G.R. No. L-47331 - JUNE 1983 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-47331June 21, 1983 Pablo De Los Reyes vs. Honorable Judge Jose R. Ramolete, et al. G.R. No. L-46131June 22, 1983 Epifania V. Lavilla vs. Secretary of Labor G.R. No. L-47739June 22, 1983 Singapore Airlines Limited vs. J. Ernani Cruz Paño G.R. No. L-49069June 22, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Protacio Amoncio, et al. G.R. No. L-52133June 23, 1983 Norma B. Najera vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-60364June 23, 1983 Britta B. Quisumbing vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-28841June 24, 1983 Rafael Yapdiangco vs. Concepcion B. Buencamino G.R. No. L-31442June 24, 1983 Sati Gidwani vs. Domestic Insurance Co. of the Philippines G.R. No. L-32244June 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Soriano, et al. G.R. No. L-33522June 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Marciano Lojo, et al. G.R. No. L-34915June 24, 1983 City Government of Quezon City vs. Vicente G. Ericta G.R. No. L-35171June 24, 1983 Francisco De La Rosa vs. Alejandro Espiritu, et al. G.R. No. L-35853June 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Librado Carias G.R. No. L-37483June 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Oquiño G.R. No. L-37792June 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Maala G.R. No. L-39049June 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Jesus Alvis, et al. G.R. No. L-40103June 24, 1983 Arcadio Duay, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations G.R. No. L-46495June 24, 1983 Andrea C. Decolongon, et al., vs. Court of Appeals. et al., G.R. No. L-46894June 24, 1983 Teresa M. Armeña vs. Employees' Compensation Commission. G.R. No. L-47686June 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Balbas G.R. No. L-49781June 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Catalino Castañeda, Jr. G.R. No. L-52709June 24, 1983 Manila Press, Inc. vs. Amado G. Inciong, et al. G.R. No. L-54753June 24, 1983 Marietta E. Dakudao vs. Francisco Z. Consolacion G.R. No. L-56340June 24, 1983 Spouses Alvaro Pastor, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-58414June 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Diego Hermosilla, et al. G.R. No. L-58613June 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Rhoda G.R. No. L-58635June 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Valmores, et al. G.R. No. L-59951June 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Emilio Aquino G.R. No. L-60151June 24, 1983 Salvador L. Budlong vs. J. Aquiles T. Apalisok G.R. No. L-61438June 24, 1983 Erdulfo C. Boiser vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-63135June 24, 1983 Gloria Darrocha De Caliston vs. Court of Appeals A.C. No. 1596June 28, 1983 Maxima Murillo Vda. De Garbe vs. Rodrigo A. Liporada G.R. No. L-27294June 28, 1983 Alfredo Roa, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-29141June 28, 1983 Manuel L. Limsico, et al. vs. Jose G. Bautista, et al. G.R. No. L-33216June 28, 1983 Tan Ching vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-33305June 28, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Eustaquio Lampitao G.R. No. L-33431June 28, 1983 People of the Phils. vs. Gorgonio Drilon, Jr. G.R. No. L-33899June 28, 1983 Mun. of La Trinidad, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Baguio-Benguet G.R. No. L-35247-48June 28, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Promencio Tome G.R. No. L-38278June 28, 1983 Gregorio Lobete vs. Carlos Sundiam G.R. No. L-45645June 28, 1983 Francisco A. Tongoy vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-48424June 28, 1983 Constancio Manzano vs. Meynardo A. Tiro G.R. No. L-51304-05June 28, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Martin Mandolado, et al. G.R. No. L-54114June 28, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Arsenio Borja G.R. No. L-58961June 28, 1983 Soledad Soco vs. Francis Militante G.R. No. L-59330June 28, 1983 Manuel Guanzon vs. Paterno D. Montesclaros, et al. G.R. No. L-63130June 28, 1983 Guillermo Robes, et al. vs. Commision on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-63372June 28, 1983 Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Hon. Abelardo M. Dayrit, et al. G.R. No. L-31330June 29, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Salvador "Bading" Remollo, et al. G.R. No. L-37518-19June 29, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Geronimo Surban, et al. G.R. No. L-38002June 29, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio Vega G.R. No. L-49439June 29, 1983 Natl. Housing Authority vs. Pastor P. Reyes G.R. No. L-62737June 29, 1983 People of the Phils. vs. Joaquin Borromeo G.R. No. L-63398June 29, 1983 Leoncio P. Viloria vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-34202June 30, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Barcena The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Pablo De Los Reyes vs. Honorable Judge Jose R. Ramolete, et al. Epifania V. Lavilla vs. Secretary of Labor Singapore Airlines Limited vs. J. Ernani Cruz Paño People of the Philippines vs. Protacio Amoncio, et al. Norma B. Najera vs. Employees' Compensation Commission Britta B. Quisumbing vs. Court of Appeals Rafael Yapdiangco vs. Concepcion B. Buencamino Sati Gidwani vs. Domestic Insurance Co. of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Soriano, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Marciano Lojo, et al. City Government of Quezon City vs. Vicente G. Ericta Francisco De La Rosa vs. Alejandro Espiritu, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Librado Carias People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Oquiño People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Maala People of the Philippines vs. Jesus Alvis, et al. Arcadio Duay, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations Andrea C. Decolongon, et al., vs. Court of Appeals. et al., Teresa M. Armeña vs. Employees' Compensation Commission. People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Balbas People of the Philippines vs. Catalino Castañeda, Jr. Manila Press, Inc. vs. Amado G. Inciong, et al. Marietta E. Dakudao vs. Francisco Z. Consolacion Spouses Alvaro Pastor, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Diego Hermosilla, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Rhoda People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Valmores, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Emilio Aquino Salvador L. Budlong vs. J. Aquiles T. Apalisok Erdulfo C. Boiser vs. Court of Appeals Gloria Darrocha De Caliston vs. Court of Appeals Maxima Murillo Vda. De Garbe vs. Rodrigo A. Liporada Alfredo Roa, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals Manuel L. Limsico, et al. vs. Jose G. Bautista, et al. Tan Ching vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Eustaquio Lampitao People of the Phils. vs. Gorgonio Drilon, Jr. Mun. of La Trinidad, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Baguio-Benguet People of the Philippines vs. Promencio Tome Gregorio Lobete vs. Carlos Sundiam Francisco A. Tongoy vs. Court of Appeals Constancio Manzano vs. Meynardo A. Tiro People of the Philippines vs. Martin Mandolado, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Arsenio Borja Soledad Soco vs. Francis Militante Manuel Guanzon vs. Paterno D. Montesclaros, et al. Guillermo Robes, et al. vs. Commision on Elections, et al. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Hon. Abelardo M. Dayrit, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Salvador "Bading" Remollo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Geronimo Surban, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio Vega Natl. Housing Authority vs. Pastor P. Reyes People of the Phils. vs. Joaquin Borromeo Leoncio P. Viloria vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Barcena The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-47331 June 21, 1983
SPOUSES PABLO DE LOS REYES and ALEJANDRA DE LOS REYES,petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE R. RAMOLETE, Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch III, and CARMEN R. CANTOS,respondents.
Leon Gonzaga, Jr. for petitioners.
Mario D. Ortiz for private respondent Cantos.
FERNANDO,C.J.:
The right sought to be vindicated in this certiorari proceeding by petitioners, plaintiffs in the lower court, arose from the undisputed fact that they arebona fideholders and possessors since 1949 of a parcel of land consisting of 6,163 square meters whereon they built that same year their residence. They still have a pending miscellaneous sales application with the Bureau of Lands for such property. They thereafter discovered that their house occupied five meters of the adjoining lot, at the time of the construction in 1949 still public land but subsequently applied for in a miscellaneous sales application by private respondents, defendants in the courta quo,who were granted a patent only in 1972. Thus arose the conflict over the five meters in question.
The action was for reconveyance with damages. Respondent Judge dismissed the complaint on the ground that the action should have been filed by the Bureau of Lands on behalf of the Republic. With their sales application still pending, the lot in question is still public. That is to conform to a ruling of this Court that an action for reversion in such cases "shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines."1This doctrine was affirmed expressly in Magay v. Estiandan,2where this Court reiterated that where "the land in question is still part of the public domain, then the appellant is not the proper party to institute the reversion of the land but it must be the Solicitor General in the name of the Republic of the Philippines."3From the standpoint then of strict law, what was done by the lower court cannot be characterized as a violation of controlling legal principles. Still there are equitable considerations that call for this Court resolving the question raised.
It is undoubted that there is a dispute appropriate for judicial determination. The contending parties are before the court. For petitioners, it is vital that their claim to the disputed five meters be passed upon. Their good faith is quite clear.ℒαwρhi৷As of the time their house was built, they werebona fidepossessors, thereafter applicants for the sale of such parcel of land including the five meters. Unfortunately, the patent granted to private respondents twenty-three years after the construction of their residence included the same five meters. 'Mere is justification then for equity to set matters right.
Petitioners are thus entitled to the remedy sought, namely, ownership of the five meters in question, upon payment of just compensation to respondents to be determined as of the time the patent was granted in 1972.
1. This conclusion finds support in Armamento v. Guerrero.4In that case, property covered by an original certificate of title pursuant to a free patent was granted by the Director of Lands on July 20, 1961 in favor of defendant Guerrero. In that case as well as here, there was a claim by plaintiffs that it was acquired through fraud and misrepresentation, their allegation being that they were in actual possession thereof as actual occupants as far back as 1955. Thereafter, a homestead application was made in 1959, resulting in a grant to them in 1964. It turned out that in the meanwhile, as it did likewise happen here, a free patent was if sued to defendant. Under such circumstances, this Court, stated: "The particular circumstances obtaining herein impel us to exercise our equity jurisdiction to the end that substantial justice may be dispended to the party litigants. To affirm the trial Court's Order of dismissal would leave the present controversy unresolved and pending investigation at the administrative level. Aside from the length of nine it would probably take for the case to reach the highest administrative authority, any final adjudication rendered by the latter may eventually be raised to the appellate Courts for judicial review. This circuitous and tedious process can be eliminated for the sake of speedy administration of justice by remanding the case to the trial Court for determination on the merits of the issue of validity of the issuance of Free Patent No. V-19129 and of the title which followed as a matter of course."5
2. Nor is it necessary that this case be remanded to the trial court on the question of the validity of the patent obtained by respondents. As of the time the house of petitioners was built in 1949, they were in actual possession of the lot for which thereafter a miscellaneous sales application was submitted to the Bureau of Lands. Unfortunately, the patent granted to petitioners in 1972 included five meters thereof. It would be unduly-time consuming, if there being no claim to the rest of the property included in such patent to the respondents, the question of the alleged fraud would still have to be inquired into. Under the circumstances that can be avoided by an outright determination that upon payment of the five meters in question, petitioners are entitled to be recognized as the owners thereof.
3. As far as the Bureau of lands is concerned, there seems to be no thought of reclaiming the property from respondents. There is, therefore, an express grant which justifies such acquisition. In Lee Hong Kok v. David,6reference was made to the Regalian doctrine to the effect that no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government.7The government, therefore, as the agent of the state is, in the language of Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals,8"possessed of the plenary power as thepersonain law to determine who shall be the favored recipients of public lands, as well as under what terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of obstacles in the way of their exercising what otherwise would be ordinary acts of ownership?"9
4. The relevant facts thus justify the ruling that this litigation, presenting as it does an issue between the contending parties as to the disputed five meters, can. be resolved by this Court exercising its equity jurisdiction to award the same to petitioners upon payment of the due compensation determined as of the date when respondents acquired their patent.
Accordingly, the Court holds that petitioners are entitled to ownership of such disputed portion upon payment by them of the just compensation to respondents for such five meters on the amount to be based on the value thereof as of the time the patent was granted on March 14, 1972.
WHEREFORE,the appealed Order of September 20,1977 is reversed and the case remanded to the lower court for the purpose of determining the compensation due private respondent Carmen R. Cantos for the five meters of the lot in question, upon payment of which plaintiffs would become the owners of such five meters. No costs.
Makasiar, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., took no part.
Footnotes