject property. The same was granted, by virtue of Free Patent No. 265340. Accordingly, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 194 6 was issued in Agustin's name.

Thereafter, Agustin executed a Deed of Absolute Sale 7 dated January 5, 1970, conveying the northern half (1/2) of the subject property to his sister, Emilia L. Angeles (Emilia), for the amount of P1,000.00.

Thereafter, in a Deed of Absolute Sale 8 dated January 27, 1973, Emilia sold the portion of the subject property that she acquired from Agustin to Luz Gancayco (Gancayco). As a result of this transaction, OCT No. 194 was cancelled. In its stead, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-43712 9 was issued in Agustin and Gancayco's names.

On May 20, 1991, Gancayco executed a Deed of Absolute Sale 10 over her portion of the subject property in favor of Erlinda Lagamayo (Lagamayo). Thus, TCT No. 43712 was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT No. T-147137 11 was issued in Agustin and Lagamayo's names.

On May 26, 1998, petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Complaint 12 dated May 18, 1998 against respondents for reversion. Petitioner contended, inter alia, that Agustin committed fraud and misrepresentation to obtain Free Patent No. 265340; that Agustin actually passed away on April 16, 1967, 13 which means that in executing their Deed of Absolute Sale on January 5, 1970, Agustin and Emilia circumvented the five-year proscription against the alienation or encumbrance of the subject property provided in Section 118 14 of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 by post-dating the said document; and that, accordingly, Free Patent No. 265340 must be annulled and the subject property be reverted to the State. Since Agustin and his wife, Carmen de Leon Vda. de Angeles (Carmen), had already passed away, they were duly substituted 15 in the suit by their heirs.

In a Motion to Dismiss 16 dated April 20, 1999, Gancayco asserted that petitioner's action was already barred by the statute of limitations and/or should be deemed abandoned. This position, duly adopted 17 by the Heirs of Agustin and Carmen, was opposed 18 by petitioner.

On September 7, 1999, the trial court issued an Order 19 granting the Motion to Dismiss. Thus:

WHEREFORE, finding the motion to be meritorious, the same is hereby GRANTED and the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner assailed the above Order of the trial court before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 141296. In a Decision 20 dated October 7, 2002, this Court granted petitioner's recourse. Thus:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Order SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Bataan is DIRECTED to hear Civil Case No. 6789 on the merits, with all reasonable speed. No costs.

SO ORDERED. 21

Following the reinstatement of the case before the RTC, respondents filed their Answer with Counterclaim 22 dated March 10, 2003, arguing that Agustin had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject property since time immemorial; that the subject property is a public agricultural land that Agustin acquired by virtue of a free patent; that the subsequent owners of the one-half (1/2) portion of the subject property are innocent purchasers in good faith and for value; and that the Regional Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) who caused the filing of the Complaint had no authority to do so.

The RTC Ruling

On February 8, 2006, the trial court rendered a Decision against petitioner. It ruled that the testimonies of the DENR employees as to the irregularities purportedly committed by Agustin in his free patent application are not enough to overturn the presumption that Free Patent No. 265340 was regularly issued. More so, the DENR had miserably failed to produce the entire records as would show the fraud and misrepresentation purportedly committed by Agustin.

As to Agustin's alleged violation of Section 118 of C.A. No. 141, the RTC opined that petitioner was not able to establish Agustin's death because his death certificate was not identified by any of its witnesses during the trial.

Ultimately, the RTC made the following disquisition:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. 23

Thereafter, petitioner interposed an appeal 24 with the CA.

The CA Ruling

On July 1, 2010, the appellate court rendered the herein assailed Decision affirming the findings and conclusions of the RTC.

The CA ruled that petitioner was not able to prove that Agustin committed fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining Free Patent No. 265340. Not a single document was preferred by petitioner to establish such claim. Moreover, Agustin's purported death certificate was neither presented for identification nor formally offered in open court during trial.

Thus, the CA decreed:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the questioned Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated February 8, 2006 is UPHELD in its entirety.

SO ORDERED. 25

Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 26 was denied by the CA in the herein assailed Resolution dated October 4, 2010.

Hence, the present recourse.

The Issue

Excoriating the disquisitions of the appellate court, petitioner contends that:

WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY THAT IS CONTRARY TO APPLICABLE DOCTRINES LAID DOWN BY THIS HONORABLE COURT IN THAT:

IT REJECTED IN EVIDENCE A VITAL DOCUMENT SHOWING THAT THE PARCEL OF LAND COVERED BY FREE PATENT NO. 265340 (TCT NO. T-43712) WAS SOLD WITHIN THE FIVE (5)-YEAR PROHIBITORY PERIOD AGAINST ALIENATION OF LANDS GRANTED BY VIRTUE OF FREE PATENT, ON THE FLIMSY RATIONALIZATION THAT SUCH DOCUMENT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED, PRESENTED, AND FORMALLY OFFERED IN EVIDENCE. 27

The Ruling of the Court

At the outset, a cursory review of the records reveals that the "Certified Xerox Copy from the Original" of the Certificate of Death 28 of Agustin was submitted by petitioner in its Formal Offer of Evidence 29 dated February 18, 2005 as Exhibit "B" purportedly "for the purpose of establishing that Agustin L. Angeles died on April 16, 1967." 30 Respondents objected to the admissibility of Exhibit "B" in their Comment on Formal Offer of Evidence 31 dated March 2, 2005 on the ground that it was "not x x x duly identified" 32 before the RTC.

On March 15, 2005, the trial court issued an Order 33 admitting all of the exhibits presented by petitioner, including Exhibit "B," viz.:

Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and its [sic] sub-markings are admitted as part of the testimony of the witness or witnesses who testified thereto and for the purpose or purposes for which they are being offered.

SO ORDERED.

Respondents interposed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Order dated March 15, 2005, 34 contending inter alia that Agustin's Certificate of Death was not identified by any witness and, hence, should not have been admitted by the trial court. It appears that the said motion was resolved by the trial court only in its Decision dated February 8, 2006.

Petitioner insists that Agustin circumvented the proscription under Section 118 of C.A. No. 141 which states:

SECTION 118. Except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, lands acquired under free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period, but the improvements or crops on the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations.

No alienation, transfer, or conveyance of any homestead after five years and before twenty-five years after issuance of title shall be valid without the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, which approval shall not be denied except on constitutional and legal grounds.

The petition must be dismissed.

In light of the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 11231, lands acquired by virtue of a free patent are no longer subject to the proscriptions under C.A. No. 141, including the five-year prohibition from the alienation thereof. As provided in Sections 3 and 4 of R.A. No. 11231:

Section 3. Agricultural public lands alienated or disposed in favor of qualified public land applicants under Section 44 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, shall not be subject to restrictions imposed under Sections 118, 119 and 121 thereof regarding acquisitions, encumbrances, conveyances, transfers, or dispositions. Agricultural free patent shall now be considered as title in fee simple and shall not be subject to any restriction on encumbrance or alienation.

Section 4. This Act shall have retroactive effect and any restriction regarding acquisitions, encumbrances, conveyances, transfers, or dispositions imposed on agricultural free patents issued under Section 44 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, before the effectivity of this Act shall be removed and are hereby immediately lifted: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall affect the right of redemption under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, for transactions made in good faith prior to the effectivity of this Act. (Underscoring ours)

As stated in Section 4 thereof, the retroactive application of R.A. No. 11231 has cured whatever defect that the subject property may have had, including Agustin's conveyance of one-half thereof in favor of Emilia. As correctly observed by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa in his Concurring Opinion in Spouses Duadua v. R.T. Dino Development Corporation: 35

R.A. 11231 lifted the prohibition against the encumbrance or alienation of lands acquired under free patent, except if the same is in favor of the government or any of its branches, within five years from the issuance of the patent or grant. It also removed the condition for repurchase, where the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs can repurchase a land acquired under the free patent provisions within five years from the date of transfer or sale. Finally, it did away with the limitation that except for solely commercial, industrial, educational, religious, charitable, or right of way purposes, and upon approval of the patentee and the Secretary of Department of Environment and Natural Resources, corporations, associations, or partnerships are forbidden from acquiring any property right, title or interest on free patent.

As it stands, the discarding of these circumscriptions left the agricultural free patent a title in fee simple, free of any restriction on its encumbrance or alienation. Further, since the repeal also applies retroactively, any prior defective disposition not included under the right of redemption in Section 119 is effectively cured, and any restrictions on the acquisitions, encumbrances, or dispositions concerning agricultural free patents issued prior to the enactment of R.A. 11231 are deemed lifted.

Accordingly, the Court can no longer dwell on the question of the admissibility of Agustin's death certificate, the same being intertwined to a moot issue, i.e., whether or not Agustin circumvented the prohibition against the transfer of ownership of part of the subject property when he executed a post-dated Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of his sister, Emilia. It is now moot and academic.

A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. 36 In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. 37 The Court will therefore abstain from expressing its opinion in a case where no legal relief is needed or called for. 38

In the case at bar, the retroactive effectivity of R.A. No. 11231 serves as a supervening event which rendered moot the issue raised by petitioner. The courts of law will not determine moot and academic questions, for they should not engage in academic declarations and determine moot questions. 39 It is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question, as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced. 40

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for being moot and academic.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 8-33.

2.Id. at 34-53; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (now a retired Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Stephen C. Cruz.

3.Id. at 54-55.

4. CA rollo, pp. 19-33; rendered by Judge Benjamin T. Vianzon.

5. Records, p. 599.

6.Id. at 568.

7.Id. at 571.

8.Id. at 573.

9.Id. at 575.

10.Id. at 577-578.

11.Id. at 576.

12.Id. at 1-12.

13.Id. at 570. Certified photocopy of the Certificate of Death of Agustin Lim Angeles.

14. Sec. 118. Except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, lands acquired under free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period, but the improvements or crops on the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations.

No alienation, transfer, or conveyance of any homestead after five years and before twenty-five years after issuance of title shall be valid without the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, which approval shall not be denied except on constitutional and legal grounds.

15. Records, pp. 85-88.

16.Id. at 90-96.

17.Id. at 138-140. Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion (With Notice of Appearance) dated May 20, 1999.

18.Id. at 109-117. Opposition (To Motion to Dismiss) dated May 6, 1999.

19.Id. at 180.

20.Id. at 205-215; penned by Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban and concurred in by Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Renato C. Corona and Conchita Carpio-Morales.

21.Id. at 214.

22.Id. at 229-235.

23. CA rollo, p. 33.

24.Id. at 42-65.

25.Rollo, p. 52.

26. CA rollo, pp. 157-169.

27.Rollo, pp. 19-20.

28. Records, p. 570.

29.Id. at 565-567.

30.Id. at 565.

31.Id. at 581-582.

32.Id. at 581.

33.Id. at 550.

34.Id. at 589-591.

35. G.R. No. 247816, July 15, 2020; Concurring Opinion of Justice Caguioa.

36.Peñafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc. v. Sugar Regulatory Administration, 728 Phil. 535, 540 (2014).

37.Osmeña III v. Social Security System of the Philippines, 559 Phil. 723, 735 (2007).

38.Ilusorio v. Baguio Country Club Corporation, 738 Phil. 135, 140 (2014).

39.Republic of the Philippines v. Manila Electric Company, 723 Phil. 776, 789-790 (2013).

40.Baldo, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 607 Phil. 281, 286 (2009).