View full case

GEORGE KATON v. MANUEL PALANCA JR.

FACTS:

in the trial court and that he is already barred by laches for sleeping on his alleged right for almost 23 years. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), in its Decision dated April 30, 1999, dismissed petitioner's complaint on the ground of prescription. The Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision dated December 8, 2000, affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the complaint but on the additional ground of lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was also denied by the CA in its Resolution dated November 20, 2001. The CA held that even if the petitioner is correct in saying that he has the exclusive right to apply for the patent over the land in question, his action is already barred by laches and he does not have any right to assert or protect.

The petitioner in this case sought to nullify homestead patents and original certificates of title issued in favor of the respondents covering certain portions of Sombrero Island and to claim reconveyance of the whole island in his favor. The petitioner claimed exclusive rights in filing an application for a homestead patent over the whole island as he requested for its conversion from forest land to agricultural land.

The respondents countered that they are lawful possessors of their respective portions of the island and have declared and faithfully paid taxes on said portions for twenty years. They argued that the petitioner has no legal capacity to sue for reconveyance as he is only a homestead applicant, not the owner of the land. They also claimed that the petitioner is guilty of estoppel by laches for failing to assert his right over the land for an unreasonable period of time.

The trial court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss on the ground that the petitioner defied the court's order to amend his complaint for substitution of the legal heirs of a deceased respondent. The trial court also denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, alleging that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA ruled on the merits and held that the petitioner never applied for a homestead patent under the Public Land Act, thus he never acquired title to the land. The CA also ruled that only the State could sue for cancellation of a homestead patent and reversion of the land to the public domain.

The CA later acknowledged its error in ruling on the merits but still dismissed the complaint on other grounds, stating that the petitioner had no standing to seek reconveyance as he did not hold title to the land or applied for a homestead patent. The CA also ruled that the action for reconveyance was barred by prescription.

The petitioner raised the issues of the CA's resolution on the merits and its use of "residual prerogative" in resolving the petition.

In this case, the Court admits that it may have become sidetracked by the complexity and significance of the issues involved, as well as the apparent reluctance of the judges to hear the case and the conflicting submissions on incidental matters. The Court acknowledges its error and states that the explanation provided should have resolved the issue. As a result, the petitioner's concern has been deemed moot by the Court of Appeals' resolution, thus obviating the need for further discussion on the matter.

ISSUES:

  1. Is the Court of Appeals correct in resolving the Petition for Certiorari based on an issue not raised (the merits of the case) in the Petition?

  2. Is the Court of Appeals correct in invoking its alleged 'residual prerogative' under Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in resolving the Petition on an issue not raised in the Petition?

  3. Did the Complaint sufficiently allege an action for declaration of nullity of the free patent and certificate of title or, alternatively, for reconveyance?

  4. Was the trial court's dismissal of the Complaint proper?

  5. Whether a private person can bring an action for reversion or any other action that would cancel a free patent and its derivative title.

  6. Whether a mere homestead applicant has the right to bring an action for reconveyance.

  7. Whether the action for annulment of title or its reconveyance is time-barred.

RULING:

  1. The Petition has no merit.

  2. First Issue:

  3. Propriety of Ruling on the Merits

  4. The Court held that the appellate court acted ultra vires in ruling on the merits of the case when the only issue raised in the Petition was the alleged grave abuse of discretion committed by the trial court in denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The sole office of a writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, and it does not include a review of the evidence, especially when no determination of the merits has been made by the trial court.

  5. Second Issue:

  6. Dismissal for Prescription and Lack of Jurisdiction

  7. The Court clarified that the "residual prerogatives" invoked by the Court of Appeals under Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court should be distinguished from the "residual jurisdiction" of trial courts over cases appealed to the Court of Appeals. Section 1 of Rule 9 provides for the dismissal of claims or actions when defenses and objections not pleaded are waived, except for instances when lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription are evident from the pleadings or evidence. On the other hand, the "residual jurisdiction" of trial courts refers to the power of trial courts to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals, and other matters before the transmittal of the original records or records on appeal. The Court concluded that the Court of Appeals did not err in invoking its "residual prerogatives" since it found that prescription and lack of jurisdiction were evident from the pleadings or evidence.

  8. The Complaint did not sufficiently allege an action for declaration of nullity of the free patent and certificate of title or for reconveyance. The Complaint did not contain the necessary allegations to establish either a nullity case or a reconveyance case. The Complaint failed to allege that the contested land was privately owned by the plaintiff prior to the issuance of the assailed certificate of title, or that the defendant perpetuated fraud or committed a mistake in obtaining the title.

  9. The trial court's dismissal of the Complaint was proper. Since the Complaint failed to sufficiently allege any cause of action for nullity or reconveyance, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the case.

  10. A private person may not bring an action for reversion or any other action that would cancel a free patent and its derivative title. Only the government, to which the property will revert, has the legal standing to bring such an action.

  11. A mere homestead applicant does not have the right to bring an action for reconveyance as they are not the real party in interest. Only the applicant, after approval of their final proof of homestead patent, may claim vested rights over the land.

  12. The action for annulment of title or its reconveyance is time-barred if it is filed more than ten years from the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Title. In this case, the Complaint was filed more than ten years after the issuance of the Certificate, making the suit time-barred. Furthermore, the title issued under a homestead patent is as indefeasible as one issued under a judicial registration proceeding one year from its issuance.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The sole office of writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, and it does not include a review of the evidence, especially when no determination of the merits has been made by the trial court.

  • Section 1 of Rule 9 provides for the dismissal of claims or actions when defenses and objections not pleaded are waived, except for instances when lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription are evident from the pleadings or evidence.

  • The "residual jurisdiction" of trial courts refers to the power to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals, and other matters before the transmittal of the original records or records on appeal.

  • Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.

  • In an action for nullification of title or declaration of its nullity, the complaint must contain allegations of private ownership by the plaintiff prior to the issuance of the contested title and fraud or mistake by the defendant in obtaining the title.

  • In an alternative action for reconveyance, the complaint must allege that the plaintiff was the owner of the land and that the defendant illegally dispossessed the plaintiff of the property.

  • Private individuals cannot bring an action for reversion or cancellation of a free patent and its derivative title.

  • Only the government has the legal standing to bring an action for reversion or cancellation of a free patent and its derivative title.

  • A mere homestead applicant does not have the right to bring an action for reconveyance; only the approved applicant has the right to claim vested rights over the land.

  • An action for reconveyance must be filed within ten years from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Title.

  • A title issued under a homestead patent is as indefeasible as one issued under a judicial registration proceeding one year from its issuance, provided that the land covered by it is disposable public land.