Galang V Reyes
Galang V Reyes
Galang V Reyes
Civil Law; Land Registration; “Declaration of Nullity of Free Patents” and “Reversion,”
Distinguished.―An ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of free patents and certificates
of title is not the same as an action for reversion. The difference between them lies in the allegations
as to the character of ownership of the realty whose title is sought to be nullified. In an action for
reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the
disputed land. Hence in Gabila v. Barriga where the plaintiff in his complaint admits that he has no right
to demand the cancellation or amendment of the defendant’s title because even if the title were cancelled 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. On the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of
nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the plaintiff’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 plaintiff. 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. The real party in interest is not the State but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-existing right
of ownership over the parcel of land in question even before the grant of title to the defendant.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
524
Same; Ownership; If indeed a property was the former bed of a creek that changed its course and passed
through the property of the claimant, then, pursuant to Article 461 of the Civil Code, the ownership of the old
bed left to dry by the change of course was automatically acquired by the claimant.―If indeed a property was
the former bed of a creek that changed its course and passed through the property of the claimant, then,
pursuant to Article 461, the ownership of the old bed left to dry by the change of course
was automatically acquired by the claimant. Before such a conclusion can be reached, the fact
of natural abandonment of the old course must be shown, that is, it must be proven that the creek indeed
changed its course without artificial or man-made intervention. Thus, the claimant, in this case the Reyeses,
must prove three key elements by clear and convincing evidence. These are: (1) the old course of the creek,
(2) the new course of the creek, and (3) the change of course of the creek from the old location to the new
location by natural occurrence.
Same; Homestead Patents; Fraud; Misrepresentation; Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for
cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should never be presumed.―Fraud and misrepresentation, as
grounds for cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should never be presumed, but must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence, with mere preponderance of evidence not being adequate. Fraud is a question
of fact which must be proved.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1f1ee9f7425c0f6a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
7/23/2019 CentralBooks:Reader
MENDOZA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeks to reverse and set aside the April 9,
2008 Decision1 of the
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 19-27. Special Fourteenth Division, penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with Associate
Justice Lu-
525
Court of Appeals (CA) and its October 6, 2008 Resolution,2in CA-G.R. CV. No. 85660.
The Facts
_______________
cenito N. Tagle (Acting Chairman, Special Fourteenth Division) and Associate Justice Monina Arevalo Zenarosa,
concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 28-30.
3 Id., at pp. 40-44.
4 Id., at p. 41.
526
that, later, Enteroso requested them to continue the application because of financial constraints
on his part;5that they continued the application, but later learned that the application papers
were lost in the Assessor’s Office;6and that as the owners of the land where the new course of
water passed, they are entitled to the ownership of the property to compensate them for the loss
of the land being occupied by the new creek.
The Galangs in their Answer7 denied that the land subject of the complaint was part of a creek
and countered that OCT No. P-928 was issued to them after they had complied with the free
patent requirements of the DENR, through the PENRO; that they and their predecessor-in-
interest had been in possession, occupation, cultivation, and ownership of the land for quite some
time; that the property described under TCT No. 185252 belonged to Apolonio Galang, their
predecessor-in-interest, under OCT No. 3991; that the property was transferred in the names of
the Reyeses through falsified document;8 that assuming ex gratia argumenti that the creek had
indeed changed its course and passed through Ponderosa, the Reyeses had already claimed for
themselves the portion of the dried creek which adjoined and co-existed with their property; that
Enteroso was able to occupy a portion of their land by means of force, coercion, machinations, and
stealth in 1981; that such unlawful entry was then the subject of an Accion Publiciana before the
RTC of Antipolo City (Branch 72); and that at the time of the filing of the Complaint, the matter
was still subject of an appeal before the CA, under CA-G.R. CV No. 53509.
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 41-42.
6 Id., at p. 43.
7 Id., at pp. 48-53.
8 Id., at p. 56.
527
A title issued upon patent may be annulled only on ground of actual fraud.
Such fraud must consist [of] an intentional omission of fact required by law to be stated in the application
or willful statement of a claim against the truth. It must show some specific facts intended to deceive and
deprive another of his right. The fraud must be actual and intrinsic, not merely constructive or intrinsic; the
evidence thereof must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant, because the proceedings
which are being assailed as having been fraudulent are judicial proceedings, which by law, are presumed to
have been fair and regular. (Libudan v. Palma Gil, 45 SCRA 17)
However, aside from allegations that defendant Galang is not in possession of the property and that the
property was part of a dried creek, no other sufficient evidence of fraud was presented by the plaintiffs. They
have, thus, remained allegations, which cannot defeat the defendants title.10
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1f1ee9f7425c0f6a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
7/23/2019 CentralBooks:Reader
The RTC added that the land, having been acquired through a homestead patent, was
presumably public land.
_______________
9 Id., at pp. 55-61.
10 Id., at p. 69.
528
Therefore, only the State can institute an action for the annulment of the title covering it.
It further opined that because the Reyeses claimed to have acquired the property by right of
accretion, they should have filed an action for reconveyance, explaining “[t]hat the remedy of
persons whose property had been wrongly or erroneously registered in another’s name is not to
set aside the decree/title, but an action for reconveyance, or if the property has passed into the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value, an action for damages.”11
The Court of Appeals Decision
In its Decision, dated April 9, 2008, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision and
ordered the cancellation of OCT No. P-928 and the reconveyance of the land to the Reyeses.
The CA found that the Reyeses had proven by preponderance of evidence that the subject land
was a portion of the creek bed that was abandoned through the natural change in the course of
the water, which had now traversed a portion of Ponderosa. As owners of the land occupied by the
new course of the creek, the Reyeses had become the owners of the abandoned creek bed ipso
facto. Inasmuch as the subject land had become private, a free patent issued over it was null and
void and produced no legal effect whatsoever. A posteriori, the free patent covering the subject
land, a private land, and the certificate of title issued pursuant thereto, are null and void.12The
Galangs moved for a reconsideration,13 but their motion was denied in a Resolution dated
October 6, 2008.
Hence, this petition.
_______________
11 Id., at pp. 60-61.
12 Id., at p. 24.
13 Id., at pp. 32-38.
529
Issues
The Galangs present, as warranting a review of the questioned CA decision, the following
grounds:
A reading of the records discloses that these can be synthesized into two principal issues, to
wit: (1) whether the Reyeses can file the present action for annulment of a free patent title and
reconveyance; and (2) if they can, whether they were able to prove their cause of action against
the Galangs.
Regarding the first issue, the Galangs state that the property was formerly a public land,
titled in their names by vir-
_______________
14 Id., at p. 11.
530
tue of Free Patent No. 045802-96-2847 issued by the DENR. Thus, they posit that the Reyeses do
not have the personality and authority to institute any action for annulment of title because such
authority is vested in the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor
General.15
In this regard, the Galangs are mistaken. The action filed by the Reyeses seeks the transfer to
their names of the title registered in the names of the Galangs. In their Complaint, they alleged
that: first, they are the owners of the land, being the owners of the properties through which the
Marigman creek passed when it changed its course; and second, the Galangs illegally
dispossessed them by having the same property registered in their names. It was not an action
for reversion which requires that the State be the one to initiate the action in order for it to
prosper. The distinction between the two actions was elucidated in the case of Heirs of Kionisala
v. Heirs of Dacut,16 where it was written:
An ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of free patents and certificates of title is not
the same as an action for reversion. The difference between them lies in the allegations as to the
character of ownership of the realty whose title is sought to be nullified. In an action for reversion, the
pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. Hence
in Gabila v. Barrigawhere the plaintiff in his complaint admits that he has no right to demand the
cancellation or amendment of the defendant’s title because even if the title were cancelled 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.
On the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of
title would require allegations of the plaintiff’s ownership of the contested lot prior to the
issuance of such free patent and certificate of
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1f1ee9f7425c0f6a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
7/23/2019 CentralBooks:Reader
_______________
15 Id., at p. 12.
16 428 Phil. 249; 378 SCRA 206 (2002).
531
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 plaintiff. 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. The real party in interest is not the State but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-existing
right of ownership over the parcel of land in question even before the grant of title to the
defendant. In Heirs of Marciano Nagano v. Court of Appeals we ruled―
x x x x from the allegations in the complaint x x x private respondents claim ownership of the 2,250
square meter portion for having possessed it in the concept of an owner, openly, peacefully, publicly,
continuously and adversely since 1920. This claim is an assertion that the lot is private land x x x x
Consequently, merely on the basis of the allegations in the complaint, the lot in question is apparently
beyond the jurisdiction of the Director of the Bureau of Lands and could not be the subject of a Free
Patent. Hence, the dismissal of private respondents’ complaint was premature and trial on the merits
should have been conducted to thresh out evidentiary matters. It would have been entirely different if
the action were clearly for reversion, in which case, it would have to be instituted by the Solicitor
General pursuant to Section 101 of C.A. No. 141 x x x x
It is obvious that private respondents allege in their complaint all the facts necessary to seek the
nullification of the free patents as well as the certificates of title covering Lot 1015 and Lot 1017. Clearly,
they are the real parties in interest in light of their allegations that they have always been the owners and
possessors of the two (2) parcels of land even prior to the issuance of the documents of title in petitioners’
favor, hence the latter could only have committed fraud in securing them―
x x x x That plaintiffs are absolute and exclusive owners and in actual possession and cultivation of
two parcels of agricultural lands herein particularly described as follows [technical description of Lot
1017 and Lot 1015] x x x x 3. That plaintiffs became absolute and exclusive owners of the abovesaid
parcels of land by virtue of inheritance from their late father,
532
Honorio Dacut, who in turn acquired the same from a certain Blasito Yacapin and from then on was in
possession thereof exclusively, adversely and in the concept of owner for more than thirty (30) years
x x x x 4. That recently, plaintiff discovered that defendants, without the knowledge and consent of the
former, fraudulently applied for patent the said parcels of land and as a result thereof certificates of
titles had been issued to them as evidenced by certificate of title No. P-19819 in the name of the Hrs.
of Ambrocio Kionisala, and No. P-20229 in the name of Isabel Kionisala x x x x 5. That the patents
issued to defendants are null and void, the same having been issued fraudulently, defendants not
having been and/or in actual possession of the litigated properties and the statement they may have
made in their application are false and without basis in fact, and, the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources not having any jurisdiction on the properties the same not being anymore public
but already private property x x x x
It is not essential for private respondents to specifically state in the complaint the actual date when they
became owners and possessors of Lot 1015 and Lot 1017. The allegations to the effect that they were so
preceding the issuance of the free patents and the certificates of title, i.e., “the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources not having any jurisdiction on the properties the same not being anymore public but
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1f1ee9f7425c0f6a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
7/23/2019 CentralBooks:Reader
already private property,” are unquestionably adequate as a matter of pleading to oust the State of
jurisdiction to grant the lots in question to petitioners. If at all, the oversight in not alleging the actual date
when private respondents’ ownership thereof accrued reflects a mere deficiency in details which does not
amount to a failure to state a cause of action. The remedy for such deficiency would not be a motion to
dismiss but a motion for bill of particulars so as to enable the filing of appropriate responsive pleadings.
With respect to the purported cause of action for reconveyance, it is settled that in this kind of action
the free patent and the certificate of title are respected as incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the
transfer of the property, in this case the title thereof, which has been wrongfully or erroneously
registered in the defendant’s name. All that must be alleged in the complaint are two (2) facts
which admitting them to be true would entitle the plaintiff to recover title to the disputed
533
land, namely, (1) that the plaintiff was the owner of the land and, (2) that the defendant had
illegally dispossessed him of the same.
We rule that private respondents have sufficiently pleaded (in addition to the cause of action for
declaration of free patents and certificates of title) an action for reconveyance, more specifically, one which is
based on implied trust. An implied trust arises where the defendant (or in this case petitioners) allegedly
acquires the disputed property through mistake or fraud so that he (or they) would be bound to hold and
reconvey the property for the benefit of the person who is truly entitled to it. In the complaint, private
respondents clearly assert that they have long been the absolute and exclusive owners and in actual
possession and cultivation of Lot 1015 and Lot 1017 and that they were fraudulently deprived of ownership
thereof when petitioners obtained free patents and certificates of title in their names. These allegations
certainly measure up to the requisite statement of facts to constitute an action for
reconveyance.17 [Emphases supplied]
In this case, the complaint instituted by the Reyeses before the RTC was for the annulment of
the title issued to the Galangs, and not for reversion. Thus, the real party in interest here is not
the State but the Reyeses who claim a right of ownership over the property in question even
before the issuance of a title in favor of the Galangs. Although the Reyeses have the right to file
an action for reconveyance, they have failed to prove their case. Thus, on the second issue, the
Court agrees with the RTC that the Reyeses failed to adduce substantial evidence to establish
their allegation that the Galangs had fraudulently registered the subject property in their names.
The CA reversed the RTC decision giving the reason that the property was the former bed of
Marigman Creek, which changed its course and passed through their Ponderosa prop-
_______________
17 Id., at pp. 260-263, cited in Banguilan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165815, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 644, 653-655.
534
erty, thus, ownership of the subject property was automatically vested in them.
The law in this regard is covered by Article 461 of the Civil Code, which provides:
Art. 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso
facto belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1f1ee9f7425c0f6a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
7/23/2019 CentralBooks:Reader
However, the owners of the lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the same by paying
the value thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed.
If indeed a property was the former bed of a creek that changed its course and passed through
the property of the claimant, then, pursuant to Article 461, the ownership of the old bed left to
dry by the change of course was automatically acquired by the claimant.18 Before such a
conclusion can be reached, the fact of natural abandonment of the old course must be shown, that
is, it must be proven that the creek indeed changed its course without artificial or man-made
intervention. Thus, the claimant, in this case the Reyeses, must prove three key elements by
clear and convincing evidence. These are: (1) the old course of the creek, (2) the new course of the
creek, and (3) the change of course of the creek from the old location to the new location
by natural occurrence.
In this regard, the Reyeses failed to adduce indubitable evidence to prove the old
course, its natural abandonmentand the new course. In the face of a Torrens title issued by the
government, which is presumed to have been regularly issued, the evidence of the Reyeses was
clearly wanting. Uncorroborated testimonial evidence will not suffice to convince the Court to
order the reconveyance of the property to them. This
_______________
18 Tolentino, II Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines 137 (1992 ed., reprinted 2005),
citing Fitzimmons v. Cassity, (La. App.) 172 So. 824.
535
failure did not escape the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General. Thus, it commented:
In the case at bar, it is not clear whether or not the Marigman Creek dried-up naturally back in
1980. Neither did private respondents submit any findings or report from the Bureau of Lands or the DENR
Regional Executive Director, who has the jurisdiction over the subject lot, regarding the nature of change
in the course of the creek’s waters. Worse, what is even uncertain in the present case is the exact
location of the subject matter of dispute. This is evident from the decision of the Regional Trial Court
which failed to specify which portion of the land is actually being disputed by the contending parties.
xxx
Since the propriety of the remedy taken by private respondents in the trial court and their legal
personality to file the aforesaid action depends on whether or not the litigated property in the present case
still forms part of the public domain, or had already been converted into a private land, the identification
of the actual portion of the land subject of the controversy becomes necessary and
indispensable in deciding the issues herein involved.
xxx
Notably, private respondents failed to submit during trial any convincing proof of a similar declaration by
the government that a portion of the Marigman Creek had already dried-up and that the same is already
considered alienable and disposable agricultural land which they could acquire through acquisitive
prescription.
Indeed, a thorough investigation is very imperative in the light of the conflicting factual issues as to the
character and actual location of the property in dispute. These factual issues could properly be resolved by
the DENR and the Land Management Bureau, which have the authority to do so and have the duty to carry
out the provisions of the Public Land Act, after both parties have been fully given the chance to present all
their evidence.19[Emphases supplied]
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1f1ee9f7425c0f6a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
7/23/2019 CentralBooks:Reader
536
Moreover, during cross-examination, Conrado S. Reyes admitted that the plan surveyed for Fe
de Castro Reyes and Jose de Castro, marked before the RTC as Exhibit “A-2,” was prepared by a
geodetic engineer without conducting an actual survey on the ground:
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:
I am showing to you Exhibit “A-2” which is a plan surveyed for Fe de Kastro Reyes and Jose de Kastro. This plan was
prepared by the geodetic engineer without conducting actual survey on the ground, is it not?
A: I cannot agree to that question.
Q: But based on the certification of the geodetic engineer, who prepared this it appears that this plan was plotted only
based on the certification on this plan marked as Exhibit “A-2”, is it not?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So, based on this certification that the geodetic engineer conducted the survey of this plan based on the technical
description without conducting actual survey on the ground?
A: Yes, sir. 20
At some point, Mr. Reyes admitted that he was not sure that the property even existed:
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:
The subject matter of this document Exhibit I is that, that property which at present is titled in the name of Fe de
Castro Reyes married to Conrado Reyes, et al. is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: The subject matter of this case now is the adjoining lot of this TCT 185252, is that correct?
A: I do not know.
_______________
20 TSN, Civil Case No. 97-4560, May 7, 1999, p. 6.
537
Q: You mean you do not know the lot subject matter of this case?
A: I do not know whether it really exists.
Q: Just answer the question, you do not know?
A: Yes. 21
The conflicting claims here are (1) the title of the Galangs issued by the DENR, through the
PENRO, and (2) the claim of the Reyeses, based on unsubstantiated testimony, that the land in
question is the former bed of a dried up creek. As between these two claims, this Court is inclined
to decide in favor of the Galangs who hold a valid and subsisting title to the property which, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court presumes to have been issued by the PENRO
in the regular performance of its official duty.
The bottom line here is that, fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of
patent and annulment of title, should never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence, with mere preponderance of evidence not being adequate. Fraud is a
question of fact which must be proved.22
In this case, the allegations of fraud were never proven. There was no evidence at all
specifically showing actual fraud or misrepresentation. Thus, the Court cannot sustain the
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1f1ee9f7425c0f6a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
7/23/2019 CentralBooks:Reader
_______________
21 TSN, Civil Case No. 97-4560, May 21, 1999, p. 9.
22 Datu Kiram Sampaco v. Hadji Serad Mingca Lantud, GR. No. 163551, July 18, 2011, 654 SCRA 36, 49-50.
538
SO ORDERED.
Notes.―A homestead patent is one of the modes to acquire title to public lands suitable for
agricultural purposes; Lands acquired under homestead patents come from the public domain,
and if a property was erroneously included in the homestead patent awarded to an applicant,
then the subject property must be returned to the State and not to another applicant. (Lopez vs.
Esquivel, Jr., 586 SCRA 545 [2009])
In a reversion proceeding, premised on the claim that the property is foreshore land or that the
patents were obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, the burden is now upon petitioner to
prove such allegations. (Republic vs. Leonor, 609 SCRA 75 [2009])
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c1f1ee9f7425c0f6a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10