View full case

FRANCISCA TAAR v. CLAUDIO LAWAN

FACTS:

This case involves a dispute over a 71,014-square-meter parcel of land in Barangay Parsolingan, Genova, Tarlac. Petitioners filed subdivision plans over the property and applied for free patents. However, private respondents filed a protest claiming ownership since 1948. An ocular inspection by the DENR found private respondents to be the actual occupants, leading to the cancellation of subdivision plans and denial of petitioners' free patent applications. No appeal was made and private respondents later filed their own free patent applications which were approved. Petitioners filed a petition to annul the DENR's order and cancel private respondents' free patents, alleging deprivation of due process. The DENR ordered the cancellation, but the Office of the President reversed the decision. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. They then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The issues raised include whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition, whether res judicata applies to bar some respondents from applying for free patents, and whether the free patents and certificates of titles obtained by some respondents are valid and acquired through fraud or misrepresentation. The Court denied the petition, stating that a lost appeal cannot be substituted with a petition for certiorari. Res judicata is also being examined in relation to the private respondents' free patent applications.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not petitioners could have filed an appeal instead of a petition for certiorari.

  2. Whether or not private respondents are barred by the principle of res judicata from filing free patent applications over the property claimed by petitioners.

  3. What are the requirements for the acquisition of agricultural lands of the public domain through homestead, sales patents, lease, and continuation of imperfect or incomplete titles?

  4. How much agricultural land of the public domain can be acquired through homestead, sales patents, and lease?

  5. Can private corporations and associations apply for sales patents over agricultural lands?

  6. What are the requirements for the grant of free patents for agricultural lands?

  7. What are the qualifications for the registration of lands through judicial confirmation of imperfect titles?

  8. What are the qualifications for the grant of free patents for agricultural lands?

  9. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the grant of a free patent over the land they applied for.

  10. Whether the February 18, 1948 Decision of the Court of First Instance can be used as proof of compliance with the requirements of the Public Land Act.

  11. Whether private respondents procured their free patents and certificates of title through extrinsic fraud and misrepresentation.

  12. Whether petitioners are the proper parties to bring an action for the cancellation of free patents and certificates of title.

  13. Who is the proper party to file the action in a reversion case involving a fraudulently acquired free patent?

RULING:

  1. Petitioners could have taken an appeal from the decisions of the Office of the President by filing a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. However, they failed to allege and prove that appeal would be inadequate to promptly relieve them of the effects of the assailed decisions. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari outright.

  2. Private respondents are not barred by res judicata from filing their free patent applications over the property. While the February 18, 1948 Decision of the Court of First Instance is a final judgment on the merits and there is substantial identity of parties, there is no identity of subject matter between the decision and private respondents' free patent applications. The decision involved an agreement partitioning a larger parcel of land, while the free patent applications involved the establishment of private respondents' rights as occupants and cultivators of the property. Therefore, the principle of res judicata does not apply. Additionally, the Court of First Instance did not recognize private respondents' predecessors-in-interest as the owners of the property.

  3. Homestead requires the applicant to be a citizen of the Philippines over the age of 18 or the head of a family, and compliance with the residency and cultivation requirements under the Public Land Act. Sales patents require the applicant to be a citizen of the Philippines who is of legal age or a head of the family, and the land must be appraised and sold through public bidding. Lease requires the government to award the right to lease through an auction, and the lessee should have cultivated the land within five years after the approval of the lease. Continuation of imperfect or incomplete titles can be done through judicial confirmation or grant of free patents.

  4. Homestead, sales patents, and lease can only acquire a maximum of 12 hectares of agricultural land of the public domain.

  5. Under the present Constitution, private corporations and associations can only lease agricultural lands.

  6. The requirements for the grant of free patents for agricultural lands are: the applicant must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, must not own more than 12 hectares of land, must have continuously occupied and cultivated the land for at least 30 years before April 15, 1990, and must have paid the real estate taxes on the land while it has not been occupied by other persons.

  7. For judicial confirmation of imperfect titles, the land subject of the application must be classified as alienable and disposable at the time of the application, and the applicant's possession and occupation of the land must date back to June 12, 1945, or earlier.

  8. The qualifications for the grant of free patents for agricultural lands are: the applicant must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, must not own more than 12 hectares of land, must have continuously occupied and cultivated the land for at least 30 years prior to April 15, 1990, and must have paid the real estate taxes on the land while it has not been occupied by other persons.

  9. The petitioners are not entitled to the grant of a free patent over the land they applied for. They acknowledged that the land belongs to the government and is still part of the public domain. They are required to prove continuous occupation and cultivation for 30 years prior to April 15, 1990 and payment of real estate taxes while the land has not been occupied by other persons.

  10. The February 18, 1948 Decision of the Court of First Instance cannot be used as proof of compliance with the requirements of the Public Land Act. It only approved an agreement of partition and can only be used as the basis of a subdivision plan.

  11. The determination of the existence or nonexistence of fraud is a factual matter that is beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners failed to substantiate their claims of extrinsic fraud and misrepresentation. Assuming that private respondents procured their free patents and certificates of title through fraud, the petition must still be denied.

  12. Private persons may not bring an action for reversion or any action which would have the effect of canceling a land patent and the corresponding certificate of title issued on the basis of the patent. Only the Office of the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead may do so.

  13. The Supreme Court held that it is the government, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), upon the recommendation of the Director of Lands, who is the proper party to file an action assailing a certificate of title issued pursuant to a fraudulently acquired free patent. The action for annulment should have been initiated by the Director of Lands or with his prior authority and consent.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Only citizens of the Philippines over the age of 18 or the head of a family can acquire agricultural lands of the public domain through homestead.

  • Agricultural lands of the public domain can be acquired through sales patents, subject to appraisal and public bidding.

  • Lease of agricultural lands of the public domain can only be awarded through an auction, and the lessee must cultivate the land within five years after the approval of the lease.

  • Private corporations and associations can only lease agricultural lands of the public domain.

  • Free patents for agricultural lands can be granted to natural-born citizens of the Philippines who do not own more than 12 hectares of land, have continuously occupied and cultivated the land for at least 30 years prior to April 15, 1990, and have paid the real estate taxes on the land.

  • Judicial confirmation of imperfect titles can be done if the land subject of the application is classified as alienable and disposable and the applicant's possession and occupation of the land date back to June 12, 1945, or earlier.

  • There are two modes of disposing public lands through confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles: judicial confirmation and administrative legalization through the grant of free patents.

  • In judicial confirmation, the applicant already holds an imperfect title to an agricultural land of the public domain after having occupied it from June 12, 1945 or earlier.

  • In administrative legalization through free patents, the applicant recognizes that the land applied for belongs to the government and proves continuous occupation and cultivation for a certain length of time.

  • The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has exclusive jurisdiction over the management and disposition of public lands.

  • False statements or omission of facts in the application for land grant can lead to the automatic cancellation of the concession, title, or permit granted.

  • Extrinsic fraud refers to fraud employed to deprive parties of their day in court and prevent them from asserting their right to the property registered in the name of the applicant.

  • The cancellation of free patents and certificates of title is a matter between the grantee and the government.

  • Only the State, through the Office of the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, may bring an action for the reversion of lands of the public domain or their improvements. Private persons have no right or interest over land considered public at the time the sales application was filed.

  • Only the government, through the OSG, upon the recommendation of the Director of Lands, may bring an action assailing a certificate of title issued pursuant to a fraudulently acquired free patent.

  • The action for annulment of a certificate of title should be initiated by the Director of Lands or with his prior authority and consent.