Case Digest: PROTACIO BANGUILAN et al. v. COURT OF APPEALS

PROTACIO BANGUILAN et al. v. COURT OF APPEALS

522 SCRA 699 (2007), SECOND DIVISION

In 1925, Serapio Banguilan (Banguilan) and nine other farmers filed a homestead application with the then Bureau of Lands. At the same time, Gregorio Manalo, filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands. After 25 years, Brigida Manalo-Velasco (Manalo-Velasco), heir of Manalo, again filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands contending that the homestead patent should be granted in favor of her family. The Director of Lands rejected the homestead application of Manalo-Velasco.

Years later or in December 1995, the Regional Office of the DENR issued the free patent titles covering portions of the subject land in favor of Manalo-Velasco. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered judgment in the Quieting of Title and Damages case filed by Manalo-Velasco. Banguilan then filed a motion for reconveyance of the land given to Manalo-Velasco.

The RTC dismissed Banguilan‘s complaint for cancellation/annulment of titles and damages on the ground that Banguilan, et al. have no personality to institute the suit, it being essentially an action for reversion.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a suit for reconveyance is proper in obtaining a homestead patent

HELD:

A suit for reconveyance is not an available remedy to Banguilan. Considering that the subject was a public land before free patents were issued, Banguilan has no standing to ask for the reconveyance of the property to them.

The proper remedy, if at all, is an action for reversion granting that there were misrepresentations in the applications for the free patents. The appellants have no legal personality to institute a suit for reversion for the constant rule on this matter is that if Sales Patents and TCT‘s were in fact fraudulently obtained, the suit to recover the disputed property should be filed by the State through the Office of the Solicitor General. The title having originated from a grant by the government, their cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee.

The real party in interest is not the State but the heirs of Banguilan who alleges a pre-existing right of ownership over the parcel of land in question even before the grant of title to the defendant. Banguilan in his complaint admits that he has no right to demand the cancellation or amendment of the Manalo-Velasco‘s title because even if the title were canceled or amended the ownership of the land embraced therein or of the portion affected by the amendment would revert to the public domain, we ruled that the action was for reversion and that the only person or entity entitled to relief would be the Director of Lands.

A cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the Banguilan‘s ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title as well as the defendant‘s fraud or mistake, as the case may be, in successfully obtaining these documents of title over the parcel of land claimed by Banguilan. In such a case, the nullity arises strictly not from the fraud or deceit but from the fact that the land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow and whatever patent or certificate of title obtained therefor is consequently void ab initio.

On the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the Banguilan‘s ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title as well as the defendant‘s fraud or mistake, as the case may be, in successfully obtaining these documents of title over the parcel of land claimed by Banguilan.