SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-40402. March 16, 1987.]

RE!"LIC O# $%E %ILIINES, Petitioner, &. $%E %ON. CO!R$ O# 'E'LS, a() EMILIO
"ERN'"E, SR., EMILIO "ERN'"E, *R., L!+ "ERN'"E, 'M'RO "ERN'"E, a() ELIS'
"ERN'"E, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
'R'S, J.,
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking a reversal of the decision of Respondent Court of Appeals 1
dated February 5, 195 in CA!"#R# $o# 5%%&!R, entitled '()*+*, -(R$A-(, .R#, (t# Al# v# R(/0-+*C ,F
T1( /1*+*//*$(.,' affir2ing the order of the Court of First *nstance of -ataan dated August 13, 191 in
Cadastral Case $o# 19, +RC Cadastral Record $o# 1%9, which dis2issed petitioner Republic4s petition for
review of the decrees of registration issued pursuant to the decision rendered on 5ece2ber 1, 19&6
ad7udicating in favor of the private Respondents herein, the lots applied for by the2, and the Resolution of
Respondent Court dated )arch 19, 195 denying herein /etitioner4s 2otion for reconsideration#
The undisputed facts are as follows8chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
+ot $o# &99 of the )ariveles Cadastre was declared public land in a decision rendered before the last war in
Cadastral Case $o# 19, +RC Cadastral Record $o# 1%9#
,n :uly &, 19&5, +ot &99 was segregated fro2 the forest ;one and released and certified by the -ureau of
Forestry as an agricultural land for disposition under the /ublic +and Act <Record on Appeal, p# =#
,n April 9&, 19&, Respondents filed in the Court of First *nstance of -ataan a petition to reopen Cadastral
Case $o# 19, +RC Cadastral Record $o# 1%9, under Republic Act 9>1, as a2ended by Republic Act 9%&1,
concerning a portion of +ot $o# &99 ? +ot $os# 99, 9>, 93, 95, 9&, 9, 96 ? and a portion of +ot
$o# >93 ? +ot $os# 91 and 99 ? 2ore particularly identified and delineated in the segregation plans of
.gs!>>3>, .gs!>33%, .gs!>>3%, .gs!>>31, .gs!>>39 and .gs!>>>9, approved by the 5irector of +ands, to
perfect their rights and register their titles to said lots, having allegedly ac@uired ownership and possession
of said parcels of land by purchase fro2 the original owners thereof, whose possession of the sa2e including
that of the herein Respondents, has always been continuous, open, active, eAclusive, public, adverse, and in
the concept of owners thereof for 2ore than >% years <Record on Appeal, pp# >!5 and 11=#
,n )ay 1, 19&, the lower court issued an ,rder setting the petition for hearing and directing that the
Republic of the /hilippines be notified thereof by furnishing the .olicitor!"eneral, the 5irector of +ands and
the 5irector of Forestry, a copy of said ,rder together with Respondents4 petition by registered 2ail <Record
on Appeal, p# &=#
,n August 93, 19&, the 5irector of Forestry filed an opposition to the petition praying for the denial of the
petition once the area involved is found to be within the ti2berland and therefore inalienable under the
Constitution <Record on Appeal, p# =# 0pon verification, however, the 5irector of Forestry found the area to
be the portion of the ti2berland already released by the govern2ent fro2 the 2ass of public forests and
pro2ptly withdrew his ,pposition <Record on Appeal, p# 6=#
,n .epte2ber 1, 19&, the Acting /rovincial Fiscal of -ataan, for and in behalf of the 5irector of +ands, filed
his opposition to the petition alleging that the land is still, in truth and in fact, public land and as such
cannot be the sub7ect of a land registration proceeding under Act 39&#
The lower court found that the petitioners have co2plied with all the ter2s and conditions which would
entitle the2 to a grant# Thus, the dispositive portion of its decision dated 5ece2ber 1, 19&6 <Record on
Appeal, p# 19=, reads87gc8chanrobles#co2#ph
'B1(R(F,R(, the segregation plans, .gs!>>3%, .gs!>>>9, .gs!>>31, .gs!>>39, .gs!>>3> and .gs!>>3%
and their technical descriptions are hereby A//R,C(5, and pursuant to .ec# 11 of Act 9959, the court
hereby ad7udicates in favor of petitioners (2ilio -ernabe, .r#, 2arriedD (2ilio -ernabe, :r#, 2arriedD +u;
-ernabe, singleD A2paro -ernabe, single and (lisa -ernabe, single, all Filipinos and residents of -alanga,
-ataan, the lots herein applied for as follows8chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
+u; -ernabe .gs!91 69,1 s@# 2#
>>>9
(lisa -ernabe .gs!9> 1#59& s@# 2#
>>31
A2paro -ernabe .gs!93 3>,>99 s@# 2#
>>39 95 1%%,3>9 s@# 2#
:osefina -ernabe .gs!9& &9,>55 s@# 2#
>>3> 9 5,1%% s@# 2#
(2ilio -ernabe, :r# .gs!96 1%%,16> s@# 2#
.gs!>33% .gs!99 &3,%59# s@# 2#
and upon this decision having beco2e final, the Co22issioner of +and Registration is hereby directed to
issue the corresponding decrees of registration therefor#'cralaw virtua1aw library
/ursuant to the aforecited decision, the Co22issioner of +and Registration issued 5ecrees $os# $!19361>!
193616, all dated )ay , 19&9 <Record on Appeal, pp# 9%!95=#
,n )ay , 199, petitioner Republic of the /hilippines, acting in its behalf and in behalf of the 5irector of
+ands and the 5irector of Forestry, through the .olicitor!"eneral, filed a petition for review of the decrees of
registration under .ection >6, of Act $o# 39&, as a2ended, and the corresponding decision of the lower
court, on the grounds that the entire proceeding was vitiated by lack of notice to the .olicitor "eneral of the
subse@uent hearings of the petition for re!opening of the cadastral proceedingsD that the parcels of land
sub7ect 2atter of the petition to re!open cadastral proceedings are portions of the public do2ain, ad2ittedly
within the unclassified public forest of )ariveles, -ataan, opened for disposition only on or about :uly &,
19&5D that subse@uently, respondents do not have a registerable title to the land sub7ect 2atter of the
proceedingsD and the lower court, without 7urisdiction to decree the confir2ation of registerable title to
respondents over portions of the public do2ain, as respondents do not @ualify under the provisions of
.ection 36<b= of CA 131, as a2ended, and that under the circu2stances, respondents e2ployed actual
fraud in procuring title over the parcels of land <Record on Appeal, p# 95=#
,n )ay 99, 199, respondents 2oved to dis2iss the /etition for Review on the grounds that8 <1= The trial
court has no 7urisdiction over the nature of the action or suit as there is no fraud to 7ustify the setting aside
on review of a decree of registration# *f the .olicitor "eneral was not notified of the subse@uent hearings, it
was because he delegated his appearance to the /rovincial Fiscal of -ataan# -esides the setting aside or
review was filed out of ti2e# <9= The petition states no cause of action, the parcels of land involved in the
actions having been already transferred to innocent purchasers for value long before the .olicitor!"eneral
even filed the petition for review <Record on Appeal, pp# 9!3%=#
Their 2otion to dis2iss having been held in abeyance until the hearing of the 2erits of the case which was
set for August 1&, 19%, respondents filed their answer to the /etition for Review on August 3, 19%# *n
their answer, respondents reiterated their grounds in their 2otion to dis2iss <Record on Appeal, pp# 3%!33=#
,n $ove2ber 19, 19%, /etitioner filed an a2ended /etition for Review, with the additional allegation that
after having fraudulently secured title over the parcels of land involved, the petitioners eAecuted si2ulated
deeds of sale purporting to convey various lots co2posing portions of the parcels involved to third parties for
fictitious considerations in an obvious atte2pt to re2ove the parcels of land involved fro2 the coverage of
.ection >6 of Act 39&, but in truth, the afore2entioned third parties are not innocent purchasers for value,
being 2ere du22ies of the petitioners, holding the parcels of land involved only in trust for the petitioners#
,n $ove2ber 9>, 19%, respondents filed their answer to the A2ended /etition for Review <Record on
Appeal, p# 5&=#
,n August 13, 191, the lower court issued its ,rder denying petitioner4s A2ended /etition for Review
<Record on Appeal, p# 5&=#
,n appeal to the Court of Appeals on .epte2ber 9%, 191, the @uestioned ,rder of the Court of First
*nstance of -ataan, -ranch * was affir2ed <Rollo, p# >>=#
,n February 95, 195, /etitioner filed a )otion for Reconsideration which was denied by the Court of
Appeals for lack of 2erit, in the Resolution of a special 5ivision of Five, pro2ulgated on )arch 19, 195#
1ence this petition#
Bithout giving due course to the /etition, the Court, through its First 5ivision, resolved on )ay 5, 195 to
re@uire the respondents to co22ent thereon# ,n )ay >%, 195, respondents filed their co22ent, alleging
that the decision of respondent Court and the @uestioned resolution were not rendered without or in eAcess
of its 7urisdiction# $either was the discretion eAercised by respondent Court arbitrary or despotic#
*n its Resolution dated :une 3, 195, the Court resolved to give due course to the /etition and denied the
urgent 2otion of respondents for leave to file a supple2ental andEor a2ended co22ent# /etitioners filed its
-rief on $ove2ber 99, 195D respondents, on )arch 9, 19&# /etitioner filed its Reply -rief on )arch 95,
19& and on )ay 5, 19&, the case was dee2ed sub2itted for decision#
/etitioner assigns the following errors8chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
*# T1( R(./,$5($T C,0RT ,F A//(A+. C,))*TT(5 A R(C(R.*-+( (RR,R *$ T,TA++F 5*.R("AR5*$"
T1( 0$5*./0T(5 FACT T1AT T1( +,T. C+A*)(5 -F 1(R(*$ /R*CAT( R(./,$5($T. -(CA)(
A"R*C0+T0RA+ ,$+F ,$ :0+F &, 19&5 B1($ T1( .A)( B(R( R(+(A.(5 FR,) T1( F,R(.T G,$( A$5
T1AT C,$.(H0($T+F T1(F +ACI T1( R(H0*.*T( T1*RTF <>%= F(AR. /,..(..*,$ T, ($T*T+( T1() T, A
"RA$T#
**# T1( R(./,$5($T C,0RT ,F A//(A+. C,))*TT(5 A R(C(R.*-+( (RR,R *$ $,T 1,+5*$" T1AT T1(
($T*R( /R,C((5*$" F,R R(,/($*$" ,F T1( CA5A.TRA+ CA.( ,C(R T1( +,T. *$ H0(.T*,$ BA.
C*T*AT(5 -F +ACI ,F $,T*C( T, T1( .,+*C*T,R!"($(RA+#
***# T1( R(./,$5($T C,0RT (RR(5 *$ $,T 1,+5*$" T1AT T1( A++("(5 TRA$.F(R ,F T1( +,T. *$
H0(.T*,$ -F /R*CAT( R(./,$5($T. T, T1*R5 /ART*(. B1($ T1(*R T*T+(. B(R( .T*++ .0-:(CT T,
T1( ,$(!F(AR /(R*,5 ,F R(C*(B C,$.T*T0T(. FRA05 .C1()(5 -F T1( TRA$.F(R,R. A. A )(A$. ,F
FR0.TRAT*$" A$F ACT*,$ A*)(5 AT $0++*FF*$" T1(*R T*T+(. T1(R(T,#
The govern2ent4s cause is 2eritorious#
*
*t is evident fro2 the facts of the case at bar that private respondents did file a clai2 for +ot $o# &99 of the
)ariveles Cadastre and in fact a decision was rendered before the last war in Cadastral Case $o# 19 +RC
Cadastral Record $o# 1%9, declaring the lot in @uestion as public land# *t 2ust be stressed that said lot was
declared public land by virtue of a court decision which has beco2e final and as held by the .upre2e Court
aforesaid decision is res 7udicata# <Republic v# (sten;o, 19% .CRA 999 J196>K=# *t is therefore beyond
@uestion that the trial court has no 7urisdiction to reopen the cadastral proceeding under R#A# 9>1 as
a2ended by R#A# 9%&1 and the decision therein rendered is null and void ab initio#
Further2ore, it is undisputed that aforesaid +ot $o# &99 was released as an agricultural land for disposition
under /ublic +and Act only on :uly &, 19&5# The lower court ordered the issuance of the corresponding
decrees of registration for the lots, pursuant to .ec# 36<b=, C#A# 131, otherwise known as the /ublic +and
Act, as a2ended by Republic Act $o# 1939, providing for the confir2ation of i2perfect or inco2plete titles,
which reads87gc8chanrobles#co2#ph
'<b= Those who by the2selves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous,
eAclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public do2ain, under a bona
fide clai2 of ac@uisition of ownership, for at least thirty years i22ediately preceding the filing of the
application for confir2ation of title eAcept when prevented by war or force 2a7eure# These shall be
conclusively presu2ed to have perfor2ed all the conditions essential to a "overn2ent grant and shall be
entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter#'cralaw virtua1aw library
As pointed out by petitioner, the @uestion is whether or not the lots clai2ed by respondents could legally be
the sub7ect of a 7udicial confir2ation of title under the afore@uoted provisions of the /ublic +and Act, as
a2ended#
The answer is in the negative#
.ection 36<b= of C#A# $o# 131, as a2ended, applies eAclusively to public agricultural land# Forest lands or
areas covered with forests are eAcluded# They are incapable of registration and their inclusion in a title,
whether such title be one issued during the .panish sovereignty or under the present Torrens syste2 of
registration, nullifies the title <+i .eng "iap v# 5irector of +ands, 55 /hil# &9> J19>1KD 5irector of +ands v#
Reyes, &6 .CRA 1 J195K=# Thus, possession of forest lands, however long, cannot ripen into private
ownership <Cano v# "overn2ent, 31 /hil# 1&1 J199%KD Adorable v# 5irector of Forestry, 1% /hil# 3%1 J19&%KD
5irector of Forestry v# )uLo;, 9> .CRA 116> J19&6KD 5irector of +ands v# Aban;ado, &5 .CRA 5 J195K=# A
parcel of forest land is within the eAclusive 7urisdiction of the -ureau of Forestry and beyond the power and
7urisdiction of the cadastral court to register under the Torrens .yste2 <Republic v# Court of Appeals, 69
.CRA &36 J199KD Republic v# Cera <19% .CRA 91% J196>KD 5irector of +ands v# Court of Appeals, 199 .CRA
&69 J1963K#
Thus, even if the reopening of the cadastral proceedings was at all possible, private respondents have not
@ualified for a grant under .ec# 36<b= of Co22onwealth Act 131, the facts being that private respondents
could only be credited with 1 year, 9 2onths and 9% days possession and occupation of the lots involved,
counted fro2 :uly &, 19&5, the date when the land area in sitio .an :ose, barrio Cabcaban, )ariveles,
-ataan, known as -ataan /)5 $o# 9&, which includes the lots clai2ed by respondents, had been
segregated fro2 the forest ;one and released by the -ureau of Forestry as an agricultural land for
disposition under the /ublic +and Act# <Record on Appeal, p# 19=# Conse@uently, under the above 2entioned
7urisprudence, neither private respondents nor their predecessors!in!interest could have possessed the lots
for the re@uisite period of thirty <>%= years as disposable agricultural land#
**
/etitioner argues that the govern2ent, being a necessary party in the cadastral case, as reopened, its
counsel, the .olicitor!"eneral, should have been furnished copies of all court orders, notices and decisions,
as in ordinary cases, in order to bind the govern2ent# Failure to give such notice deprives the .tate of its
day in Court, and renders the decision void# <-rief for /etitioner, pp# 1&!1=#
The records show that the .olicitor!"eneral was duly notified of the initial hearing on the petition to reopen
Cadastral Case $o# 19 but thereafter, notice of subse@uent hearings as well as a copy of the decision itself
pro2ulgated by the lower court on 5ece2ber 19, 19&6 was sent instead to the /rovincial Fiscal of -ataan,
ad2ittedly the duly authori;ed representative of the .olicitor!"eneral in the cadastral proceeding as shown
in a telegra2 dated :anuary 19, 19&6# <Record on Appeal, p# 3=#
*n the case of Republic v# 5irector of +ands <1 .CRA 39& J19&K, the .upre2e Court, applying the ti2e!
honored principle of agency ruled that the service of the @uestioned decision on the /rovincial Fiscal 2ust
necessarily be service on the .olicitor!"eneral, and added that technical transgressions relative to the filing
and service 2ay be brushed aside when the adverse party <this ti2e the 5irector of +ands and Forestry and
their counsel, the .olicitor!"eneral= is aware of the 2atter which his adversary would want the court to act
upon# ,nce it appears that the party is already infor2ed by one 2eans or another of what he is to be
notified, the re@uired service beco2es an e2pty gesture and strict observance thereof is considered waived#
<Citing (strada v# .to# 5o2ingo, 96 .CRA 69% J19&9K=#
*n the case at bar, it does not appear that the .olicitor "eneral was so apprised of the decision of the lower
court in @uestion as there is no proof that the /rovincial Fiscal of -ataan ever sent the .olicitor!"eneral a
copy thereof# Further2ore, after the >rd Assistant /rovincial Fiscal filed a notice of appeal fro2 the decision
of the trial court, the /rovincial Fiscal on )arch 91, 19&9 2anifested that he was withdrawing the appeal
upon the intervention of the 5istrict Forester# <Respondent4s -rief, p# 33=#
*t will be observed however that later decisions of the .upre2e Court tend to be 2ore strict in the 2atter of
giving notice to the .olicitor "eneral# *n a 2ore recent case, Republic v# Court of Appeals, 1>5 .CRA 1&1
J1965K, it was established that the .olicitor!"eneral is the only legal counsel of the govern2ent in land
registration cases and as such, he alone 2ay withdraw the "overn2ent4s appeal with binding effect on the
latter# 1e is entitled to be furnished copies of all court orders, notices and decisions and as held the
regle2entary thirty!day period for appeal should be reckoned fro2 the ti2e the .olicitor!"eneral4s ,ffice is
apprised of the 19% order of denial and not fro2 the ti2e the special counsel or the fiscal was served with
that order# Thus, representatives of the .olicitor "eneral in the case at bar, had no power to decide whether
or not an appeal should be 2ade# They should have referred the 2atter to the .olicitor!"eneral and without
copies of court orders, notices and decisions, having been provided by either the trial court or the /rovincial
Fiscal of -ataan to the .olicitor!"eneral, the assailed decision has no binding effect on the govern2ent#
***
The petition for review of 5ecrees $os# $!19361> to $!193616 under .ec# >6 of Act $o# 39& as a2ended
was filed by the .olicitor "eneral on )ay , 19% in representation of the Republic of the /hilippines, in the
sa2e Cadastral Case $o# 19, +RC Cadastral Record $o# 1%9, eAactly a year after the issuance of aforesaid
decrees of registration, on the ground of actual fraud# <Record on Appeal, pp# 3>!33=#
The basic ele2ents for the allowance of the reopening or review of a decree, are8 <1= that the petitioner has
real or do2inical rightD <9= that he has been deprived thereof through fraudD <>= that the petition is filed
within one year fro2 the issuance of the decree and <3= that the property has not as yet been transferred to
an innocent purchaser# <+ibudan v# "il, 35 .CRA 9 J199KD Rubico, (t# Al# v# ,rellana, >% .CRA 51>
J19&9K=# *t has been held however that the action to annul a 7udg2ent, upon the ground of fraud would be
unavailing unless the fraud be eAtrinsic or collateral and the facts upon which it is based have not been
controverted or resolved in the case where the 7udg2ent sought to be annulled was rendered# <+ibudan v#
"il, supra=# Review of the decree de2ands a showing of actual <not constructive= fraud, i#e# actual 2alice#
<Rublico v# ,rellana, supra=#
*n the case at bar, it cannot be said that private respondents e2ployed actual fraud in procuring titles over
parcels of land of the public do2ain as it is a 2atter of record that the land in @uestion was opened for
disposition and alienation only on :uly &, 19&5# The 2atter was threshed out in the lower court and the
decision of the latter was affir2ed by the Court of Appeals# Actual 2alice is therefore absent#
1owever, it has been held that, if a decree issued in pursuance of a valid decision, obtained by fraud, 2ay
be annulled within one <1= year fro2 entry of said decree, there is 2ore reason to hold that the sa2e is true
if entered in co2pliance with a decision suffering fro2 a fatal infir2ity, such as want of due process, <Cda#
de Cuaycong v# Cda# de .angbengoo, 11% /hil# 116 J19&%K or lack of 7urisdiction of the court that decided
the cadastral case# <Republic v# 5e Ialintas, 95 .CRA 9% J19&9K=# Thus, on both counts, the case at bar
can properly be the sub7ect of review, it having been shown that the .olicitor!"eneral was not properly
furnished the re@uisite notices and copy of the assailed decision but 2ore i2portantly, the lower court as
previously stated had no 7urisdiction to re!open the cadastral proceeding under Republic Act 9>1 as
a2ended by R#A# $o# 9%&1#
*C
As to whether or not the transferees of the lot in @uestion are innocent purchasers for value, it is a well
settled rule that a purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable 2an upon his
guard, and then clai2 that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the
vendor# <+eung Fee v# F#+# .trong )achiner Co#, (t Al#, > /hil# &51J1916K# Bithout the needed verification,
he cannot clai2 to be an innocent purchaser for value in conte2plation of law#
)oreover, it is well!settled that a certificate of title is void, when it covers property of public do2ain
classified as forest or ti2ber and 2ineral lands# Any title issued on non!disposable lots even in the hands of
an alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled# <+epanto Consolidated )ining Co2pany v#
5u2yung, 69 .CRA 53% J199K underscoring supplied=# *n the case at bar, it will be noted that in granting
titles to the land in dispute, the lower court counted the period of possession of private respondents before
the sa2e were released as forest lands for disposition, which release is tanta2ount to @ualifying the latter to
a grant on said lands while they were still non!disposable# Thus, under the foregoing rulings, even assu2ing
that the transferees are innocent purchasers for value, their titles to said lands derived fro2 the titles of
private respondents which were not validly issued as they cover lands still a part of the public do2ain, 2ay
be cancelled#
/R()*.(. C,$.*5(R(5, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals and the decision of the Court of First
*nstance are hereby .(T A.*5( and R(C(R.(5, because the lots in @uestion still for2 part of the public
do2ain# The certificates of title issued over the2 are hereby ordered CA$C(++(5#
., ,R5(R(5#
Fernan, /adilla, -idin and Cortes, JJ., concur#
Ala2pay, J., is on leave#
"utierre;, :r#, J., no part as one of the parties was 2y for2er colleague#
Endnotes:
1# /($$(5 -F :0.T*C( A$5R(. R(F(. and concurred in by :ustices +uis -# Reyes, Crisolito /ascual and
"odofredo /# Ra2osD dissenting :ustice Francisco )a# Chanco#