## FACTS:

This case involves a parcel of land located in the barrio of Magragondong, Municipality of Ligao, Province of Albay. The land was surveyed in 1920 for the spouses Luis Ribaya and Agustina Revatoris, and it was found to comprise an area of 25,542,603 square meters. The survey plan was approved in 1922 but did not bear the surveyor's signature. A Land Classification Map showed that the land was part of the public forest until it was released for disposition in 1930.

In 1925, the spouses Ribaya applied for the registration and confirmation of title of the land. Their application was granted in 1925, and a decree of registration was issued in 1926. An original certificate of title (OCT) covering the land was also issued.

In 1968, the heirs of Luis Ribaya received compensation for war damages to the land. They subsequently executed a deed of partition and the land was subdivided. Transfer certificates of title were issued to the heirs.

However, in 1977, farmers occupying the land filed a complaint to annul the original certificate of title and all subsequent titles derived from it. They claimed that the original certificate of title was obtained through fraud and that the land was forest land at the time of registration.

The trial court held in favor of the petitioner, declaring the original certificate of title and subsequent titles as null and void. The Court of Appeals later reversed the decision of the trial court, leading to this petition for review.

The disputed land in this case was originally owned by the heirs of Luis Ribaya and Agustina Revatoris. The trial court found that the land was classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land at the time the spouses Ribaya filed their petition for registration. However, the court ruled that the land registration court did not acquire jurisdiction over the land due to a lack of publication or republication in the Official Gazette. As a result, the OCT No. 3947 and its derivative titles were declared void. The trial court also found that the spouses Ribaya failed to prove open, continuous, and adverse possession of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership for the required number of years.

The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court's decision but later reversed it, stating that the OCT No. 3947 was conclusive and incontrovertible upon all persons, including the government. The appellate court applied the presumption of regularity in the spouses Ribaya's possession of the land and ruled that their failure to present tax receipts was not fatal. The Court of Appeals also rejected the application of the Fewkes case and relied on the decision in Benin, which allowed an amendment in the application or survey plan without republication in certain circumstances. Lastly, the appellate court withdrew its finding that the land was part of the public forest at the time of the registration application.

This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioner, challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which confirmed the registration of a parcel of land in the name of the private respondents.

The private respondents filed an application for registration of their land, which was granted by the RTC. The government, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the application, arguing that the land in question was part of the public forest and therefore inalienable.

The OSG contended that the land became part of the public forest at the time of the application for registration and argued that the approval of the land classification map may have been made later by authority of a prior executive declaration. The OSG also argued that the private respondents failed to prove their possession of the land for the period required by law.

The petitioner, unsatisfied with the decision of the CA, filed a petition before the Supreme Court. The petitioner raised several arguments, including that the indefeasibility of title does not lie against the State in an action for reversion of land, and that the private respondents failed to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession with a bona fide claim of ownership.

In their comment, the private respondents argued that the land was no longer part of the public forest when it was decreed in their favor, making their title incontestable. They also argued that the issue of republication was inapplicable since the publication of the original survey plan was already done in compliance with the law. The private respondents further claimed that they had proven their possession of the land through various acts, such as donations and compensation received from the Foreign Claim.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Republic of the Philippines is barred by prescription to bring the action for annulment of OCT No. 3947 and all its derivative certificates of title.

2. Whether the land registration court acquired jurisdiction over the four parcels of land subject of the amended survey plan (Plan II-13961-Amd.) and covered by the decree issued on 31 July 1926 by the General Land Registration Office pursuant to the decision of the said court of 18 September 1925.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the action for the annulment of the certificates of title is not barred by prescription because prescription never lies against the State for the reversion of property which is part of the public forest or a forest reservation.

2. The Supreme Court held that the land registration court did not acquire jurisdiction over the lands covered by the amended plan due to the lack of sufficient and proper publication as required by law, specifically noting the requirement of dual publication which was not met.

PRINCIPLES

• Prescription does not run against the State when it comes to reverting property that is part of a public forest or forest reservation back to the state and such lands can be reverted even if previously registered mistakenly.

• Jurisdiction over land in registration proceedings is not established unless there is compliance with the required legal procedural steps, such as the proper publication requirements under the governing land registration laws.

• Decisions and decrees issued without proper publication are void as the court would not have acquired jurisdiction over the matter.

• The indefeasibility of a title does not protect against actions brought by the State concerning properties that are originally considered inalienable, like forest lands not yet declared open for registration.