SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 595

Caro vs. Sucaldito
*
G.R. No. 157536. May 16, 2005.

MELCHOR CARO, petitioner, vs. SUSANA SUCALDITO,

respondent.

Actions; Land Registration; Reconveyance and Reversion; Words

and Phrases; The essence of an action for reconveyance is that the
decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible but what is
sought instead is the transfer of the property which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another personÊs name, to its
right-ful owner or to one with a better right.·The Court notes that
the petitionerÊs complaint before the RTC prays for the annulment
of the free patent issued in the respondentÊs favor. Considering that
the ultimate relief sought is for the respondent to „return‰ the
subject property to him, it is in reality an action for reconveyance. In
De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that „[t]he essence
of an action for reconveyance is that the decree of registration is
respected as incontrovertible but what is sought instead is the
transfer of the property which has been wrongfully or erroneously
registered in another personÊs name, to its rightful owner or to one
with a better right.‰ Indeed, in an action for reconveyance filed by a
private individual, the property does not go back to the State.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Reversion is an action where the
ultimate relief sought is to revert the land back to the government
under the Regalian doctrine.·Reversion, on the other hand, is an
action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert the land back to
the government under the Regalian doctrine. Considering that the
land subject of the action originated from a grant by the
government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and
the grantee.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Parties; „Legal Standing‰ and „In-

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 1 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

terest,‰ Explained; Every action must be prosecuted or defended in

the name of the real party-in-interest, or one „who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit.‰·Under Section 2,
Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, or one „who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit.‰
Corollarily, legal standing has been defined as a personal and
substantial interest in

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

596

596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caro vs. Sucaldito

the case, such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct
injury as a result of the challenged act. Interest means a material
interest in issue that is affected by the questioned act or
instrument, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the
question involved.
Same; Same; Same; Parties; Free Patents; A mere applicant for
a free patent, hence not the owner of the disputed property, cannot be
considered as a party-in-interest with personality to file an action for
reconveyance.·A suit filed by one who is not a party-in-interest
must be dismissed. In this case, the petitioner, not being the owner
of the disputed property but a mere applicant for a free patent,
cannot thus be considered as a party-in-interest with personality to
file an action for reconveyance. The Court, citing several of its
holdings, expounded on this doctrine in Tankiko v. Cezar as follows:
. . . Thus, in Lucas v. Durian [102 Phil. 1157 (1957)], the Court
affirmed the dismissal of a Complaint filed by a party who alleged
that the patent was obtained by fraudulent means and,
consequently, prayed for the annulment of said patent and the
cancellation of a certificate of title. The Court declared that the
proper party to bring the action was the government, to which the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 2 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

property would revert. Likewise affirming the dismissal of a

Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the Court in
Nebrada v. Heirs of Alivio [104 Phil. 126 (1958)] noted that the
plaintiff, being a mere homestead applicant, was not the real party-
in-interest to institute an action for reconveyance.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Only the Solicitor General or the
officer acting in his stead may bring the action for reversion.·This
provision was applied and discussed in Sumail v. Judge of the Court
of First Instance of Cotabato, et al., a case on all fours with the
present one, as follows: Under Section 101 of the above reproduced,
only the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead may
bring the action for reversion. Consequently, Sumail may not bring
such action or any action which would have the effect of cancelling a
free patent and the corresponding certificate of title issued on the
basis thereof, with the result that the land covered thereby will
again form part of the public domain. Furthermore, there is another
reason for withholding legal personality from Sumail. He does not
claim the land to be his private property. In fact, by his application
for a free patent, he had formally acknowledged and recognized the
land to be a part of the public domain; this, aside from the
declaration made by the cadastral court that lot 3633 was public
land. Consequently, even if

597

VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 597

Caro vs. Sucaldito

the parcel were declared reverted to the public domain, Sumail does
not automatically become the owner thereof. He is a mere public
land applicant like others who may apply for the same.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Rey G. Canindo for petitioner.
Manuel S. Gemarino for respondent.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 3 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

This is a petition for review on certiorari under

1
Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 45503, affirming the
dismissal of Civil Case No. 15529 by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 39, as well as the
resolution denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Gregorio Caro bought a parcel of land known as
AssessorÊs Lot No.2 160 from Ruperto Gepilano as evidenced
by a Deed of Sale dated October 21, 1953. The said lot was
situated in Sitio Bangyan, Barrio Calaya, Municipality of
Nueva Valencia, Iloilo City, consisting more or less of
17.9849 hectares. Thereafter, Gregorio Caro sold a portion
of the said lot to his son Melchor Caro, consisting of 70,124
square meters, and now identified as Lot No. 4512 of the
Cadastral survey of Nueva Valencia, 3Pls-775. Father and
son executed a Deed of Definite Sale dated January 31,
1973 covering Lot No. 4512.
On August 1, 1974, Melchor Caro applied for a free
patent before the Bureau of Lands, District Land Office No.
6-1,

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios, with Associate

Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurring.
2 Records, p. 301.
3 Id., at p. 302.

598

598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caro vs. Sucaldito

covering the said area of the property which he bought

from his father. The application was, however, opposed by
Deogracias de la Cruz. On November4
6, 1980, the Regional
Director rendered a Decision canceling the said
application, thusly:

„This is a claim of Deogracias de la Cruz to Lot No. 4512, Pls-775 of

Calaya, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, covered by the above-noted

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 4 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

application of Melchor Caro.

In the investigation, respondent claims preferential rights over
the land as he acquired it through sale from his father Gregorio
Caro who had likewise bought the land from Ruperto Cepellano (sic)
in 1953. On the other hand, protestant De la Cruz testified that the
land in controversy was bought by him from Cipriano Gallego in
1965; that he thereafter occupied, possessed and improved the land
by planting coconut trees; and that in 1968 he was forcibly driven
out by Gregorio Caro from the land in question.
Verification of the records disclosed that the land which was
actually sold to Gregorio Caro by Ruperto Gepellano (sic) is
AssessorÊs Lot No. 160. The description and physical identity of Lot
No. 160 is basically different and distinct from Lot No. 4512, the
land in question. This could be clearly seen in the Certified True
Copy of the Sketch Plan from the AssessorÊs Office of AssessorÊs Lot
No. 160 and the Sketch Plan marked as Exhibit „9‰ of the
Respondent-Applicant. It has been established that AssessorÊs Lot
No. 160 corresponds to Lot No. 4511 and not Lot No. 4512 claimed
by the protestant. Moreover, Ruperto Cepellano (sic) in his affidavit
testified that what he sold to Gregorio Caro is a land distinct and
different from the land in question.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS, it is ordered that
the F.P.A. No. (VI-1)8548 of applicant-respondent Melchor Caro be,
as hereby it is, cancelled. Protestant Deogracias de la Cruz if
qualified, is given one hundred twenty (120) days from the finality
of this decision to file an appropriate public land application
otherwise he shall lose his preferential right thereto.
5
SO ORDERED.‰

_______________

4 Id., at p. 432.
5 Records, p. 432.

599

VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 599

Caro vs. Sucaldito

Caro filed a notice of appeal before the Regional Land

Office in Iloilo City, docketed as MNR Case No.6 5207.
However, the appeal was dismissed in an Order dated

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 5 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

June 29, 1982, on the ground of failure to file an appeal

memorandum within the reglementary period therefor.
On August 29, 1982, Susana R. Sucaldito, as the buyer7
of Lot No. 4512, filed an Application for a Free Patent
covering the said lot, and was issued Free Patent No.
597599. Consequently, the Register of Deeds of Iloilo City
issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. F-27162 in
her favor. 8 Sucaldito then filed a Petition for Writ of
Possession before 9the RTC of Iloilo City, which was
granted in an Order dated May 7, 1984.
Thereafter,
10
on February 20, 1984, Caro filed a
Complaint against Sucaldito for „Annulment of Title,
Decision, Free Patent and/or Recovery of Ownership and/or
Possession with Damages‰ before 11the RTC of Iloilo City. He
later filed an amended complaint, alleging that he was the
owner of the subject lot, and had been in possession of the
same „since 1953 and/or even prior thereto in the concept of
owner, adversely, openly, continuously and notoriously.‰ He
further alleged that the said lot had been declared for tax
purposes in his name and that of his predecessors-in-
interest, and that the corresponding land taxes had been
paid therefor. He claimed that AssessorÊs Lot No. 160 had
actually been divided into two lots, namely, Lot No. 4511
and Lot No. 4512; Sucaldito had actually been claiming Lot
No. 989 (Lot No. 4512), which was located two kilometers
away. He lamented that despite the overwhelming evidence
proving his ownership and possession of the said property,
the Bureau of Lands did not award it to him.

_______________

6 Id., at pp. 447-449.

7 Id., at p. 452.
8 Id., at pp. 458-460.
9 Id., at pp. 461-463.
10 Records, pp. 1-4.
11 Id., at pp. 16-20.

600

600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caro vs. Sucaldito

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 6 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

Caro further alleged that since the issuance of the free

patent over the subject lot in favor of Sucaldito was
wrongful and fraudulent, she had no right whatsoever over
the subject lot. Hence, as a „trustee of a constructive trust,‰
she was obliged to return the same to him as the lawful
owner. The complaint contained the following prayer:

„WHEREFORE, it is prayed that judgment be rendered:

1. Ordering the annulment and voiding of the decision of the

Bureau of Lands, the free patent and the Original
Certificate of Title No. F-27162 or in the alternative;
2. Ordering defendant to reconvey the ownership and in the
event she wrests possession from plaintiff then, also the
possession of Lot 4512 PLS-775 of Nueva Valencia,
Guimaras Cadastre, back to plaintiff;
3. Declaring plaintiff as the lawful owner and possessor of Lot
4512 PLS-775 of Nueva Valencia, Guimaras Cadastre and
ordering the issuance of a free patent or a torrens title in
favor of plaintiff;
4. Ordering defendant to pay the plaintiff P50,000.00 as moral
damages, P2,000.00 as attorneyÊs fees and P2,000.00 as
expenses on litigation plus exemplary damages in an
amount at the discretion of this Court.

Plaintiff further prays for such other relief just and equitable in
12
the premises.‰

In her answer with counterclaim, Sucaldito interposed, as a

special affirmative defense, the fact that she intervened in
the proceedings on CaroÊs application for a free patent over
Lot No. 4512 before the Bureau of Lands having bought the
subject land from De la Cruz. Moreover, contrary to the
allegations of the petitioner, Lot No. 989 and Lot No. 4512
were one and the same lot, as per the findings of the
Bureau of Lands.
The parties thereafter presented
13
evidence to prove their
respective claims. In a Decision dated December 7, 1993,
the

_______________

12 Records, p. 20.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 7 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

13 Id., at pp. 523-533.

601

VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 601

Caro vs. Sucaldito

trial court ruled in favor of the respondent and dismissed

the petitionerÊs complaint. The dispositive portion reads:

„WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint filed by

plaintiff is dismissed. The counterclaim of defendant which is
merely the result of the filing of the complaint, is likewise
dismissed.
Costs against the plaintiff.
14
SO ORDERED.‰

Citing the case 15

of Maximo v. Court of First Instance of
Capiz, Br. III, the trial court ruled that Caro had no
personality to file the action for the annulment of the free
patent issued in favor of Sucaldito, which could only be
brought by the Solicitor General. It held that „an applicant
for a free patent who is not the owner of a parcel of land
cannot bring an action in court to recover the land, for the
court may not usurp the authority of the Director of Lands
and the Secretary of Agriculture to dispose lands of the
public domain through 16
administrative proceedings under
the Public Land Act,‰ or Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended. The trial court further stressed that the remedy
of a rival-applicant for a free patent over the same land
was through administrative channels, not judicial, because
even if the oppositor succeeds in annulling the title of the
applicant, the former17
does not thereby become the owner of
the land in dispute.
The trial court also declared that contrary to CaroÊs
claims, the evidence clearly showed that Lot No. 4512, with
an area of 70,677 square meters, was not included in
AssessorÊs Lot No. 160, thus:

AssessorÊs Lot 160 is Cadastral Lot 4511, which has an original area
of around 17 hectares, more or less, later on, increased to 21
hectares. If we add Lot 4512 to Lot 4511 following the contention of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 8 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

_______________

14 Id., at p. 533.
15 G.R. No. 61113, 21 February 1990, 182 SCRA 420.
16 CA Rollo, p. 32.
17 Id., at p. 34.

602

602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caro vs. Sucaldito

the plaintiff, then the area would be more than 28 hectares. Thus,
belying the claim of plaintiff that Lot 4512 was formerly a part of
AssessorÊs Lot 160.
The contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is claiming Lot
989 which is owned by Felix Galabo and located at Brgy. Olacon, is
not well taken, because the identification of the lot as stated in the
tax declaration is not binding and conclusive. What is binding and
conclusive is what is stated in the title of the land and its technical
description. In the technical description as found in the title of the
defendant [Sucaldito], it is clearly stated therein that the lot is Lot
4512 and is located at Brgy. Calaya and not Brgy. Olacon, Nueva
18
Valencia, Guimaras.

Aggrieved by the trial courtÊs ruling, Caro elevated the case

to the CA on the following grounds:

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RULING THAT PLAINTIFF HAS

NO PERSONALITY TO BRING THE ACTION;

II

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RULING THAT EVEN IF THE

PLAINTIFF HAS THE PERSONALITY TO BRING THE ACTION
STILL HE CANNOT RECOVER THE LOT IN QUESTION, CAD.
LOT NO. 4512;

III

THE COURT ERRED IN NOT ORDERING THE DEFENDANT

TO RECONVEY THE LAND IN QUESTION TO PLAINTIFF AND

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 9 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

19
TO PAY DAMAGES.
20
The CA dismissed the petition in its Decision dated July
31, 2002. The appellate court agreed with the ruling of the
RTC that the petitioner had no personality to file the action
under Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141,
considering further that he was a mere applicant for a free
patent. Citing

_______________

18 CA Rollo, pp. 35-36.

19 Id., at p. 45.
20 Id., at pp. 80-87.

603

VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 603

Caro vs. Sucaldito

21
several cases, the appellate court ruled that the findings
of fact made by administrative agencies which are
supported by substantial evidence must be respected,
particularly where the question demands the exercise of
sound administrative 22discretion requiring special
knowledge and experience.
Caro filed a motion for reconsideration of the said 23
decision, which the appellate court denied in a Resolution
dated February 7, 2003.
Caro, now the petitioner, assails the ruling of the
appellate court on the following grounds:

THAT THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED AN

ERROR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAS NO LEGAL
PERSONALITY TO FILE THIS ACTION;
THAT THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN
DISMISSING THE APPEAL INTERPOSED BY PETITIONER ON
THE GROUND THAT ONLY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL CAN
FILE AN ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY
24
ACQUIRED BY PATENT.

The petitioner insists that contrary to the ruling of the CA,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 10 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

he has the legal personality to bring and institute the

present action against the respondent, considering that
title issued on the basis of a patent is annullable on the
ground of fraud. Furthermore, the one-year period within
which to file an action to cancel a torrens title under
Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 does not apply
where the registered owner, or the successor-in-interest,
knew that the property described in the title actually
belongs to another, as in this

_______________

21 Floralde v. Court of Appeals, 337 SCRA 371 (2000); Crusaders

Broadcasting System, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,
332 SCRA 819 (2000); and Ocampo v. Commission on Elections, 325
SCRA 636. (Id., at p. 86).
22 Ibid.
23 Rollo, pp. 55-56.
24 Id., at p. 26.

604

604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caro vs. Sucaldito
25
case. The petitioner cites Vital v. Anore, et al. to bolster
his claim.26
The petitioner also cites Director of Lands v.
Abanilla where the Court stressed that any false
statement in the application, which is an essential
condition of the patent or title under Section 91 of
Commonwealth Act No. 141, „shall ipso facto produce the
cancellation of the concession, title or permit granted.‰
In her comment, the respondent points out that the
decision of the Bureau of Lands itself would show that the
petitioner is not the true and lawful owner of the subject
lot; as such, the argument that he has the legal personality
to file the action for annulment of patent based on
constructive trust is untenable. The respondent further
contends that the CA did not err in upholding the ruling of
the RTC.
The petitioner merely reiterated his previous arguments
in his Reply dated December 30, 2003.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 11 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

The Court agrees with the ruling of the RTC and the
CA, and holds that the petitioner has no personality to file
a suit for reconveyance of the subject property.
The Court notes that the petitionerÊs complaint before
the RTC prays for the annulment of the free patent issued
in the respondentÊs favor. Considering that the ultimate
relief sought is for the respondent to „return‰ the subject
property to him, it is in reality an action
27
for reconveyance.
In De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that
„[t]he essence of an action for reconveyance is that the
decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible but
what is sought instead is the transfer of the property which
has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another
personÊs
28
name, to its rightful owner or to one with a better
right.‰ Indeed, in

_______________

25 90 Phil. 855 (1952).

26 G.R. No. L-26324, 31 August 1983, 124 SCRA 358.
27 442 Phil. 534; 394 SCRA 302 (2002).
28 Id., at p. 543. (Citations omitted).

605

VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 605

Caro vs. Sucaldito

an action for reconveyance filed by a private

29
individual, the
property does not go back to the State.
Reversion, on the other hand, is an action where the
ultimate relief sought is to revert the land back to the
government under the Regalian doctrine. Considering that
the land subject of the action originated from a grant by the
government, its cancellation
30
is a matter between the
grantor and the grantee. 31
Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party-in-interest, or one „who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit.‰ Corollarily, legal
standing has been defined as a personal and substantial
interest in the case, such that the party has sustained or

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 12 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged act.

Interest means a material interest in issue that is affected
by the questioned act or instrument, as distinguished
32
from
a mere incidental interest in the question involved.
Clearly then, a suit filed by one who is not a party-in-
interest must be dismissed. In this case, the petitioner, not
being the owner of the disputed property but a mere
applicant for a free patent, cannot thus be considered as a
party-in-interest with personality to file an action for
reconveyance.

_______________

29 Section 122 of the Land Registration Act; See also Republic of the
Philippines v. Heirs of Angeles, 439 Phil. 349; 390 SCRA 502 (2002).
30 De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, supra.
31 The provision reads in full:

Sec. 2. Parties in interest.·A real party in interest is the party who stands to
be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. Unless otherwise
authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended
in the name of the real party in interest.

32 Tichangco v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 150629, 30 June 2004, 433 SCRA

324, citing Velarde v. Social Justice Society, 428 SCRA 283 (2004).

606

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caro vs. Sucaldito

The Court, citing several of 33its holdings, expounded on this

doctrine in Tankiko v. Cezar as follows:

. . . Thus, in Lucas v. Durian [102 Phil. 1157 (1957)], the Court

affirmed the dismissal of a Complaint filed by a party who alleged
that the patent was obtained by fraudulent means and,
consequently, prayed for the annulment of said patent and the
cancellation of a certificate of title. The Court declared that the
proper party to bring the action was the government, to which the
property would revert. Likewise affirming the dismissal of a
Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the Court in
Nebrada v. Heirs of Alivio [104 Phil. 126 (1958)] noted that the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 13 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

plaintiff, being a mere homestead applicant, was not the real party-
in-interest to institute an action for reconveyance. . . .
...
Verily, the Court stressed that „. . . [i]f the suit is not brought in
the name of or against the real party-in-interest, a motion to
dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no
cause of action [Travel Wide v. CA, 199 SCRA 205, 209 (1991), per
Cruz, J. See also Suguister v. Tamayo, 176 SCRA 579, August 21,
1989]. In fact, a final judgment may be invalidated if the real
parties-in-interest are not included. This was underscored by the
Court in Arcelona v. CA [280 SCRA 20, October 2, 1997], in which a
final judgment was nullified because indispensable parties were not
impleaded.
In the present dispute, only the State can file a suit for
reconveyance of a public land. Therefore, not being the owners of
the land but mere applicants for sales patents thereon, respondents
have no personality to file the suit. Neither will they be directly
34
affected by the judgment in such suit.
35
In De la Peña v. Court of Appeals, the Court, in dismissing
the petitionerÊs imputation of fraud in securing a free
patent and title over a parcel of land, declared that
reconveyance is a remedy granted only to the owner of the 36
property alleged to be erroneously titled in anotherÊs name.
The Court further expounded:

_______________

33 G.R. No. 131277, 2 February 1999, 302 SCRA 559.

34 Id., at pp. 569-570.
35 G.R. No. 81827, 28 March 1994, 231 SCRA 456.
36 Id., at p. 461.

607

VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 607

Caro vs. Sucaldito

Persons who have not obtained title to public lands could not
question the titles legally issued by the State [Reyes v. Rodriguez,
62 Phil. 771, 776 (1936)]. In such cases, the real party-in-interest is
the Republic of the Philippines to whom the property would revert if

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 14 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

it is ever established, after appropriate proceedings, that the free

patent issued to the grantee is indeed vulnerable to annulment on
the ground that the grantee failed to comply with the conditions
imposed by the law. Not being an applicant, much less a grantee,
37
petitioner cannot ask for reconveyance.
38
In VSC Commercial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
where the private respondents therein were mere lessees of
the property in question, the Court ruled that as mere
lessees, they had „no present substantial and personal
interest with respect to issues involving ownership of the
disputed property.‰ The Court went on to declare:

. . . The only interest they have, in the event the petitionerÊs title
over the subject property is cancelled and ownership reverts to the
State, is the hope that they become qualified buyers of the subject
parcel of land. Undoubtedly, such interest is a mere expectancy.
Even the private respondents themselves claim that in case of
reversion of ownership to the State, they only have „pre-emptive
rights‰ to buy the subject property; that their real interest over the
said property is contingent upon the governmentÊs consideration of
their application as buyers of the same. It is settled that a suit filed
39
by a person who is not a party-in-interest must be dismissed.

In fact, Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 states·

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 Commonwealth [now Republic] of the
Philippines.

_______________

37 Supra.
38 G.R. No. 121159, 16 December 2002, 394 SCRA 74.
39 Id., at pp. 79-80. (Citations omitted).

608

608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caro vs. Sucaldito

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 15 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

This provision was applied and discussed in Sumail40 v.

Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, et al., a
case on all fours with the present one, as follows:

Under Section 101 of the above reproduced, only the Solicitor

General or the officer acting in his stead may bring the action for
reversion. Consequently, Sumail may not bring such action or any
action which would have the effect of cancelling a free patent and
the corresponding certificate of title issued on the basis thereof,
with the result that the land covered thereby will again form part of
the public domain. Furthermore, there is another reason for
withholding legal personality from Sumail. He does not claim the
land to be his private property. In fact, by his application for a free
patent, he had formally acknowledged and recognized the land to be
a part of the public domain; this, aside from the declaration made
by the cadastral court that lot 3633 was public land. Consequently,
even if the parcel were declared reverted to the public domain,
Sumail does not automatically become the owner thereof. He is a
mere public land applicant like others who may apply for the same.

To reiterate, the petitioner is not the proper party to file an

action for reconveyance that would 41
result in the reversion
of the land to the government. The petitioner has no
personality to „recover‰ the property42 as he has not shown
that he is the rightful owner thereof.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 45503 and the Resolution dated
February 7, 2003 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Tinga and

Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

_______________

40 96 Phil. 946 (1955).

41 Abejaron v. Nabasa, 411 Phil. 552; 359 SCRA 47 (2001).
42 De Ocampo v. Arlos, G.R. No. 135527, 19 October 2000, 343 SCRA
716.

609

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 16 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 458 8/15/20, 11:49 PM

VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 609

Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Adana

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.·The rightful application of the docrine

highlighted in Heirs of Jose Olgiva vs. C.A., 227 SCRA 330
(1993), that the right to seek reconveyance of property
actually in possession of the plaintiff is imprescriptible
would only cover a sitution where the possession is in the
concept of an owner. (Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA
247 [1998])
It is only the State which may institute reversion
proceedings under Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act.
(Urquiaga vs. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 738 [1999])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f2cf427e2f0c15ca003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ129/?username=Guest Page 17 of 17