FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218324. March 6, 2019.]
SPOUSES SAMUEL CANAPI AND ANA BELEN CANAPI, petitioners, vs. BO. CUPANG II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 6, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218324 (SPOUSES SAMUEL CANAPI AND ANA BELEN CANAPI, Petitioners, v. BO. CUPANG II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.) — The petitioners' first and second motions to expedite resolution, praying for the immediate resolution of the case for reason stated therein, and second motion for immediate resolution, praying that the Court resolve now the petition for reasons stated therein, are all NOTED.
We DENY the appeal from the decision 1 promulgated on December 5, 2014, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed in CA-G.R. CV No. 102343 the order 2 rendered on May 7, 2013 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 95, in Antipolo City, which dismissed the petition for declaration of nullity of title and petition for declaration of petitioners as owners in fee simple.
In affirming the RTC, the CA ruled that the case was for reversion which only the State can institute; that the petitioners admitted the State's ownership over the contested lot by averring that OCT No. 114 was declared open for alienation and disposition only on March 11, 1927 and no one has applied membership over the same; that the instant case is dismissible on the grounds of res judicata and forum shopping in relation to the final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 98-4775; and that the Court has no authority to award public land to petitioners even if OCT No. 114 be declared void as the authority belongs solely to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary.
We find no error on the part of the CA.
The petitioners maintained that their petition was based on a cause of action for declaration of nullity of title and not one for reversion as held by the trial and appellate courts.
We disagree.
The difference between an ordinary civil action for nullity of title and an action for reversion lies in the pertinent allegations in the complaint pertaining to the character of ownership over the property under controversy. 3 A declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of plaintiff's ownership of the lot prior to the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title, together with the defendant's fraud or mistake in obtaining such documents. On the other hand, in an action for reversion, the allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. 4 AIDSTE
The Court notes that the petitioner made the following allegations in their petition before the RTC:
xxx xxx xxx
9. In the instant case, the petitioners have been occupying for twenty-three (23) years now a parcel of lot measuring about One Hundred Fifty Square Meters (150 sq. mts), more or less, inside Lot No. 8046 of 29 Ext. Antipolo Cadastre.
10. The said parcel of lot occupied by the petitioners is also identified as Lot No. 4, Block No. 7 of Psd 04-196297, of the approved plan of Cupang II Homeowners Association, Inc. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
13. The said parcel of land that has been occupied by the petitioners for more than two (2) decades is worth more or less P374,250.00 as proven by the Lease Purchase Agreement (LPA) executed by the Petitioners with the respondent in the wrongful belief that the respondent was the legitimate owner of the parcel of land x x x
14. In convincing the petitioners to sign the said LPA, the respondent presented to the petitioners a certificate of registration as Transfer Certificate of Title No. 330492, that turned out later to be spurious.
xxx xxx xxx
16. An examination of TCT No. 330492 shows that it was a direct derivative of TCT No. 339522/T-1970 and it was originally derived from alleged Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 114 allegedly pursuant to a homestead patent granted by the President of the Republic of the Philippines on May 23, 1925 under Act No. 2874 and which was originally registered on June 12, 1925 in Registration Book No. 1-6, page 114 of the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal.
xxx xxx xxx
30. The result of the investigation done by the DENR shows that there is no such thing as OCT No. 114 that was issued, or no such homestead was issued by the DENR for the parcel of land denominated as Lot No. 8046 of 29 Ext. Antipolo Cadastre.
31. The same spurious OCT 114 covers all other lots of 29 Ext. Antipolo Cadastre, which other lots are: Lot Nos. 8039, 8040, 8041, 8042, 8043, 8044, 8045, 8047, 8048, 8049, 8050, 8051, 8052 and 8053; with Lot No. 8046 the one covering the lot of the petitioners;
xxx xxx xxx
41. Further proving the nullity or the non-existence of the respondent's OCT No. 114 is a May 11, 2000 certification issued by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of Antipolo stated that until such date, there had been no application for public land acquisition; a copy of this certification is attached hereto as ANNEX "M."
42. Now, the parcel of land being occupied by the petitioners, that is a 150-square meter lot, was released for alienation and disposition only on March 11, 1927.
43. This release for alienation and disposition was done as part of the release of Lot Nos. 8039, 8040, 8041, 8042, 8043, 8044, 8045, 8046, 8047, 8048, 8049, 8050, 8051, 8052 and 8053, all part of Cad 29 Ext., all of Land Classification Map No. 639, under Project No. 1-A, Block 1 of Antipolo City.
xxx xxx xxx
60. In the instant case, the petitioners have been occupying for twenty-three (23) years now a parcel of lot measuring about One Hundred Fifty Square Meters (150 sq. mts), more or less, inside Lot No. 8046 of 29 Ext. Antipolo Cadastre.
61. The petitioners have been in open, continuous, exclusive, adverse and notorious possession of the 150-square meter lot for those long years now.
xxx xxx xxx
65. In the instant case, the lot being occupied by the petitioners have been declared open for alienation and disposition since March 11, 1927 as proven by a certificate issued by the DENR and not one has applied for ownership over the same 150-square-meter lot being occupied by the petitioners. AaCTcI
66. The petitioners' occupation of at least 23 years more than meets the requirements of acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code because the possession has been one in good faith as there has been no registration yet that occurred for all the lots covered by the spurious OCT No. 114.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court to issue a decision:
1. Declaring as NULL and VOID Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 114 purportedly issued for parcels of lot covering Lot Nos. 8039, 8040, 8041, 8042, 8043, 8044, 8045, 8046, 8047, 8048, 8049, 8050, 8051, 8052, and 8053, Cad. 29 Ext., of Antipolo Cadastre;
2. Declaring as NULL and VOID all certificates of title derived from that Original Certificate of Title No. 114, including purported TCT No. 330492 of Bo. Cupang II Homeowner's Association;
3. Declaring that the petitioners are owners in fee simple of Lot 4, Block No. 7 of Psd 04-196297 of the approved plan of Cupang II Homeowners' Association, Inc. 5
Evidently, the petitioners had impliedly acknowledged in their petition the State's ownership over the subject land. While they asked to be declared as owners of their occupied lot by virtue of acquisitive prescription, their complaint also stated that OCT No. 114 was issued on May 23, 1925 pursuant to a homestead patent granted by the President of the Philippines under Act No. 2874 and registered on June 12, 1925 in the Registry of Deeds of Rizal. 6 The petitioners' own allegations negate the existence of a cause of action for nullity of title. Aside from the lack of valid claim of ownership over the same, the land covered by OCT No. 114 would necessarily redound to the State after its cancellation.
As correctly held by the CA, the real party-in-interest therein was the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, being the sole person or entity that can institute an action for reversion especially that OCT No. 114 and all its derivative titles had already become indefeasible. The CA explained that —
x x x plaintiff in an action for declaration of nullity (sic) title is required not only to allege his ownership over the property in controversy but also to allege that he exercises ownership over it prior to the issuance of title in favor of defendant, as well as the latter's fraud or mistake in successfully obtaining his title over the property. In this case, the complaint filed by appellants alleged that they claim ownership of the subject property for having possessed the same in the concept of an owner, openly, continuously, exclusively, adversely and notoriously for 23 years. However, they did not allege that their occupancy of the lot in the concept of owner was prior to the issuance of certificate of title in favor of appellee through fraud or mistake. Instead, they claim that the original title from which appellee's title derived from is spurious which makes its derivative certificate of titles (sic) null and void. In addition, they maintain that the lot covered by the spurious original title was declared open for alienation and disposition since March 11, 1927 and no one has applied for ownership over the land covered by the alleged spurious title.
The allegations of appellants in their complaint that the lot covered by the spurious original title was declared open for alienation and disposition since March 11, 1927 and that no one has applied for ownership over the land covered by the same spurious title in effect is an admission or a recognition on the part of appellants that the contested lot is a public land which belongs to the State.
The trial court was correct in holding that the ultimate effect of declaring OCT 114 void or inexistent would be the reversion of the property to the State. Therefore, the action should be in the name of the government for even if the title of appellee would be declared null, it would not, as a matter of course, follow that the court may award the subject land to appellants. The courts have no authority to do that. The management and disposition of public land belong to the DENR Secretary, with the assistance of the Bureau of Lands. x x x 7 SDHTEC
In Gabila vs. Barriga, 8 the Court held that the only entity entitled to relief would be the government as the plaintiff failed to give allegations of his or his predecessors-in-interest's ownership of the land, and in view of his admission that even if the said title were cancelled or amended, the ownership of which, or of the portion thereof affected by the amendment, would revert to the public domain.
In sum, the CA did not err in dismissing the appeal for petitioners' lack of legal personality to institute a case for nullity of title. The material allegations of the complaint make a case for reversion which only the State, through the Solicitor General, may validly institute.
In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions, we find it no longer necessary to discuss the other issues raised by the petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on December 5, 2014 in CA-G.R. CV No. 102343.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 104-121; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and Associate Justice Agnes Reyes Carpio.
2.Id. at 187-195; penned by Presiding Judge Marie Claire Victoria Mabutas-Sordan.
3.Heirs of Ambrocio Kionisala v. Heirs of Honorio Dacut, G.R. No. 147379, February 27, 2002, 378 SCRA 206, 214.
4.Id.
5.Rollo, pp. 223-234.
6.Id. at 224.
7.Id. at 112-113.
8. G.R. No. L-28917, September 30, 1971, 41 SCRA 131.