REPUBLIC vs HEIRS OF FELIPE ALEJAGA SR.

TIMELINE:
Property involved: parcel of land identified as Lot 1, Mli06-000020-D, with an area of .3899 hectares, more or
less located at Dumolog, Roxas City.
I.
II.

III.
IV.

December 28, 1978 - Felipe Alejaga, Sr. filed with

the District Land Office, Roxas City, Free Patent
Application No. (VI-2) 8442 covering a parcel of
December 27, 1978 when the application was
executed under oath, Efren L. Recio, Land
Inspector, submitted a report of his investigation
and verification of the land to the District Land
Office
March 14, 1979, the District Land Officer of Roxas
City approved the application and the issuance of
[a] Free Patent to the applicant.
March 16, 1979, the patent was also ordered to be
issued and the patent was forwarded to defendant
Register of Deeds, City of Roxas, for registration
and issuance of the corresponding Certificate of
Title. Thereafter, Original Certificate of Title was
issued to [respondent] by defendant Register of
Deeds.

April 4, 1979, the heirs of Ignacio Arrobang requested

the Director of Lands, Manila, for an investigation of
the District Land Officer, Roxas City, and the Regional
Office, Region VI, Iloilo City, for irregularities in the
issuance of the title of a foreshore land in favor of
[respondent].
The Chief of Legal Division (Land Management
Bureau) recommended to the Director of Lands
to conduct an appropriate civil proceeding for
the cancellation of Free Patent Title No. (VI-2)
3358 and the corresponding Original Certificate
of Title No. P-15 in the name of [respondent].

Note: Further, the CA brushed aside as hearsay Isagani

Cartagenas testimony that Land Inspector Efren L.
Recio had not conducted an investigation on the free
patent application of Felipe Alejaga Sr.[6] The CA
added that petitioner had failed to support its claim
that the lot covered by respondents free patent and
title was foreshore land.
ISSUE:
1. WON the CASE is already final and executor?
RULING:
Alejagas contention: they have acquired a vested right
over the parcel of land by OCENPO and 30 years of
occupation.
Petitioner argues: Alejagas obtained the patent via
fraud and that Respondent PNB has failed to file a
timely Notice of Appeal.
In the case before us, we find that petitioner has
adduced a preponderance of evidence before the trial
court, showing manifest fraud in procuring the patent.
This Court agrees with the RTC that in obtaining a free
patent over the lot under scrutiny, petitioner had
resorted to misrepresentation or fraud, signs of which
were[20] ignored by the Court of Appeals.
1. First, the issuance of the free patent was not
made in accordance with the procedure laid
down by Commonwealth Act No. 141,
otherwise known as the Public Land Act.[22]
LAW REQUIREMENT:
Under Section 91 thereof, an investigation should be
conducted for the purpose of ascertaining whether
the material facts set out in the application are true.
Further, after the filing of the application, the law
requires sufficient notice to the municipality and
the barrio where the land is located, in order to give
adverse claimants the opportunity to present their
claims. Note that this notice and the verification and
investigation of the parcel of land are to be conducted
after an application for free patent has been filed with
the Bureau of Lands.

August 18, 1981. [respondent] obtained a NACIDA loan

under the Cottage Industry Guarantee and Loan Fund
by PNB. The loan was secured by a real estate
mortgage in favor of defendant PNB. The promissory
note of appellant was annotated at the back of the
title.

In this case, however, Felipe Alejaga Sr.s

Application for Free Patent[25] was dated and filed
on December 28, 1978. On the other hand, the
Investigation & Verification Report[26] prepared by
Land Inspector Elfren L. Recio of the District Land
Office of the Bureau of Lands of Roxas City was
dated December 27, 1978. As correctly pointed out
by the trial court, investigation and verification
should have been done only after the filing of the
application. Hence, it would have been highly
anomalous for Recio to conduct his own
investigation and verification on December 27,
1998, a day before Felipe Alejaga Sr. filed the
Application for Free Patent.

April 18, 1990 - Solicitor General instituted an action

for Annulment/Cancellation of Patent and Title and
Reversion against [respondent], the PNB of Roxas City
and defendant Register of Deeds of Roxas City covering
Free Patent Application (VI-2) 8442 of the parcel of
land.
RTC: declared that the approval of Free Patent
Application in the name of Felipe Alejaga is by means
of fraud hence, null and void ab initio and orders the
cancellation of the same.
CA reversed RTC decision on the ground that the
Petitioner failed to prove its allegation that
respondents had obtained the free patent and the
Certificate of Title through fraud and
misrepresentation. Even assuming there was
misrepresentation or fraud as claimed by petitioner,
the action for reversion should have been brought
within one (1) year from the registration of the patent
with the Registry of Deeds.

2.

Second, the claim of the Alejagas that an actual

investigation was conducted is not sustained by
the Verification & Investigation Report itself, which
bears no signature.
Strangely, respondents do not proffer any
explanation why the Verification & Investigation
Report was not signed by Recio. Even more
important and as will later on be explained, this
alleged presumption of regularity -- assuming it

3.

ever existed -- is overcome by the evidence

presented by petitioner.

EXTRA ISSUE: WON Alienation or encumberance is

prohibited in a Patent Grant? What is the effect?

Third, the report of Special Investigator Isagani P.

Cartagena has not been successfully rebutted.In
that report, Recio supposedly admitted that he had
not actually conducted an investigation and ocular
inspection of the parcel of land.

A DISCUSSION OF ANOTHER GROUND FOR THE

REVERSION OF THE GRAN
Assuming arguendo that the Alejagas title was validly
issued, there is another basis for the cancellation of the
grant and the reversion of the land to the public
domain. Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141
proscribes the encumbrance of a parcel of land
acquired under a free patent or homestead within five
years from its grant. The prohibition against any
alienation or encumbrance of the land grant is a
proviso attached to the approval of every
application.

Based on the foregoing badges of fraud, we sustain

petitioners contention that the free patent granted to
Felipe Alejaga Sr. is void. The invalidity of the patent is
sufficient basis for nullifying the Certificate of Title
issued in consequence thereof, since the latter is
merely evidence of the former.
2. WON the REVERSION is unavailing?
Petitioner contends that the State has an
imprescriptible right to cause the reversion of a piece
of property belonging to the public domain.
Alejaga: the one-year period for reversion has already
lapsed.
True, once a patent is registered and the corresponding
certificate of title issued, the land covered by them
ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes
private property. Further, the Torrens Title issued
pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible a year
after the issuance of the latter.[46] However, this
indefeasibility of a title does not attach to titles
secured by fraud and misrepresentation. Wellsettled is the doctrine that the registration of a patent
under the Torrens System does not by itself vest
title; it merely confirms the registrants already
existing one. Verily, registration under the Torrens
System is not a mode of acquiring ownership.
Under CA 141: Even after 1 year lapse, reversion may
be availed
Therefore, under Section 101 of Commonwealth Act
No. 141,[49] the State -- even after the lapse of one
year -- may still bring an action for the reversion
to the public domain of land that has been
fraudulently granted to private individuals.
Further, this indefeasibility cannot be a bar to an
investigation by the State as to how the title has been
acquired, if the purpose of the investigation is to
determine whether fraud has in fact been committed in
securing the title.
In the case before us, the indefeasibility of a certificate
of title cannot be invoked by the Alejagas, whose
forebear obtained the title by means of fraud. Public
policy demands that those who have done so should
not be allowed to benefit from their misdeed.[53] Thus,
prescription and laches will not bar actions filed by the
State to recover its own property acquired through
fraud by private individuals.[54] This is settled law.

Further, corporations are expressly forbidden by

law to have any right or title to, or interest in,
lands that are granted under free or homestead
patents; or any improvements thereon. They are
forbidden from enjoying such right, title or interest, if
they have not secured the consent of the grantee and
the approval of the secretary of the Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources; and if such lands
are to be devoted to purposes other than education,
charity, or easement of way.[
In the case at bar, Free Patent was approved and
issued on March 14, 1979, Title was also issued on the
same date. On August 18, 1981, or two (2) years after
the grant of the free patent, Felipe Alejaga Sr. obtained
from Respondent PNB a loan and constituted a REM on
the parcel of land, despite the statement on the title
certificate itself that the land granted under the free
patent shall be inalienable for five (5) years from the
grant
prohibition against the encumbrance of a
homestead -- its lease and mortgage included -an encumbrance which, by analogy, applies to a
free patent.
Thus, the mortgage executed by Respondent
Felipe Alejaga Sr. falls squarely within the term
encumbrance proscribed by Section 118 of the
Public Land Act.[65] A mortgage constitutes a
legal limitation on the estate, and the
foreclosure of the mortgage would necessarily
result in the auction of the property.
Therefore, an encumbrance on a parcel of land
acquired through free patent constitutes
sufficient ground for the nullification of such
grant, as provided under Commonwealth Act No.
141. Hence, the property must necessarily revert
to the public domain, pursuant to Section 124 of
the Public Land Act.