11 republic vs ca and bernabe

8/11/2019 11 Republic vs CA and Bernabe

1/6

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-40402. March 16, 1987.]

RE!"LIC O# $%E %ILIINES, Petitioner, &. $%E %ON. CO!R$ O# 'E'LS, a() EMILIO"ERN'"E, SR., EMILIO "ERN'"E, *R., L!+ "ERN'"E, 'M'RO "ERN'"E, a() ELIS'

"ERN'"E, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

'R'S, J.

This is a petition for review on certiorariseeking a reversal of the decision of Respondent Court of Appeals 1dated February 5, 195 in CA!"#R# $o# 5%%&!R, entitled '()*+* -(R$A-(, .R#, (t# Al# v# R(/0-+*C FT( /*+*//*$(.,' affir2ing the order of the Court of First *nstance of -ataan dated August 13, 191 inCadastral Case $o# 19, +RC Cadastral Record $o# 1%9, which dis2issed petitioner Republic4s petition forreview of the decrees of registration issued pursuant to the decision rendered on ece2ber 1, 19&6ad7udicating in favor of the private Respondents herein, the lots applied for by the2, and the Resolution ofRespondent Court dated )arch 19, 195 denying herein /etitioner4s 2otion for reconsideration#

The undisputed facts are as follows8 chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

+ot $o# & of the )ariveles Cadastre was declared public land in a decision rendered before the last war inCadastral Case $o# 19, +RC Cadastral Record $o# 1%9#

n :uly &, 19&5, +ot & was segregated fro2 the forest ;one and released and certified by the -ureau ofForestry as an agricultural land for disposition under the /ublic +and Act 1, as a2ended by Republic Act %&1,concerning a portion of +ot $o# & ? +ot $os# 9, 9>, 93, 95, 9&, 9, 96 ? and a portion of +ot$o# >3 ? +ot $os# 91 and 99 ? 2ore particularly identified and delineated in the segregation plans of.gs!>>3>, .gs!>33%, .gs!>>3%, .gs!>>31, .gs!>>3 and .gs!>>>9, approved by the irector of +ands, toperfect their rights and register their titles to said lots, having allegedly ac@uired ownership and possession

of said parcels of land by purchase fro2 the original owners thereof, whose possession of the sa2e includingthat of the herein Respondents, has always been continuous, open, active, eclusive, public, adverse, and inthe concept of owners thereof for 2ore than >% years !5 and 11=#

n )ay 1, 19&, the lower court issued an rder setting the petition for hearing and directing that theRepublic of the /hilippines be notified thereof by furnishing the .olicitor!"eneral, the irector of +ands andthe irector of Forestry, a copy of said rder together with Respondents4 petition by registered 2ail


2/6

hereby ad7udicates in favor of petitioners (2ilio -ernabe, .r#, 2arriedD (2ilio -ernabe, :r#, 2arriedD +u;-ernabe, singleD A2paro -ernabe, single and (lisa -ernabe, single, all Filipinos and residents of -alanga,-ataan, the lots herein applied for as follows8 chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

+u; -ernabe .gs!91 6,1 s@# 2#

>>>9

(lisa -ernabe .gs!9> 1#59& s@# 2#

>>31

A2paro -ernabe .gs!93 3>,>99 s@# 2#

>>3 95 1%%,3>9 s@# 2#

:osefina -ernabe .gs!9& &9,>55 s@# 2#

>>3> 9 5,1%% s@# 2#

(2ilio -ernabe, :r# .gs!96 1%%,16> s@# 2#

.gs!>33% .gs!99 &3,%5# s@# 2#

and upon this decision having beco2e final, the Co22issioner of +and Registration is hereby directed toissue the corresponding decrees of registration therefor#' cralaw virtua1aw library

/ursuant to the aforecited decision, the Co22issioner of +and Registration issued ecrees $os# $!1361>!13616, all dated )ay , 19&9


3/6

Appeal, p# 5&=#

n August 13, 191, the lower court issued its rder denying petitioner4s A2ended /etition for Review=#

n February 5, 195, /etitioner filed a )otion for Reconsideration which was denied by the Court ofAppeals for lack of 2erit, in the Resolution of a special ivision of Five, pro2ulgated on )arch 19, 195#

ence this petition#

Bithout giving due course to the /etition, the Court, through its First ivision, resolved on )ay 5, 195 tore@uire the respondents to co22ent thereon# n )ay >%, 195, respondents filed their co22ent, allegingthat the decision of respondent Court and the @uestioned resolution were not rendered without or in ecessof its 7urisdiction# $either was the discretion eercised by respondent Court arbitrary or despotic#

*n its Resolution dated :une 3, 195, the Court resolved to give due course to the /etition and denied theurgent 2otion of respondents for leave to file a supple2ental andEor a2ended co22ent# /etitioners filed its-rief on $ove2ber 9, 195D respondents, on )arch , 19 /etitioner filed its Reply -rief on )arch 5,19& and on )ay 5, 19&, the case was dee2ed sub2itted for decision#

/etitioner assigns the following errors8 chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

*# T( R(./$($T C0RT F A//(A+. C))*TT( A R((R.*-+( (RRR *$ TTA++ *.R("AR*$"T( 0$*./0T( FACT TAT T( +T. C+A*)( - (R(*$ /R*AT( R(./$($T. -(CA)(A"R*C0+T0RA+ $+ $ :0+ &, 19&5 B($ T( .A)( B(R( R(+(A.( FR) T( FR(.T G$( A$TAT C$.(H0($T+ T( +ACI T( R(H0*.*T( T*RT %= (AR. /..(..*$ T ($T*T+( T() T A"RA$T#

**# T( R(./$($T C0RT F A//(A+. C))*TT( A R((R.*-+( (RRR *$ $T +*$" TAT T(($T*R( /RC((*$" FR R(/($*$" F T( CAA.TRA+ CA.( (R T( +T. *$ H0(.T*$ BA.*T*AT( - +ACI F $T*C( T T( .+*C*TR!"($(RA+#

***# T( R(./$($T C0RT (RR( *$ $T +*$" TAT T( A++("( TRA$.F(R F T( +T. *$H0(.T*$ - /R*AT( R(./$($T. T T*R /ART*(. B($ T(*R T*T+(. B(R( .T*++ .0-:(CT T

T( $(!(AR /(R* F R(*(B C$.T*T0T(. FRA0 .C()( - T( TRA$.F(RR. A. A )(A$. FFR0.TRAT*$" A$ ACT*$ A*)( AT $0++*F*$" T(*R T*T+(. T(R(T#

The govern2ent4s cause is 2eritorious#

*

*t is evident fro2 the facts of the case at bar that private respondents did file a clai2 for +ot $o# & of the)ariveles Cadastre and in fact a decision was rendered before the last war in Cadastral Case $o# 19 +RCCadastral Record $o# 1%9, declaring the lot in @uestion as public land# *t 2ust be stressed that said lot wasdeclared public land by virtue of a court decision which has beco2e final and as held by the .upre2e Courtaforesaid decision is res 7udicata# K=# *t is therefore beyond@uestion that the trial court has no 7urisdiction to reopen the cadastral proceeding under R#A# 9>1 as

a2ended by R#A# %&1 and the decision therein rendered is null and void ab initio#

Further2ore, it is undisputed that aforesaid +ot $o# & was released as an agricultural land for dispositionunder /ublic +and Act only on :uly &, 19&5# The lower court ordered the issuance of the correspondingdecrees of registration for the lots, pursuant to .ec# 36


4/6

application for confir2ation of title ecept when prevented by war or force 2a7eure# These shall beconclusively presu2ed to have perfor2ed all the conditions essential to a "overn2ent grant and shall beentitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter#' c ra la w v ir tu a1 aw l ib ra ry

As pointed out by petitioner, the @uestion is whether or not the lots clai2ed by respondents could legally bethe sub7ect of a 7udicial confir2ation of title under the afore@uoted provisions of the /ublic +and Act, asa2ended#

The answer is in the negative#

.ection 36 .CRA 116> J19&6KD irector of +ands v# Aban;ado, &5 .CRA 5 J195K=# Aparcel of forest land is within the eclusive 7urisdiction of the -ureau of Forestry and beyond the power and7urisdiction of the cadastral court to register under the Torrens .yste2


5/6

giving notice to the .olicitor "eneral# *n a 2ore recent case, Republic v# Court of Appeals, 1>5 .CRA 1&1J1965K, it was established that the .olicitor!"eneral is the only legal counsel of the govern2ent in landregistration cases and as such, he alone 2ay withdraw the "overn2ent4s appeal with binding effect on thelatter# e is entitled to be furnished copies of all court orders, notices and decisions and as held theregle2entary thirty!day period for appeal should be reckoned fro2 the ti2e the .olicitor!"eneral4s ffice isapprised of the 19% order of denial and not fro2 the ti2e the special counsel or the fiscal was served withthat order# Thus, representatives of the .olicitor "eneral in the case at bar, had no power to decide whether

or not an appeal should be 2ade# They should have referred the 2atter to the .olicitor!"eneral and withoutcopies of court orders, notices and decisions, having been provided by either the trial court or the /rovincialFiscal of -ataan to the .olicitor!"eneral, the assailed decision has no binding effect on the govern2ent#

***

The petition for review of ecrees $os# $!1361> to $!13616 under .ec# >6 of Act $o# 39& as a2endedwas filed by the .olicitor "eneral on )ay , 19% in representation of the Republic of the /hilippines, in thesa2e Cadastral Case $o# 19, +RC Cadastral Record $o# 1%9, eactly a year after the issuance of aforesaiddecrees of registration, on the ground of actual fraud# !33=#

The basic ele2ents for the allowance of the reopening or review of a decree, are8


6/6

be cancelled#

/R()*.(. C$.*(R(, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals and the decision of the Court of First*nstance are hereby .(T A.*( and R((R.(, because the lots in @uestion still for2 part of the publicdo2ain# The certificates of title issued over the2 are hereby ordered CA$C(++(#

. R(R(#

Fernan, /adilla, -idin and Cortes, JJ., concur#

Ala2pay, J., is on leave#

"utierre;, :r#, J., no part as one of the parties was 2y for2er colleague#

Endnotes:

1# /($$( - :0.T*C( A$R(. R((. and concurred in by :ustices +uis -# Reyes, Crisolito /ascual and"odofredo /# Ra2osD dissenting :ustice Francisco )a# Chanco#

11 republic vs ca and bernabe

Documents