Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DAWALING SUMAIL vs. HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE EMILIANO S. CASIPIT and ANTONIA C. CASIPIT VDA. DE BEATO vs. HON. COURT
OF COTABATO, THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and MELQUIADES GEPULIANO OF APPEALS et. al.
G.R. No. L-8278 April 30, 1955 G.R. No. 96829 December 9, 1991
Facts: Herein private respondent Gepuliano had filed a free patent application for Facts: On April 1987, a complaint was filed by herein petitioners against private
a parcel of land, which was approved and was finally issued to him on September respondents mainly for the recovery of a property, alleging that Emiliano Casipit
26, 1949. The Patent was registered in the office of Register of Deeds (RD), which is the true and lawful owner of the questioned property located at Sinalhan, Sta.
office thereafter issued to him Original Certificate of Title (OCT). Consequently, Rosa, Laguna by virtue of continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful, open and public
herein petitioner filed a civil case for the cancellation of the OCT issued to possession in the concept of owner since 1930; that they were deprived of
Gepuliano, alleging that the latter thru fraud and misrepresentation had filed ownership thereof by the Beatos through Narciso Beato, who filed a Petition for
with the Bureau of Lands a falsified application for free patent for the lot, stating Reconstitution of Titles in the name of Gabriel Beato, using fictitious documents.
in his application that the parcel was not occupied or claimed by any other person Petitioners therefore prayed that TCT and other succeeding titles be cancelled, as
and that he had entered upon it and introduced improvements thereon, when as well as the tax declarations; that the questioned property be reconveyed to them;
a matter of fact, Gepuliano had never occupied the land nor introduced that the document entitled, "Kasulatan ng Pagmamana at Paghahati," insofar as
improvements thereon, and that it was him who had been in possession since it included the questioned property be rescinded; and that private respondents
shortly before the end of the Spanish regime and that the Director of Lands be ordered to pay damages and attorney's fees.
through mistake or inadvertence had approved the application and later issued
Free Patent. The lower court dismissed the petition, holding that the defendants have a better
right than the plaintiffs, that the cause of action of the plaintiffs being based on
The Court issued an order stating that the subject lot was public land; that it was fraud, has prescribed for it must be filed within 4 years after the cause of action
applied for free patent by Gepuliano and the corresponding Patent had been arose. The issuance of the reconstituted title over the subject lot and its
issued to him; that it does not appear from the complaint of Sumail that he had registration in the office of the Register of Deeds of Laguna, in 1963 is the starling
exhausted all the remedies available to him such as an appeal to the Secretary of date for the prescriptive period to commence. The respondent court affirmed the
the Department, and that the courts will not interfere with the administrator by said decision and denied petitioners motion for reconsideration, hence, this
the Bureau of Lands of the public domain. Hence, this petition. petition.
Issue: Whether Sumalis action is proper Petitioners Contention: pursuant to the Certification issued by the Bureau of
Lands that Patent over the questioned property has not been issued to Gabriel
Held: No Beato, the "Kasulatan ng Pagmamana at Paghahati" is therefore a void contract.
In ordinary registration proceedings involving private lands, courts This being the case, the action taken by petitioners is imprescriptible. Private
may reopen proceedings already closed by final decision or decree, respondents Diaz spouses were buyers in bad faith because they had full
only when application for review is filed by the party aggrieved within knowledge that Emiliano Casipit has been in actual possession in the concept of
one year from the issuance of the decree of registration. Here, there owner of the questioned property and paid the real property taxes thereon.
was no decree of registration because instead of an application for
registration under the Land Registration Act Gepuliano applied for Issue: Whether petitioners action already prescribed
free patent under the Public Land Act.
Assuming that even in bringing public land grants under the Land Held: Yes
Registration Law, there is a period of one year for review in cases of There is no dispute that an action for reconveyance based on a void
fraud, how shall that period of one year be computed? contract is imprescriptible. However, this is not the case at bar.
o For all practical purposes we might regard the date of the The action filed by petitioner before the trial court was 1) for
issuance of the patent as corresponding to the date of the reconveyance based on fraud since the ownership of private
issuance of the decree in ordinary registration cases, respondents over the questioned property was allegedly established
because the decree finally awards the land applied for on "false assertions, misrepresentations and deceptive allegations";
registration to the party entitled to it, and the patent and 2) for rescission of the "Kasulatan ng Pagmamana at Paghahati.
issued by the Director of Lands equally and finally grants, Thus, the action for reconveyance based on fraud filed by petitioners
awards, and conveys the land applied for to the applicant. before the trial court is subject to prescription.
The purpose and affect of both decree and patent is the Based on jurisprudence, the prescriptive period for the reconveyance
same. of fraudulently registered real property is 10 years reckoned from the
o Assuming the Civil Case filed by Sumail was intended as a date of the issuance of the certificate of title.
petition for review of the public land grant and conveyance o Conformably with these settled jurisprudence, the
to Gepuliano, on the ground of fraud, was it filed within the prescriptive period for petitioners' action for reconveyance
period of one year? is 10 years from August 30, 1963, the date of the issuance
No. It was only filed on July 21, 1952, or almost of TCT in favor of Beato. Obviously, the discussion on this
3 years after the issuance of the free patent. It subject matter is not beneficial to petitioners because they
is, therefore, clear that the trial court no longer filed the action for reconveyance only on April 27, 1987.
had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for Hence, petition was dismissed.
the reasons already state, but not as contended
by the Director of Lands that it involved public On Prescription of Action for Reconveyance based on Void Contract:
land, over which he had exclusive and executive SOLID STATE MULTI-PRODUCTS CORPORATION vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and
control, because once the patent was granted THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF ANTENOR S. VIRATA and the DBP
and the corresponding certificate of title was G.R. No. 83383 May 6, 1991
issued, the land ceased to be part of the public
domain and became private property over Facts: Petitioner, a domestic corporation, filed an action for quieting of title
which the Director of Lands has neither control against the respondent estate of Virata alleging that it is the registered owner of
nor jurisdiction. a parcel of land (a friar land) located at Imus, Cavite, which was covered by a
If Sumalis action will be regarded as an action for reversion to the Certificate of Title issued on February 24, 1976; that Virata, during his lifetime
Government of the lot in litigation, under the provisions of sections 91 thru the use of fraud, caused the issuance of Certificate of Title on September 1,
and 124 of the Public Land Act, which provide for the annulment of 1959 thru an administrative reconstitution of a nonexistent original title covering
patents and titles previously issued, and the reversion of the lands the same parcel of land; that by reason of the said reconstitution and subsequent
covered by them to the state, may he bring said action may he bring issuance of TCT, there now exists a cloud on the title of petitioner.
such action?
o No. Section 101 of the Public Land Act provides that all On the other hand, respondent Virata denied the allegations in the complaint,
actions for the reversion to the Government of Lands of the contending that his predecessor, one Mabini Legaspi, bought the subject
public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted property through a public bidding, wherein consequently, a TCT was issued in his
by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in name, and that subsequently a deed of sale was executed in favor of Virata. Such
the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the deed was then registered with the Register of Deeds, who later on issued a TCT
Philippines. to Virata. However, the Provincial Capitol building of Cavite which housed the
Registry of Deeds was burned, destroying land records and titles in d registry
Facts: Petitioner was the registered owner of a residential house and lot, located
in Mandaluyong and covered by a TCT. She has occupied the property ever since
she had her house built and has introduced other improvements thereon. Later