THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 195740. February 18, 2013.]
GABRIEL RESURRECCION, petitioner, vs. PRESILA ANTONIO, JUANITO ANTONIO, PRUDENCIO DISTOR, FLORDELIZA BORDAMONTE, DANTE MANGANAAN, MERLY ARROZA, LUMINADA LORILLA, LEONARDO IDIO, AND HELEN ALVARO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 18, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 195740 — (Gabriel Resurreccion vs. Presila Antonio, Juanito Antonio, Prudencio Distor, Flordeliza Bordamonte, Dante Manganaan, Merly Arroza, Luminada Lorilla, Leonardo Idio, and Helen Alvaro.) — Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the August 5, 2010 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 01033-MIN.
The case stemmed from a petition for cancellation of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. A-01114, for ejectment and damages, filed by petitioner Gabriel Resurreccion (petitioner) against Presila Antonio, Juanito Antonio, Prudencio Distor, Flordeliza Bordamonte, Dante Manganaan, Merly Arroza, Luminada Lorilla, Leonardo Idio and Helen Alvaro (respondents) before the Regional Adjudicator (RA) involving a parcel of land identified as Lot 562, Pls-604-D (Lot 562) covered by OCT No. A-01114 located in Sultan Kudarat with an area of more or less ten (10) hectares.
Petitioner claimed to be a pioneer settler in the resettlement area at Malegdeg, Sen. Ninoy Aquino, Sultan Kudarat. Immediately after residing in the resettlement area, petitioner applied for a homestead patent over Lot 562 which was approved by the Bureau of Lands in 1961 as evidenced by Order of Approval of Application. 2 aCSDIc
On April 19, 1969, Presidential Proclamation No. 550 was issued which created the Sultan Kudarat Resettlement Project II covering an area of 52,237 hectares. During this period, petitioner continued to possess Lot 562 until the early part of 1970, when a man-made calamity occurred. Petitioner allegedly returned to the resettlement area on December 10, 1974.
Respondents allegedly possessed and cultivated Lot 562 since the early 1970s. On December 5, 1990, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) issued a certification attesting that respondents were in actual possession and cultivation of Lot 562 since 1974. On December 13, 1990, the MARO issued a notice that Lot 562 was vacant, unallocated and available for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
Subsequently, on December 27, 1990, the MARO caused the issuance of the Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00007072 covering Lot 562 in favor of respondents. On March 6, 1991, the title was registered in the Registry of Deeds under OCT No. A-01114.
On January 28, 1998, petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of OCT No. A-01114, CLOA No. 00007072, ejectment and damages against respondents before the RA. Petitioner alleged that respondents obtained the title over Lot 562 through fraud and in conspiracy with the MARO and the RA. In their Answer, respondents denied all the material allegations in the petition.
In its Decision, 3 dated June 30, 1999, the RA ruled in favor of petitioner ordering the cancellation of OCT No. A-01114 and CLOA No. 00007072; and directed respondents to vacate and surrender the subject property and to cease from further cultivating the land. Respondents moved for reconsideration but their motion was denied.
Dissatisfied, respondents appealed the RA ruling to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). In its Decision, 4 dated December 28, 2004, the DARAB dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in toto the decision of the RA.
Aggrieved, respondents filed a petition for review before the CA. In its Decision, dated August 5, 2010, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the DARAB, which affirmed in toto the decision of the RA. The dispositive portion of which reads: ESIcaC
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition for review is GRANTED. The Decision dated 28 December 2004 and the Resolution dated 06 December 2005 of the Department of Agrarian Reform adjudication Board are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition for Cancellation of OCT No. A-01114, CLOA No. 00007072, Ejectment, and Damages docketed as DARAB Case No. 1205-0029-98 is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
In granting the appeal, the CA ruled that petitioner failed to present any credible evidence to substantiate his allegations that respondents fraudulently secured the CLOA and the OCT in their favor. The CA observed that petitioner failed to establish that he was vested with an uncontroverted and indefeasible title over Lot 562. The CA declared that there was no proof that petitioner complied with all the legal requirements to entitle him to a grant of a homestead patent. The CA opined that petitioner's failure to file his "final proof" which should be filed not earlier than one (1) year after the approval of the application but within five (5) years was fatal.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but his motion was denied in the CA Resolution, 5 dated January 25, 2011.
Hence, the present petition.
Petitioner argues that the issuance of the subject land title by the DAR violated procedural due process. Further, the CA failed to appreciate force majeure as an exception to consider petitioner to have performed all conditions essential to the government grant.
After careful consideration, the Court finds no reversible error in the CA Decision to warrant its modification much less reversal.
In the case of Medina v. Court of Appeals, 6 the Court held that it is only when an applicant for a homestead patent has complied with all the terms and conditions that entitle him to a patent for a particular tract of public land that he acquires a vested right to the property enough to be regarded as an equitable owner thereof. The right of an applicant to a homestead patent only becomes vested upon the issuance of an "Order of issuance of patent." Even without a patent, a perfected homestead is a property right in the fullest sense, unaffected by the fact that the paramount title to the land is still in the government. [Underscoring supplied] HDAECI
As aptly observed by the CA, petitioner in this case failed to present any evidence to establish compliance with all the legal requirements 7 entitling him to a homestead patent. No "final proof" was ever filed by petitioner before the Director of Lands. Further, his allegations of fraud committed by respondents in securing OCT No. A-01114 was unsubstantiated. Thus, the CA was correct in dismissing his petition for cancellation of OCT No. A-01114 and CLOA No. 00007072.
At any rate, petitioner has no legal personality to institute the action for cancellation of the subject OCT. In the case of Alegria v. Drilon, 8 the Court held that an applicant for a land patent has no standing to file a case for reconveyance because it is a remedy granted only to the owner of the property alleged to be erroneously titled in another's name. In such instances, it is the State which is the proper party to file suit.
Moreover, Section 101 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 provides that actions for reversion of public lands fraudulently awarded must be instituted by the Solicitor General in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
In the case of Cawis v. Cerilles, 10 the Court expressly declared that "[p]rivate persons may not bring an action for reversion or any action which would have the effect of cancelling a land patent and the corresponding certificate of title issued on the basis of the patent, such that the land covered thereby will again form part of the public domain."
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 20-35. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and concurred in by Associate Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
2.Id. at 90.
3.Id. at 38-63.
4.Id. at 66-80.
5.Id. at 36-37.
6.G.R. No. 137582, August 29, 2012.
7.The Land Management Bureau of the DENR outlines the steps leading to the issuance of a homestead patent:
1. Filing of application;
2. Preliminary Investigation;
3. Approval of application;
4. Filing of final proof which consists of two (2) parts;
a. Notice of intention to make Final Proof which is posted for 30 days.
b. Testimony of the homesteader corroborated by two (2) witnesses mentioned in the notice.
The Final Proof is filed not earlier than 1 year after the approval of the application but within 5 years from the said date.
5. Confirmatory Final Investigation;
6. Order of Issuance of Patent;
7. Preparation of patent using Judicial Form No. 67 and 67-D and the technical description duly inscribed at the back thereof;
8. Transmittal of the Homestead patent to the Register of Deeds concerned.
8.G.R. No. 161317, July 16, 2008, 558 SCRA 459, 464.
9.Section 101. All actions for the reversion to the government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
10.G.R. No. 170207, April 19, 2010, 618 SCRA 357, 364.