Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82099:g-r-no-175685,-august-07,-2013-republic-of-the-philippines,-petitioner,-v-angeles-bellate,-and-spouses-jesus-cabanto-and-marieta-juanerio,-respondents&catid=1573&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 09:09:16+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 175685, August 07, 2013 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ANGELES BELLATE, AND SPOUSES JESUS CABANTO AND MARIETA JUANERIO, Respondents.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ANGELES BELLATE, AND SPOUSES JESUS CABANTO AND MARIETA JUANERIO, Respondents.
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari1 seeking to reverse and set aside the decision2 dated December 9, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 65295. The decision denied the appeal of the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) from the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calbayog City, Branch 32, which dismissed the Republic’s complaint for reversion of land to the mass of public domain and for the annulment of the granted free patent and title.
The Republic appealed the RTC decision to the CA.
The CA did not agree with the RTC’s findings on the identity of the properties, but nonetheless denied the appeal in its decision22 dated December 9, 2005.
The CA pointed out that the identity of the properties involved was never raised in the pleadings. The CA held that Lot No. 2624 is part of the 27,930-square-meter lot which Eusebia previously occupied.23 This land is now occupied by her heirs — Angeles and Enriquita, among them. Despite this finding, the CA still believed that the Republic failed to establish the existence of fraud or misrepresentation by preponderance of evidence. Based on the investigation report, the CA concluded that Angeles did not commit fraud or misrepresentation in his application for free patent since there were no findings that other persons occupied a portion of Lot No. 2624.24 This finding led the CA to conclude that neither fraud nor misrepresentation was committed.
On January 6, 2006, the Republic filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied on December 12, 2006.
The Republic thus sought recourse with this Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Whether or not this court may review the case under rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
We deny the petition for lack of merit.
The court may review the case under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
In the present case, we agree with the Republic that the petition falls within the exceptions because the lower courts’ findings of fact are conflicting.
Contrary to the respondents’ claim, the case of Fuentes v. CA34 is inapplicable. In Fuentes, the Court held that “[p]revailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of facts of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are binding upon this Court.” A review of Fuentes, however, reveals that it is not applicable to this case. In Fuentes, the RTC of Ozamis City affirmed the Municipal Circuit Trial Court’s findings of fact, deleting only the monetary award in favor of the private respondents therein.
While both the RTC and the CA decisions ruled in favor of the respondents, the Republic correctly observed, however, that the RTC and the CA arrived at contradicting findings of facts. The RTC’s findings that Lot No. 2624 was not the same parcel of land originally owned by Eusebia cannot be reconciled with the CA’s findings that Lot No. 2624 was part of the 27,930-square-meter land of Eusebia.
Moreover, the parties do not dispute the CA’s findings of facts. The Republic is only assailing the CA’s conclusion that Angeles did not commit fraud in her application for free patent. Therefore, this Court may review the case.
The respondent did not commit fraud or misrepresentation of facts which would warrant the cancellation of the free patent and certificate of title.
We do not agree with the Republic that Angeles committed false statement or omission of facts when he stated in the application that the land is not claimed or occupied by any other person.
The certificate of title issued pursuant to any grant or patent involving public lands is as conclusive and indefeasible as any other certificate of title issued to private lands in the ordinary or cadastral registration proceedings. It is not subject to collateral attack.37 Though the certificate of title is conclusive and indefeasible, however, Section 91 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (The Public Land Act) provides for the cancellation of the concession, title or permit granted for any false statement in the application or omission of facts in the application.
Once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land covered by it ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property, and the Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of issuance of such patent.38 However, as held in The Director of Lands v. De Luna, et al.,39 even after the lapse of one year, the State may still bring an action under Section 10140 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 for the reversion to the public domain of land which has been fraudulently granted to private individuals.41 The burden of proof rests on the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts the affirmative of an issue.42 In other words, the Republic has the burden to prove that Angeles committed fraud in his application for free patent.
We re-examined the investigation report44 prepared by Jovencio Bulan — the person lawfully tasked to make an independent inspection over the disputed land. For clarity, we quote the relevant portions of the investigation report.
And with nine (9) coconut trees estimated to be at three (3) years old during the date of inspection and with some other fruit trees and bananas.
provided however, that the area presently occupied by Angeles Bellate where [his] house stands shall be given preference as [his] share and the area shall be determined after the physical division of the land shall have been effective.
Based on this report, Eusebia was the original occupant of the 27,930-square-meter parcel of land which was subdivided into different lot numbers. Upon Eusebia’s death, her heirs occupied the different portions of the land. Among the heirs who occupied it were Angeles, who was Eusebia’s grandson, and Enriquita, who was Eusebia’s great-granddaughter. The report also shows that Angeles constructed his house in a portion of the land as early as 1948. That portion is now known as Lot No. 2624. Conchita, who was Enriquita’s mother and Eusebia’s granddaughter, constructed a house on a different portion of Eusebia’s land in 1965 or 17 years after Angeles constructed her own house.
The report also shows that Eusebia’s heirs did not formally partition the land among themselves. They merely constructed their respective houses on the land.
Simply put, Angeles did not commit fraud in his application for free patent. The report is clear that he applied for free patent with respect to Lot No. 2624 only, not for Eusebia’s entire land. It is the same land where he constructed a house in 1965 or about five decades ago. Moreover, the report did not enumerate the other occupants of Lot No. 2624, the land over which Angeles was granted a free patent. In other words, Angeles answered truthfully when he said that there are no other occupants on Lot No. 2624.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 65295 for lack of merit. No costs.
Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta,* Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
* Peralta, J., designated as additional member per Raffle dated March 18, 2013 vice Justice Mariano del Castillo who took no part due to prior action in the CA.
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 24-38.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.; id. at 41-53.
3 “Bellate” also known as Billate or Villate in other documents.
6 “Quizan” also known as Quizon in other documents.
13 Civil Case No. 365.
25 241 Phil. 930 (1988).
31 Id. at 82 and 100.
32Remalante v. Tibe, supra note 25, at 935, citing Chan v. Court of Appeals, No. L-27488, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 737.
34 335 Phil. 1163 (1997).
37 Peña, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds (2008), p. 560, citing Lopez v. Padilla, 150-A Phil. 391, 401 (1972).
38Baguio v. Republic of the Philippines, 361 Phil. 374, 379 (1999); and Presidential Decree No. 1529, §32.
39 110 Phil. 28, 33 (1960).
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 [Republic] of the Philippines.
41The Director of Lands v. De Luna, et al., supra note 39, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 335 (1996).
42P.T. Cerna Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91622, April 6, 1993, 221 SCRA 19, 25.
43 Nos. L-21163 and L-25495, May 17, 1972, 45 SCRA 17, 27.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §32
 v. 
 v. 
 v.