G.R. No. L-37682 March 29, 1974
FACTS
The land covered by the free patent and title in question was
originally applied for by Precila Soria, who transferred her rights to the land
and its improvements to defendant Isagani Du Timbol. On December 12, 1969, free
Patent No. V-466102 was issued by the President of the Philippines for the land
in question, and on July 20, 1970, after transmittal of the patent to the
Register of Deeds of General Santos City, Original Certificate of Title was issued
in the name of defendant.
On August 5, 1971, the Republic of the Philippines, at the
instance of the Bureau of Forestry, filed a complaint in the Court of First
Instance of Cotabato to declare subject free patent and OCT in the name of the
defendant null and void ab
initio and to order the
reversion of the land in question to the mass of public domain on the ground
that the land covered thereby is a forest or timber land which is not
disposable under the Public Land Act. In the reclassification of the public
lands in the vicinity where the land in question is situated made by the Bureau
of Forestry on March 7, 1958, the said land was plotted on Bureau of Forestry
map.
The application for free patent by defendant was filed on
June 3, 1969, or more than eleven years thereafter, thus, alleging that said
patent and title were obtained fraudulently as Du Timbol never occupied and
cultivated the land applied for.
The respondent court dismissed the complaint on the ground
that Certificate of Title based on the patent had became indefeasible in view
of the lapse of the one-year period prescribed under Section 38 of the Land
Registration Act for review of a decree of title on the ground of fraud.
ISSUE
Whether the patent and title
issued to Du Timbol is null and void.
RULING
Yes. The area
covered by the patent and title is not disposable public land, it being a part
of the forest zone, hence the patent and title thereto are null and void.
The defense of indefeasibility of a certificate of title issued
pursuant to a free patent does not lie against the state in an action for
reversion of the land covered thereby when such land is a part of a public
forest or of a forest reservation. As a general rule, timber or forest lands are
not alienable or disposable. Although the Director of Lands has jurisdiction
over public lands classified as agricultural under the constitution, or
alienable or disposable under the Public Land Act, and is charged with the
administration of all laws relative thereto, mineral and timber lands are
beyond his jurisdiction. It is the Bureau of Forestry that has jurisdiction and
authority over the demarcation, protection, management, reproduction, occupancy
and use of all public forests and forest reservations and over the granting of
licenses for the taking of products therefrom, including stone and earth.
The area in question is a forest or timber land, hence it is
clearly established by the certification made by the Bureau of Forest
Development that it is within the portion of the area which was reverted to the
category of forest land and approved by the President.
When the defendant Isagani Du Timbol filed his application
for free patent over the land in question, the area in question was not a
disposable or alienable public land but a public forest. Titles issued to
private parties by the Bureau of Lands when the land covered thereby is not
disposable public land but forest land are void ab initio.
The complaint alleges that applicant Isagani Du Timbol was
never in possession of the property prior to his filing the application,
contrary to the provisions of law that the applicant must have been in
possession or cultivation thereof for at least 30 years. After diligent search
of the Acting Chief of the Survey-Party, alleged circumstances are indicative
of fraud in the filing of the application and obtaining title to the land, and
if proven would override respondent Judge's order dismissing the case without
hearing. The misrepresentations of the applicant that he had been occupying and
cultivating the land and residing thereon are sufficient grounds to nullify the
grant of the patent and title under the Public Land Law.
A certificate of title that is void may be ordered cancelled.
A title will be considered void if it is procured through fraud, as when a
person applies for registration of the land under his name although the
property belongs to another.
Comments
Post a Comment