THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner-appellant,

vs.
EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA, ET AL., respondents.,
EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA, respondent-appellee.
Facts:
petitioner Director of Lands, filed with a petition alleging, inter alia, that on April 28,
1955, respondent !sta"!io de L!na filed with his office, an application for free patent
over a parcel of land, clai#ing that he $de L!na% is in act!al occ!pation of said land,
having ac"!ired it fro# !se&ia and 'ernardina (astillo, who had &een in possession and
c!ltivation)
that rel*ing on the state#ents #ade &* respondent de L!na in his said application that his
occ!pation of the land was #ade prior to +!l* ,, 19,5, he $Director% approved it as Free
-atent Application and thereafter gave it d!e co!rse) he iss!ed Free -atent for the land, in
favor, and in the na#e of respondent, and the sa#e was trans#itted to the .egister of
Deeds, who registered it and iss!ed the corresponding /riginal (ertificate of 0itle)
that, s!&se"!entl*, !pon co#plaint #ade &* one 1g#edio 2aa against said free patent
iss!ed to respondent, he cond!cted an investigation, it was fo!nd that respondent and his
alleged predecessors-in-interest, have never &een in occ!pation of the land covered &* the
patent and title, &!t on the contrar*, it is in the act!al and e3cl!sive c!ltivation of said
1g#edio 2aa, who has &een in possession thereof since prior to the last war !p to the
present, openl*, adversel*, and in the concept of an owner)
that said patent and title were iss!ed to respondent, which was approved and given d!e
co!rse d!e to respondent4s #isinterpretation and false state#ent #ade in said application)
and that inas#!ch as respondents is not entitled to a free patent, on acco!nt of his fail!re
to f!lfill the conditions prescri&ed &* the -!&lic Land Act, said patent and title iss!ed to
hi# for the land, are n!ll and void.
.espondent, filed a #otion to dis#iss, on the gro!nd that petitioner has no legal capacit*
to s!e, the real part* in interest &eing 1g#edio 2aa, whose rights are adversel* affected
&* the iss!ance of said patent and title to hi# $respondent%. petitioner filed an opposition.
/n A!g!st 15, 1958, the co!rt dis#issed the petition filed, in an order which in part
reads: 0he allegations contained in the petition clearl* shows that the action for the
reversion of the lot in "!estion to the govern#ent is pre#ised on the gro!nd of false
representation. 6owever, action instit!ted p!rs!ant to 7ec. 181 of the -!&lic Land Act
#!st &e in the na#e of the .ep!&lic of the -hilippines and prosec!ted &* the 7olicitor
2eneral.
7ince the present petition is instit!ted in the na#e of the Director of the Lands, it stands
to reason that the petition is f!nda#entall* defective. 6ence, !nder .!le 8, the petition
sho!ld &e dis#issed, on the gro!nd that the Director of Lands is not legall* a!thori9ed to
instit!te the present petition. -etitioner filed a #otion for reconsideration &!t the sa#e
was denied.
177:: whether petitioner had the a!thorit* to file the petition in "!estion.
6LD:
;ell settled is the r!le that once the patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title
is iss!ed, the land cases to &e part of the p!&lic do#ain and &eco#es private propert* over which
the Director of Lands has neither control nor <!risdiction.
As alread* stated, free patent =o. ,28 was filed in co!rt onl* on +!l* 21,1952, or al#ost three
*ears after the iss!ance of the free patent. 1t is, therefore, clear that the trial co!rt no longer had
<!risdiction to entertain the co#plaint in (ivil (ase =o. ,28 for the reasons alread* stated, &!t
not as contended &* the Director of Lands that it involved p!&lic land, over which he had
e3cl!sive and e3ec!tive control, &eca!se once the patent was granted and the corresponding
certificate of title was iss!ed, the land ceased to &e part of the p!&lic do#ain and &eco#e private
propert* over which the Director of Lands has neither control nor <!risdiction.
A re#ed* where&* lands of the p!&lic do#ain fra!d!lentl* awarded to the applicant #a*&e
covered or reverted &ac> to its original owner, the 2overn#ent.
7aid section provides that:
7ec. 181. All actions for the reversions to the 2overn#ent of Lands of the p!&lic do#ain or
i#prove#ents thereon shall &e instit!ted &* the 7olicitor 2eneral or the /fficer acting in his
stead, in the proper co!rts in the na#e of .ep!&lic $(o##onwealth% of the -hilippines.
1t is "!ite clear fro# the provision <!st "!oted those actions for reversions of p!&lic lands
fra!d!lentl* awarded are to &e instit!ted &* the 7olicitor 2eneral or the officer acting in his
stead, and that the sa#e #!st &e &ro!ght in the na#e of the .ep!&lic of the -hilippines.
1n s!pport of the view that petitioner #a* &ring the present action, he cited 7ection 91 of
the -!&lic Land Law. 7!ffice it to sa* that said provision is onl* applica&le where the patent or
title is so!ght to &e cancelled or ann!lled, for having &een proc!red thro!gh fra!d or
#isrepresentation, prior to the e3piration of the 1-*ear period provided in 7ection ?8 of the Land
.egistration Act, fro# its iss!ance and registration, and not where, as in the instance case, said
period had alread* elapsed.