July 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 201551 : July 04, 2012]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU, PETITIONER, v. HEIRS OF LEONARDO SERIOS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 July 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw
G.R. No. 201551 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DIRECTOR OF THE LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU, petitioner, v. HEIRS OF LEONARDO SERIOS, ET AL., respondents.
The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the decision dated January 12, 2012[1] and the resolution dated April 17, 2012[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 92116. The CA rulings affirmed the order dated July 1, 2008[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mariveles, Bataan, Branch 4, dismissing the action filed by the Republic to cancel the title of the respondents' predecessor, Leonardo Serios.
The subject of the case is a parcel of land in Limay, Bataan, registered under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 16 in the name of Leonardo Serios on January 23, 1961. The title disclosed that Leonardo Serios acquired the land pursuant to Sales Patent No. 2754, issued on December 19, 1962.
An investigation on the validity of OCT No. 16 was launched by the Land Management Bureau (LMB) after it received a letter from the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC)-PetrochemicaI Development Corporation (PDC), which claimed that the land covered by Leonardo Serios' OCT No. 16 is part of the land owned by the PNOC-PDC. After investigation, the LMB found sufficient basis to believe that Leonardo Serios' title and sales patent were fraudulently secured. Hence, on April 5, 2002, the Republic (through the Solicitor General) filed a complaint to declare null and void OCT No. 16.
The Republic alleged several inconsistencies in OCT No. 16. OCT No. 16 itself declared that it was based on Sales Patent No. 2754, but a copy of the patent could not be found in the records of the Registry of Deeds, only the Order of Award and Issuance of Patent (Order) was presented. The Order, issued by the Bureau of Lands on December 19, 1960, granted Leonardo Serios' Sales Application No. V-2754, which "should be entered in the records xxx as Sales Application Entry No. V-257."[4] LMB's investigation, however, revealed that no sales application filed by Leonardo Serios could be found in its records. In fact its records disclosed that -
- Sales Patent No. 2754 pertained to a land in Taliptip, Bulacan, and was issued in favor of Evaristo Bernabe on May 30, 1961 (based on his Sales Application No. V-37000);
- Sales Application No. V-2754 pertained to a land in Piat, Cagayan, and was filed by Vicente Rentoria;
- Sales Application Entry No. V-257 is Sales Patent No. V-257 that pertained to a land in Isabela and issued in favor of Clemente Asuncion on June 16, 1949 (based on his Sales Application No. 22336).
The Republic also found it suspicious that OCT No. 16, registered on January 27, 1961, would declare that the land was acquired by Leonardo Serios only on December 19, 1962.
After the Republic presented its evidence, Leonardo Serios filed a demurrer to evidence, moving for the dismissal of the complaint for failure to substantiate its claims. Leonardo Serios further questioned the Republic's authority to file the case, as the land belonged to PNOC-PDC; he claimed that the Republic had no cause of action.
The RTC agreed with Leonardo Serios and granted the demurrer, after finding nothing irregular in the issuance of OCT No. 16 and of the sales patent. The date of acquisition by Leonardo Serios of the land stated in OCT No. 16 (December 19, 1962) was a mere typographical error, since the Order was dated December 19, 1960. The Order further stated that Leonardo Serios complied with all the requirements of the law for the issuance of the patent. The RTC considered the Order as the best evidence of the proceedings governing Leonardo Serios' acquisition of the patent and the title. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the complaint. It additionally found that any discrepancy in the records could not be attributed to Leonardo Serios who had no participation in the preparation of the documents, as these were made, entered into and issued by LMB.
The Republic seeks a reversal of the CA rulings, alleging that the CA erred in considering the Order as the best evidence of the proceedings governing Leonardo Serios� acquisition of title. It claims that it was assailing not only the contents of the Order and OCT No. 16, but more importantly their genuineness and due execution. It insisted on its claim that Leonardo Serios' title is fraudulent and reiterated the results of its investigation to prove this claim.
We deny the petition for the reasons set forth below.
The Republic insists on its claim that Leonardo Serios' title is fraudulent, relying on the LMB's investigation that the sales patent and sales application supporting OCT No. 16 belonged to different persons. The petition, therefore, involves an inquiry as to the truth or falsity of the facts that the Republic sought to establish; questions of fact are prohibited in a petition for review on certiorari based on Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
It is, in fact, surprising that the Republic would insist on its claim when its own annexes include a letter dated July 3, 2011 by the LMB stating, in response to Leonardo Serios' inquiry, that its records show that Sales Patent No. V-257 was issued in favor of Leonardo Serios by virtue of Sales Application No. V-2754.[5] The original records, however, could not be found; the LMB believes that these were among those burned during the fire that razed the LMB building in 1977.
Even assuming that the result of the LMB's investigation raises reasonable suspicion on the validity of OCT No. 16 and the sales patent issued to Leonardo Serios, the Republic has no sufficient interest to institute a claim for the cancellation of Leonardo Serios' title, as it did not claim ownership of the land. The land is supposedly part of that owned by PNOC-PDC, and it is PNOC-PDC that should be considered as the real party-in-interest. The Republic's own complaint contained no claim of ownership over the land that would be the basis for an action for reversion. In Goco v. Court of Appeals,[6] the Court declared that -
An action for annulment of certificates of title to property [brings] into the issue of ownership of the land covered by a Torrens title and the relief generally prayed for by the plaintiff is to be declared as the land's true owner. The real party in interest in such action therefore is the person claiming title or ownership adverse to that of the registered owner.cralaw
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition as it raises questions of fact outside of our jurisdiction to resolve in a Rule 45 petition. Additionally, we find no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' rulings.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 38-50. Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Ramon M. Bato, Jr.[2] Id. at 68-69.
[3] Id. at 231-242.
[4] Id. at 80.
[5] Id. at 130.
[6] G.R. No. 157449, April 6, 2010, 617 SCRA 397, 405.
