PEDRO DE LEON VS.

NENITA DE LEON-REYES
GR. 205711 MAY 30, 2016

FACTS:

Petitioner Pedro de Leon (Pedro) and respondent Nenita de Leon-Reyes (Nenita) are the legitimate
children of Alejandro de Leon (Alejandro). Alejandro possessed two parcels of public land (subject lots) in
Brgy. Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac. Sometime between 1995 and 1996, the government granted free patents
covering the subject lots in favor of Nenita and her family.

Pedro filed a Protest with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on the
grounds of fraud and misrepresentation of facts in the acquisition of title. In a complaint dated May 22, 1997,
Nenita's family filed an unlawful detainer case against Pedro before the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court
(MCTC), Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac. The MCTC dismissed the ejectment case without prejudice due to the pendency
of Pedro's protest before the Bureau of Lands/DENR.

The DENR dismissed Pedro's Protest after finding that Nenita (and her family) had met all the
requisites for a public land grant. The DENR upheld the validity of the grant of patents to Nenita's family.
Pedro did not appeal the DENR's dismissal of his protest.

On February 5, 2002, Nenita and her family filed a complaint against Pedro for Recovery of Possession
and Damages. Nenita claimed that Alejandro transferred his possessory rights over the property to her in a
document dated May 5, 1970.

On April 16, 2002, Pedro likewise filed a complaint against Nenita's family for Reconveyance of Title
and Damages. Pedro claimed that Alejandro transferred possession over the subject lots to him in 1971 and
that he had been in possession of it ever since. He claimed that he asked Nenita for assistance to cause the
titling of the properties in his name but the latter took advantage of his lack of education and fraudulently
acquired a free patent in her name instead. Pedro further contested the May 5, 1970 Transfer of Rights in favor
of Nenita as a forgery.

The RTC then declared Nenita and her family's titles as null and void and ordered them to pay Pedro
damages.

The CA reversed the RTC's ruling, validated the OCTs in the name of Nenita's family, and ordered
Pedro to surrender possession of the subject lot. As the RTC did, the CA validated Nenita's ownership of the
disputed lots. The CA found that despite Pedro's denomination of his complaint as one for "Reconveyance of
Titles and Damages," it was, in fact, one for reversion which he had no legal personality to file.

Pedro insists that he is the rightful owner of the property. He argues that the CA erred in not finding
the existence of fraud and/or forgery and that a title emanating from a fraudulently secured free patent does
not become indefeasible. Pedro concedes that a fraudulently secured patent can only be assailed by the
government in an action for reversion, but emphasizes that direct reconveyance is available when public land
was fraudulently and in breach of trust titled in the name of the defendant. Pedro claims that as of the date of
the grant of the free patent to Nenita's family, the properties had already ceased to be part of the public domain
on account of his continued occupation and possession for the period required by law. Thus, the lots were
beyond the DENR's jurisdiction to dispose of.

Nenita counters that: (1) Pedro raises questions of fact that are improper in a petition for review on
certiorari; (2) despite the denomination of Pedro's original complaint before the RTC, it was, in fact, an action
for reversion; (3) as established during the trial, Pedro had already received 211,846 square meters of property
as his share in the inheritance of their father; and (4) the subject lots were her rightful share from the estate of
their father.
ISSUE:

Whether or not direct reconveyance is available when public land was fraudulently and in breach of
trust titled in the name of the defendant?

RULING:

NO. The remedy of reconveyance is only available to a landowner whose private property was
erroneously or fraudulently registered in the name of another. It is not available when the subject property is
public land because a private person, who is evidently not the landowner, would have no right to recover the
property. It would simply revert to the public domain.

Thus, reconveyance cannot be resorted to by a rival applicant to question the State's grant of a free patent. The
exception to this rule is when a free patent was issued over private lands that are beyond the jurisdiction of the
Director of Lands/DENR to dispose of.
REPUBLIC VS HACHERO
GR 200973 MAY 30, 2016

FACTS:

Sometime in 1996, Amor Hachero (Hachero) filed his Free Patent Application No. 045307-969
covering Lot No. 1514, CAD-1150-D (subject land) before the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO) of Palawan. The subject land, with an area of 3.1308 hectares or 31,308 square
meters (subject land), is located in Sagrada, Busuanga, Palawan. On October 15, 1998, Free Patent No. 045307-
98-9384 was issued to Hachero and the subject land was registered under Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
No. E-18011 on May 7, 1999.

After an inspection and verification were conducted by the CENRO in 2000, it was discovered that
the subject land was still classified as timberland and so not susceptible of private ownership under the Free
Patent provision of the Public Land Act.

On November 26, 2002, the Republic, represented by the Regional Executive Director, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)-Region IV, Manila, filed the Complaint for the Cancellation of
Free Patent No. 045307-98-9384 and OCT No. E-18011 and for Reversion.
Despite personal receipt of the summons and the complaint, however, Hachero did not file any responsive
pleading within the period required by law. RTC declared Hachero in default. The Republic allowed to present
its evidence ex-parte.

The RTC explained that the free patent and title had already been issued after Hachero was found to
have complied with all the requirements; that it was the Republic itself thru the DENR-CENRO, Coron, which
brought the subject land under the operation of the Torrens System; that it could not understand the complete
turnabout made by the same office and its officials who certified before that the subject land was alienable and
disposable and who approved Hachero's application; that the Republic failed to show the document which
stated that the subject land was still timberland as indicated under Project No. 2A L.C. Map No. 839, released
on December 9, 1929, despite the fact that said document was already available at the CENRO office at the
time of the application for free patent; that the lands adjacent to the subject land were already alienable and
disposable; that the free patent and the title itself were public documents entitled to the presumption of
regularity; and that the verification and inspection report of one Sim Luto together with the other CENRO
officials presented by the Republic were insufficient to defeat Hachero's patent and title.

The CA affirmed the RTC decision, stating that the verification presented by the Republic could not
be given probative value because L.C. Map No. 839, dated December 9, 1929, which served as basis for the
verification, was not presented before the RTC. According to the CA, the Inspection Report, standing alone,
was not sufficient to overcome the burden imposed upon the Republic and could not serve as basis of the
reversion of the subject land. The CA doubted the subsequent findings of the land investigator that the subject
land was still timberland because he was the same land investigator who previously evaluated the subject land
and certified that it was alienable and disposable.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA gravely erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioners action for cancellation
of free patent and original certificate of title and reversion?

RULING:
 YES. There being a controversion, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties
applies favorably to the Republic. This means that the DENR's inspection report and the verification stating
that the subject land is still inalienable has become conclusive.

Reversion 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 therefore is a matter between the grantor and the grantee. The Court gave a more
general statement that "this remedy of reversion can only be availed of in cases of fraudulent or unlawful
inclusion of the land in patents or certificates of title.

Although the Republic's action for cancellation of patent and title and for reversion was not based on
fraud or misrepresentation on the part of Hachero, his title could still be cancelled and the subject land reverted
back to the State because the grant was made through mistake or oversight. This could probably be the reason
why, shortly after one (1) year from the issuance of OCT No. E-18011 to Hachero, the DENR personnel
conducted another investigation and verification on the subject land. It would appear that they suspected that
a mistake was made in their issuance of the patent as the subject land had not been reclassified or released as
alienable or disposable land. It remained plotted within the timberland classification zone. This time, they
supported their findings with maps prepared by the NAMRIA. The Republic also followed the proper legal
procedure for cancellation of patent and title and for reversion. They filed a complaint in court and notified
Hachero through summons. They gave Hachero an opportunity to be heard in court. For unknown reasons,
however, he disregarded the summons, allowed himself to be declared in default, and forfeited his right to
adduce evidence in his defense.