The Cancellation of Titles and Reversion Case
(G.R. No. 173401)
On October 13, 2004, the Republic filed a Complaint for the Cancellation of OCT Nos. 0-1200
(a.f.) and 0-1201 (a.f.) and Reversion against the late Doña Demetria, represented by her alleged
heirs, Vidal and/or Teofilo, together with AZIMUTH and LANDTRADE. The Complaint,
docketed as Civil Case No. 6686, was raffled to the RTC-Branch 4.
The Republic sought the cancellation of OCT Nos. 0-1200 (a.f.) and 0-1201 (a.f.) and the
reversion of the parcels of land covered thereby to the Government based on the following
allegations in its Complaint, under the heading "Cause of Action":
5. On October 15, 1998, Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) Nos. 0-1200 (a.f.) and 0-1201
(a.f.) were issued in the name of "Demetria Cacho, widow, now deceased…" consisting of a total
area of Three Hundred Seventy-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Seven (378,707) square
meters and Three Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty-Five (3,635) square meters, respectively,
situated in Iligan City, x x x
xxxx
6. The afore-stated titles were issued in implementation of a decision rendered in LRC (GLRO)
Record Nos. 6908 and 6909 dated December 10, 1912, as affirmed by the Honorable Supreme
Court in Cacho v. Government of the United States, 28 Phil. 616 (December 10, 1914),
7. The decision in LRC (GLRO) Record Nos. 6908 and 6909, upon which the titles were issued,
did not grant the entire area applied for therein. x x x
xxxx
9. As events turned out, the titles issued in connection with LRC (GLRO) Record Nos. 6908 and
6909 – i.e. OCT Nos. 0-1200 (a.f.) and 0-1201 (a.f.) – cover property MUCH LARGER in area
than that granted by the land registration court in its corresponding decision, supra.
10. While the LRC Decision, as affirmed by the Honorable Supreme Court, granted only the
southern part of the 37.87 hectare land subject of LRC (GLRO) Record Case No. 6909, the
ENTIRE 37.87 hectares is indicated as the property covered by OCT 0-1200 (a.f.). Worse, OCT
No. 0-1200 (a.f.) made reference to Case No. 6908 as basis thereof, yet, the decision in said case
is clear:
(i) The parcel "object of Case No. 6908 is small" (Cacho vs. Government of the United States, 28
Phil. 616, p. 619)
(ii) "The parcel of land claimed by the applicant in Case No. 6909 is the bigger of two parcels
and contains 37.87 hectares…"
11. More significantly, the technical description in Original Certificate of Title No. 0-1200 (a.f.)
specifies the date of survey as "August 31 to September 1, 1910," which is EARLIER than the
date the Supreme Court, in Cacho supra, resolved LRC (GLRO) Record No. 6909 (involving
37.87 hectares). In resolving the application involving the 37.87 hectares, the Honorable
Supreme Court declared that only the southern part of the 37.87 hectare property applied for is
granted and that a new survey specifying the "southern part" thereof should be submitted.
Accordingly, any survey involving the "granted southern part" should bear a date subsequent to
the December 10, 1914 Supreme Court decision. x x x
xxxx
12. The Honorable Supreme Court further declared that the Decision in LRC (GLRO) Record
No. 6909 was reserved:
"Final decision in these case is reserved until the presentation of the … new plan." (28 Phil. 616,
p. 631; Underscoring supplied)
In other words, as of December 10, 1914, when the Honorable Supreme Court rendered its
Decision on appeal in LRC (GLRO) Record No. 6909, "final decision" of the case was still
reserved until the presentation of a new plan. The metes and bounds of OCT No. 0-1200 (a.f.)
could not have been the technical description of the property granted by the court – described as
"the southern part of the large parcel object of expediente 6909 only" (Cacho vs. Government of
the United States, 28 Phil. 617, 629). As earlier stated, the technical description appearing in said
title was the result of a survey conducted in 1910 or before the Supreme Court decision was
rendered in 1914.
13. In the same vein, Original Certificate of Title No. 0-1201 (a.f.) specifies LRC (GLRO)
Record No. 6909 as the basis thereof (see front page of OCT No. 0-1201 (a.f.)). Yet, the
technical description makes, as its reference, Lot 1, Plan II-3732, LR Case No. 047, LRC
(GLRO) Record No. 6908 (see page 2 of said title). A title issued pursuant to a decision may
only cover the property subject of the case. A title cannot properly be issued pursuant to a
decision in Case 6909, but whose technical description is based on Case 6908.
14. The decision in LRC (GLRO) Record Nos. 6908 and 6909 has become final and executory,
and it cannot be modified, much less result in an increased area of the property decreed therein.
xxxx
16. In sum, Original Certificates of Title Nos. 0-1200 (a.f.) and 0-1201 (a.f.), as issued, are null
and void since the technical descriptions vis-à-vis the areas of the parcels of land covered therein
went beyond the areas granted by the land registration court in LRC (GLRO) Record Nos. 6908
and 6909.56
Vidal and AZIMUTH filed a Motion to Dismiss dated December 23, 2004 on the grounds that
(1) the Republic has no cause of action; (2) assuming arguendo that the Republic has a cause of
action, its Complaint failed to state a cause of action; (3) assuming arguendo that the Republic
has a cause of action, the same is barred by prior judgment; (4) assuming further that the
Republic has a cause of action, the same was extinguished by prescription; and (4) the Republic
is guilty of forum shopping.
Upon motion of the Republic, the RTC-Branch 4 issued an Order57 dated October 4, 2005,
declaring LANDTRADE and Teofilo, as represented by Atty. Cabildo, in default since they
failed to submit their respective answers to the Complaint despite the proper service of summons
upon them.
LANDTRADE subsequently filed its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim dated September
28, 2005. It also moved for the setting aside and reconsideration of the Order of Default issued
against it by the RTC-Branch 4 on October 20, 2005.
On December 13, 2005, the RTC-Branch 4 issued an Order58 dismissing the Complaint of the
Republic in Civil Case No. 6686, completely agreeing with Vidal and AZIMUTH.
The RTC-Branch 4 reasoned that the Republic had no cause of action because there was no
showing that the late Doña Demetria committed any wrongful act or omission in violation of any
right of the Republic. Doña Demetria had sufficiently proven her ownership over the parcels of
land as borne in the ruling of the LRC in GLRO Record Nos. 6908 and 6909. On the other hand,
the Republic had no more right to the said parcels of land. The Regalian doctrine does not apply
in this case because the titles were already issued to Doña Demetria and segregated from the
mass of the public domain.
The RTC-Branch 4 likewise held that the Republic failed to state a cause of action in its
Complaint. The arguments of the Republic – i.e., the absence of a new survey plan and deed, the
titles covered properties with much larger area than that granted by the LRC – had been
answered squarely in the 1997 Cacho case. Also, the Complaint failed to allege that fraud had
been committed in having the titles registered and that the Director of Lands requested the
reversion of the subject parcels of land.
The RTC-Branch 4 was convinced that the Complaint was barred by res judicata because the
1914 Cacho case already decreed the registration of the parcels of land in the late Doña
Demetria’s name and the 1997 Cacho case settled that there was no merit in the argument that
the conditions imposed in the first case have not been complied with.
The RTC-Branch 4 was likewise persuaded that the cause of action or remedy of the Republic
was lost or extinguished by prescription pursuant to Article 1106 of the Civil Code and Section
32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Land Registration Decree, which
prescribes a one-year period within which to file an action for the review of a decree of
registration.
Finally, the RTC-Branch 4 found the Republic guilty of forum shopping because there is
between this case, on one hand, and the 1914 and 1997 Cacho cases, on the other, identity of
parties, as well as rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, as the contending parties are claiming
rights of ownership over the same parcels of land.
The Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of its Complaint but the same
was denied by the RTC-Branch 4 in its Order59 dated May 16, 2006.
Assailing the Orders dated December 13, 2005 and May 16, 2006 of the RTC-Branch 4, the
Republic filed on August 11, 2006 a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, which was docketed as G.R. No. 173401.