Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 92 views

    Cawis vs. Cerilles - G.R. No. 170207 - April 19, 2010

    Uploaded by

    Lordy Jessah Aggabao
    This case involves a dispute over a 1,333 square meter parcel of public land in Baguio City that was sold through a sales patent to Jose Andrada. Petitioners, claiming to be actual occupants of the land, protested the sales patent awarded to Andrada. Private respondent Ma. Edeliza S. Peralta later purchased the land from Andrada. The Court ruled that (1) only the State, through the Solicitor General, can institute proceedings to revert public land to the government; private persons cannot bring such an action, and (2) since the State did not institute reversion proceedings in this case, the sales patent and certificate of title issued based on the patent must be upheld as valid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cawis vs. Cerilles - G.R. No. 170207 - April 19, 2010

    Uploaded by

    Lordy Jessah Aggabao
    92 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over a 1,333 square meter parcel of public land in Baguio City that was sold through a sales patent to Jose Andrada. Petitioners, claiming to be actual occupants of the land, protested the sales patent awarded to Andrada. Private respondent Ma. Edeliza S. Peralta later purchased the land from Andrada. The Court ruled that (1) only the State, through the Solicitor General, can institute proceedings to revert public land to the government; private persons cannot bring such an action, and (2) since the State did not institute reversion proceedings in this case, the sales patent and certificate of title issued based on the patent must be upheld as valid

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over a 1,333 square meter parcel of public land in Baguio City that was sold through a sales patent to Jose Andrada. Petitioners, claiming to be actual occupants of the land, protested the sales patent awarded to Andrada. Private respondent Ma. Edeliza S. Peralta later purchased the land from Andrada. The Court ruled that (1) only the State, through the Solicitor General, can institute proceedings to revert public land to the government; private persons cannot bring such an action, and (2) since the State did not institute reversion proceedings in this case, the sales patent and certificate of title issued based on the patent must be upheld as valid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    92 views2 pages

    Cawis vs. Cerilles - G.R. No. 170207 - April 19, 2010

    Uploaded by

    Lordy Jessah Aggabao
    This case involves a dispute over a 1,333 square meter parcel of public land in Baguio City that was sold through a sales patent to Jose Andrada. Petitioners, claiming to be actual occupants of the land, protested the sales patent awarded to Andrada. Private respondent Ma. Edeliza S. Peralta later purchased the land from Andrada. The Court ruled that (1) only the State, through the Solicitor General, can institute proceedings to revert public land to the government; private persons cannot bring such an action, and (2) since the State did not institute reversion proceedings in this case, the sales patent and certificate of title issued based on the patent must be upheld as valid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    170207               April 19, 2010

    VICENTE CAWIS (substituted by his son, EMILIO CAWIS), PEDRO BACLANGEN,


    FELIZA DOMILIES, IVAN MANDI-IT a.k.a. IVAN MANDI-IT LUPADIT, DOMINGO
    CAWIS and GERARD LIBATIQUE, Petitioners,
    vs.
    HON. ANTONIO CERILLES, in his capacity as the DENR Secretary, HON. MANUEL
    GEROCHI, in his capacity as the Director, Lands, Management Bureau, and MA. EDELIZA
    PERALTA, Respondents.

    Ponente: Carpio, J.

    FACTS:

    This case involves the reversion sale of a public land located in Holy Ghost Hills
    Subdivision, Baguio City. The said parcel of land with an area of 1,333 square meters sold to
    Jose Andrada by virtue of the Public Land Act. However, petitioners, claiming to be actual
    occupants, protested the sales patent awarded to Andrada.
    Sometime in 1987, private respondent Ma. Edeliza S. Peralta purchased Lot No. 47 from
    Andrada. The Deputy Public Land Inspector found that neither Andrada nor Peralta had
    constructed a residential house on the lot, which was required in the Order of Award and set as
    a condition precedent for the issuance of the sales patent. Apparently, it was Vicente Cawis, one
    of the petitioners, who had built a house on Lot No. 47.
    Around 1987, Sales Patent No. 1319 was nonetheless transferred to Peralta. Petitioners then
    filed a complaint before the trial court alleging fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation in the
    issuance of the sales patent and the original certificate of title over Lot No. 47. They claimed
    they had interest in the lot as qualified beneficiaries of R.A. No. 6099 who met the conditions
    prescribed in R.A. No. 730. They argued that upon the enactment of R.A. No. 6099, Andrada’s
    sales patent was deemed cancelled and revoked in their favor. Hence, this case.

    ISSUE: Whether or not only the State can institute reversion proceedings pursuant to Section
    101 of the Public Land Act. (YES)

    RULING:
    Section 101 of the Public Land Act clearly states: “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.”

    Even assuming that private respondent indeed acquired title to Lot No. 47 in bad faith, only
    the State can institute reversion proceedings, pursuant to Section 101 of the Public Land Act and
    our ruling in Alvarico v. Sola. Private persons may not bring an action for reversion or any
    action which would have the effect of canceling a land patent and the corresponding certificate
    of title issued on the basis of the patent, such that the land covered thereby will again form part
    of the public domain. Only the OSG or the officer acting in his stead may do so. Since the title
    originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and
    the grantee.

    In this case, it is clear that Lot No. 47 was public land when Andrada filed the sales patent
    application. Any subsequent action questioning the validity of the award of sales patent on the
    ground of fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation should thus be initiated by the State. The State has
    not done so and thus, we have to uphold the validity and regularity of the sales patent as well
    as the corresponding original certificate of title issued based on the patent.

    You might also like