Lee Hong Kok vs.

David
G.R. No. L-30389, Dec. 27, 1972s

FACTS:

This is regarding a piece of land which Aniano David acquired lawful title thereto, pursuant to his
miscellaneous sales application. After approval of his application, the Director of Lands issued an order
of award and issuance of sales patent, covering said lot by virtue of which the Undersecretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources issued a Miscellaneous Sales Patent. The Register of Deeds then
issued an original certificate of title to David.

Aniano David acquired lawful title pursuant to his miscellaneous sales application in accordance with
which an order of award and for issuance of a sales patent (*similar to public auction) was made by the
Director of Lands on June 18, 1958, covering Lot 2892.

On the basis of the order of award of the Director of Lands the Undersecretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources issued on August 26, 1959, Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. V-1209 pursuant to which
OCT No. 510 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Naga City on October 21, 1959.

Land in question is not a private property as the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources have always sustained the public character for having been formed by reclamation
(as opposed to peittioners contention that it is accretion)

ISSUE:
1. W/N Lee Hong Kok can question the grant. - NO

2. W/N David has original acquisition of title. - YES

HELD: Court of Appeals Affirmed. (no legal justification for nullifying the right of David to the
disputed lot arising from the grant made in his favor by respondent officials)

Only the Government, represented by the Director of Lands or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, can bring an action to cancel a void certificate of title issued pursuant to a void patent. This
was not done by said officers but by private parties like the plaintiffs, who cannot claim that the patent
and title issued for the land involved are void since they are not the registered owners thereof nor had
they been declared as owners in the cadastral proceedings after claiming it as their private property.

The fact that the grant was made by the government is undisputed. Whether the grant was in
conformity with the law or not is a question which the government may raise, but until it is raised by the
government and set aside, the defendant cannot question it. The legality of the grant is a question
between the grantee and the government.

Well-settled Rule : no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or
implied, from the government
Cabacug v. Lao: holder of a land acquired under a free patent is more favorably situated than that of an
owner of registered property. Not only does a free patent have a force and effect of a Torrens Title, but
in addition the person to whom it is granted has likewise in his favor the right to repurchase within a
period of 5 years.

IMPERIUM vs. DOMINIUM:

The government authority possessed by the State which is appropriately embraced int eh concept of
sovereignty comes under the heading of imperium; its capacity to own or acquire property under
dominium. The use of this term is appropriate with reference to lands held by the State in its proprietary
character. In such capacity, it may provide for the exploitation and use of lands and other natural
resources, including their disposition, except as limited by the Constitution.
Intestate of San Pedro v CA (265 SCRA 733)

FACTS:

The case involves two petitions which were consolidated by the court in its decision.

1. GR 103727

Engracio San Pedro, as heir-judicial administrator of Plaintiff Intestate, filed a complaint for recovery of
real property/ reconveyance with damages and prayer for preliminary injunction against private
defendants Ocampo, Buhain and dela Cruz.

San Pedro alleged that defendants acquired portion of the subject estate by employing fraud, bad faith
and misrepresentation.

RTC of QC dismissed the complaint saying that the defendants are already the registered owners
covered by the Torrens Title - which cannot be defeated by the alleged Spanish Title of San Pedro. The
Spanish Title also stated that the estate shall be excluded from the coverage of Titulo Propriedad No.
4136. The court ordered Plaintiff Intestate to pay each defendant the amount of 5,000 and atty fees.

Motion for Recon was denied. Petitioner filed an appeal, CA dismissed.

2. GR 106496

Engracio San Pedro and Justino Benito filed a petition for letter of administration over the intestate to
be appointed as administrator and co-administrator. Judge Echeverri appointed San Pedro as
administrator and the court issued letter of administration in his favor upon posting a bond of 10,000.

Republic of the Philippines filed a motion for intervention and opposition to the petition, claiming that
the Titulo de Propriedad is inadmissible and ineffective proof of ownership in court and it is invalid.

Republic filed a motion to suspend the proceedings but the Republic‘s opposition to the petition for
letter of administration was dismissed. Republic filed Motion for Recon.

The Judge declared Titulo de Propriedad as null and void and excluded all lands covered from the
inventory of the estate of the late Mariano San Pedro.

bPetitioner-heirs appealed to CA. CA dismissed.

ISSUES:

1.Whether or not the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
in settling the issue of ownership of the estate covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136?

2. Whether or not the lower court committed error in excluding from the inventory of the estate all
lands covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 on the ground that it is null and void?
RATIO:

1.NO. It is within the jurisdiction of the lower court functioning as probate court. The jurisdiction of the
Probate Court is not limited to the determination of who the heirs are and what shares are due them.
Their main function is to settle and liquidate the estate of the deceased so as to rule on whether the
inventory of the estate properly included them for distribution of the net assets estate to lawful heirs.

2.NO. The lower court did not commit any error when it declared Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 as null
and void, consequently excluding all lands covered by the said title from the inventory of the estate.

Under PD 892, the system of registration under Spanish Mortgage Law was abolished and all holders of
Spanish Titles should cause their lands to be registered under Land Registration Act within 6 months
from date of effectivity or until August 16, 1976.

In both cases, petitioner-heirs did not adduce evidence to show that Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 was
brought under the operation of PD 892. There was no certificate of title shown.

Also, Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136, under PD 892, is inadmissible and ineffective as evidence of private
ownership in special proceedings case. Since the Titulo was not registered under Land Registration Act,
said Titulo is inferior to the registered title of defendants Ocampo, Buhain and dela Cruz. Torrens title of
the latter enjoys the conclusive presumption of validity.

Petitioner-heirs failed to present neither the original Titulo nor a genuine copy thereof (only an alleged
illegible copy was presented). Even the secondary evidence presented was also not admissible.

RULING:

The Titulo de Propriedad is null and void and no rights can be derived therefrom. All lands covered by
said Titulo are excluded from inventory of the estate. The petition for letter of administration closed and
terminated. The heirs are disallowed to exercise any act of possession or ownership and ordered to
vacate.