SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 209148. November 29, 2021.]
RUSSEL TINHAY, petitioner, vs.AMADO HELARMAN, EMMALINDA FUENTES and ROSALINDA DAGANLOY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 209148 (Russel Tinhay v. Amado Helarman, Emmalinda Fuentes and Rosalinda Daganloy). — Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 dated October 14, 2013 filed by petitioner Russel Tinhay (petitioner), praying for the reversal of the Decision 2 dated March 14, 2013 and the Resolution 3 dated August 12, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in the case entitled "Russel Tinhay v. Amado Helarman, Emmalinda Fuentes, Rosalinda Daganloy, Land Management Bureau (Bureau of Lands) of Bukidnon and Regional Office of DENR, Region X, Cagayan de Oro and/or Carlito Vermudes (PENRO Officer, Bukidnon) and/or The Register of Deeds of Bukidnon," docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 01240-MIN.
The facts of the case, as culled from the CA decision, are as follows:
Sometime in 1969, during a survey of Pls-987 conducted by the Municipal Government of Impasug-ong, Bukidnon, Lot No. 132 was surveyed in the name of petitioner's father, Alfredo Tinhay (Alfredo). The parcel of land covered an area of 49,827 square meters. At the same time, an adjacent parcel of land, Lot No. 110, was also surveyed for Alejo Helarman (Alejo). Both Alfredo and Alejo witnessed the survey which was sanctioned by the Bureau of Lands (now Department of Environment and Natural Resources [DENR] Land Management Survey), and conducted by Engr. Fidel Bulatiti. 4
On April 8, 1991, Alfredo sold Lot No. 132 to his daughter, herein petitioner, who then filed a Free Patent Application (FPA) for Lot No. 132 on January 20, 1994, which was recorded as FPA No. 102305-68. After several unsuccessful follow-ups, petitioner was surprised when, on May 14, 1997, she discovered that her FPA was denied, and that Lot No. 132 was already covered by Original Certificates of Title (OCT) Nos. P-28270, P-27942, and P-27953, in the name of respondents Amado Helarman, Emmalinda Fuentes, and Rosalinda Daganhoy (respondents), who are the children of Alejo. 5
Apparently, respondents filed an Opposition to FPA No. 102305-68 and after the petitioner failed to attend the hearings for her FPA, the same was rejected and OCT Nos. P-28270, P-27942, and P-27953 were issued in favor of the respondents. 6
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the DENR Office in Cagayan de Oro, where she vehemently argued that she never received any notices of hearing or subpoena from the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office of DENR-Bukidnon regarding her FPA. Petitioner likewise contended that she had better right over Lot No. 132 as she could prove actual possession over the same since 1942, had tax declarations in her father Alfredo's name, and possessed a Certification from the Bureau of Lands of Malaybalay, Bukidnon stating that the registered survey claimant of Lot No. 132 was Alfredo. 7
Because of petitioner's allegations, an investigation was conducted. Thereafter, the Report of Investigation dated October 15, 1998 conducted by Officer Poroa B. Sangcaan was issued, where it was found that there was fraud or misrepresentation in the issuance of OCT Nos. P-28270, P-27942, and P-27953. The Report of Investigation likewise declared that petitioner's recourse should be to file an action for cancellation of a patent wrongfully issued. 8
Considering the findings contained in the Report of Investigation, the Regional Executive Director of the DENR-Bukidnon issued an Order dated May 17, 1999, directing petitioner to prosecute her claim with "the proper courts of justice [which] has jurisdiction over all private properties." 9
Thus, on September 16, 1999, petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, praying for, among others, the cancellation of OCT Nos. P-28270, P-27942, and P-27953. Respondents then filed their answer, where they stated that they inherited Lot No. 132 from their father, Alejo, who possessed the same since time immemorial. 10
On December 27, 2006, the RTC rendered a judgment, 11 ordering the cancellation of OCT Nos. P-28270, P-27942, and P-27953, and declaring petitioner as the rightful possessor and/or owner of Lot No. 132. In resolving the case in favor of petitioner, the RTC reasoned as follows:
From the foregoing, there is no doubt that the defendants were able to obtain their respective titles over the property in question through misrepresentation amounting to fraud. The defendants failed to adduce any evidence as to how and in what manner they were able to secure their respective titles, least the Court finds the circumstances obtaining in the issuance of their titles quite disturbing.
On the other hand, the plaintiff was able to prove how the defendants frustrated her long application for titling of the property in litigation with the office of the DENR. It can be gleaned that from the result of the investigation conducted by no less than the Legal Officer and Land Inspector of the same office that issued the questionable titles, it was found out that [indeed] the recorded claimant was Alfredo Tinhay, the father of the plaintiff, as evidenced by the Certification issued by the Office of the District Land Officer, Malaybalay, Bukidnon, dated September 8, 1986 and was convinced by the fact that the titles in question were wrongfully issued to the private defendants on account of fraud or misrepresentation. Plaintiff likewise had paid taxes on the property in question as evidenced by tax declarations registered in the name of Alfredo Tinhay which came about pursuant to a Notice of Assessment of Real Property issued by the Provincial Assessor's Office of Bukidnon. "Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are a good indicia of possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession" [Director of Lands vs. CA, 308 SCRA 317].
Private defendant Amado Helarman's allegation that he has been in possession of the property in question since time immemorial is not supported with any evidence nor confirmed by any testimony coming from any disinterested third person. His allegation appear to be self-serving which requires further factual support and substantiation, which is not obtaining in the case at bar. 12
Aggrieved by the RTC's judgment, respondents appealed the case before the CA, where the following assignment of errors were raised:
I. THAT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECLARING THE CANCELLATION OF THE TITLE OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS;
II. THAT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE HAS A BETTER RIGHT OVER THE LOT IN CONTROVERSY;
III. THAT THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE CASE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED HER OWNERSHIP OVER THE LAND, HENCE, SHE IS NOT THE PROPER PARTY IN INTEREST BECAUSE IF THE TITLES ARE CANCELLED[,] IT WILL BE REVERTED TO THE GOVERNMENT[;] IT IS THE SOLICITOR GENERAL WHO CAN FILE A CASE OF CANCELLATION OF TITLE;
IV. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN TAKING SO MUCH WEIGHT ON THE INVESTIGATION REPORT CONDUCTED BY POROA SANGCAAN DATED OCTOBER 15, 1998, WHICH IS [BIASED];
V. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS OWNERS OF LOT 132. 13
On March 14, 2013, the CA promulgated its decision 14 which granted respondents' appeal:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED and the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, of Malaybalay City is hereby SET ASIDE, without prejudice to the filing of appropriate action by the Office of the Solicitor General based on the afore-mentioned findings.
SO ORDERED. 15
Notably, while the CA resolved to grant the appeal, it agreed with the findings of the RTC that petitioner was denied due process, and that the respondents were guilty of misrepresentation. Nevertheless, citing the Public Land Act and the cases of Abejaron v. Nabasa, 16Caro v. Sucaldito, 17 and Alegria v. Drilon, 18 the CA ruled that petitioner was not the proper party to pray for the cancellation of OCT Nos. P-28270, P-27942, and P-27953, 19viz.:
It is recalled that appellee, while in possession of documents strongly supporting her claim of preferential rights, is still a mere free patent applicant. She is not yet a grantee to Lot No. 132. She is not the rightful owner contemplated by law who is entitled to demand the return of her property. In fact, it was during her application process that she was deprived of her right due to the machinations of appellants. In as much as We sympathize with her plight, Our hands are tied as she is not the person clothed by law with the legal personality to act to declare the three OCTs null and void. 20
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on April 10, 2013, but the same was denied by the CA in a Resolution 21 dated August 12, 2013.
Undeterred by the adverse rulings of the CA, petitioner filed the instant petition on October 14, 2013, where she raised the following assignment of errors:
1. THAT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT DECLARING, THAT THE ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 29, 1994, OF THE OIC, DENR OFFICER OF MALAYBALAY CITY WAS NULL AND VOID IF NOT AN ILLEGAL ORDER AND COULD NOT BE THE LEGAL BASIS FOR ISSUANCE OF TITLES TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS; AND THAT, THE KATIBAYAN NG ORIHINAL NA TITULOS NOS. P-27942, P-27953 AND P-28270 WERE ALL NULL AND VOID;
2. THAT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR, WHEN IT DID NOT DECLARE THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS EMPLOYED FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION AND DECEIT IN CLAIMING LOT NO. 132 AS THEIR LOT, DESPITE CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THIS LOT IS OWNED BY THE PETITIONER, AND, FOR NOT AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BUKIDNON, BRANCH 10, MALAYBALAY CITY, DATED DECEMBER 27, 2006; AND
3. THAT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT LIKEWISE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST TO PRAY FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE THREE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATES OF TITLES ISSUED FOR LOT NO. 132, IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, AND THAT, THE PROPER PARTY TO FILE THE ACTION SHOULD BE THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL. 22
The Court's Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit.
At the onset, the Court notes that, contrary to the arguments of the petitioner, a perusal of the assailed decision reveals that the CA concurred with the findings of the RTC. However, the CA ruled in favor of the respondents and granted their appeal, solely because the petitioner has no standing to pray for the cancellation of OCT Nos. P-28270, P-27942, and P-27953.
The Court agrees with the findings of the CA.
As aptly pointed out by the CA, both law and jurisprudence provide that all actions for reversion of lands to the public domain must be instituted by the Solicitor General or any officer acting in his/her stead.
Section 101 of the Public Land Act provides:
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.
Meanwhile, in Caro v. Sucaldito, 23 which is squarely applicable in the instant case, the Court exhaustively explained the nature of actions for reversion and the reason why the Solicitor General was the proper party to institute the same:
The Court notes that the petitioner's complaint before the RTC prays for the annulment of the free patent issued in the respondent's favor. Considering that the ultimate relief sought is for the respondent to "return" the subject property to him, it is in reality an action for reconveyance. In De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that "[t]he essence of an action for reconveyance is that the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible but what is sought instead is the transfer of the property which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name, to its rightful owner or to one with a better right." Indeed, in an action for reconveyance filed by a private individual, the property does not go back to the State.
Reversion, on the other hand, is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert the land back to the government under the Regalian doctrine. Considering that the land subject of the action originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee.
Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, or one "who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit." Corollarily, legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged act. Interest means a material interest in issue that is affected by the questioned act or instrument, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question involved.
Clearly then, a suit filed by one who is not a party-in-interest must be dismissed. In this case, the petitioner,not being the owner of the disputed property but a mere applicant for a free patent, cannot thus be considered as a party-in-interest with personality to file an action for reconveyance. The Court, citing several of its holdings, expounded on this doctrine in Tankiko v. Cezar as follows:
x x x Thus, in Lucas v. Durian, x x x the Court affirmed the dismissal of a Complaint filed by a party who alleged that the patent was obtained by fraudulent means and, consequently, prayed for the annulment of said patent and the cancellation of a certificate of title. The Court declared that the proper party to bring the action was the government, to which the property would revert. Likewise affirming the dismissal of a Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the Court in Nebrada v. Heirs of Alivio x x x noted that the plaintiff, being a mere homestead applicant, was not the real party-in-interest to institute an action for reconveyance. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
In the present dispute, only the State can file a suit for reconveyance of a public land. Therefore, not being the owners of the land but mere applicants for sales patents thereon, respondents have no personality to file the suit. Neither will they be directly affected by the judgment in such suit.
In De la Peña v. Court of Appeals, the Court, in dismissing the petitioner's imputation of fraud in securing a free patent and title over a parcel of land, declared that reconveyance is a remedy granted only to theowner of the property alleged to be erroneously titled in another's name. The Court further expounded:
Persons who have not obtained title to public lands could not question the titles legally issued by the State x x x. In such cases, the real party-in-interest is the Republic of the Philippines to whom the property would revert if it is ever established, after appropriate proceedings, that the free patent issued to the grantee is indeed vulnerable to annulment on the ground that the grantee failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the law. Not being an applicant, much less a grantee, petitioner cannot ask for reconveyance.
xxx xxx xxx
In fact, Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 states —
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 [now Republic] of the Philippines.
This provision was applied and discussed in Sumail v. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, et al., a case on all fours with the present one, as follows:
Under Section 101 of the above reproduced, only the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead may bring the action for reversion. Consequently, Sumail may not bring such action or any action which would have the effect of cancelling a free patent and the corresponding certificate of title issued on the basis thereof, with the result that the land covered thereby will again form part of the public domain. Furthermore, there is another reason for withholding legal personality from Sumail. He does not claim the land to be his private property. In fact, by his application for a free patent, he had formally acknowledged and recognized the land to be a part of the public domain; this, aside from the declaration made by the cadastral court that lot 3633 was public land. Consequently, even if the parcel were declared reverted to the public domain, Sumail does not automatically become the owner thereof. He is a mere public land applicant like others who may apply for the same.
To reiterate, the petitioner is not the proper party to file an action for reconveyance that would result in the reversion of the land to the government. The petitioner has no personality to "recover" the property as he has not shown that he is the rightful owner thereof. 24 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
Moreover, both Abejaron v. Nabasa25 and Alegria v. Drilon, 26 similarly declared that the proper party to bring an action for reversion should be the government to which the property would revert.
From the foregoing, it is evident that an action for reversion is instituted to recover lands of the public domain, and considering that the ultimate relief sought is to revert the land back to the government, the proper party to institute the case is the Solicitor General.
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the petitioner has no standing to institute her complaint for cancellation of OCT Nos. P-28270, P-27942, and P-27953 because Lot No. 132 forms part of the public domain. Again, it is undisputed that the petitioner filed her FPA for Lot No. 132, and being a mere applicant for a free patent, petitioner formally acknowledged that Lot No. 132 was part of the public domain, and that she was not the owner thereof. Verily, the petitioner likewise recognized that only the Solicitor General or any officer acting in his or her stead, has standing to file for the cancellation of OCT Nos. P-28270, P-27942, and P-27953.
Having resolved that the petitioner has no personality or legal standing to pray for the cancellation of OCT Nos. P-28270, P-27942, and P-27953, the Court deems it unnecessary to resolve the other issues raised in the instant petition.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari dated October 14, 2013 filed by petitioner Russel Tinhay is DENIED. The Decision dated March 14, 2013 and the Resolution dated August 12, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 01240-MIN are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Inting, J., no part due to prior participation in the CA;Leonen, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated September 15, 2021. Hernando, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 37-50.
2. Id. at 10-27. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (also now a Member of this Court) concurring.
3. Id. at 28-30.
4. Id. at 13.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 13-14.
8. Id. at 14.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. See rollo, p. 12.
12. Id. at 15-16.
13. Rollo, pp. 16-17.
14. Id. at 10-27.
15. Id. at 26.
16. 411 Phil. 552 (2001).
17. 497 Phil. 879 (2005).
18. 580 Phil. 413 (2008).
19. Rollo, pp. 22-26.
20. Id. at 26.
21. Id. at 29-30.
22. Id. at 44-45.
23. Supra note 17.
24. Id. at 887-891.
25. Supra note 16.
26. Supra note 18.