Reversion vs.

Declaration of Nullity of Title Based on Public Land Patent

 In reversion, the party is the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General; in
an action for declaration of nullity, the real party in interest is the plaintiff
 Complaint in reversion is based on the fact that the land titled is a non-registrable land; in a
declaration of nullity, the plaintiff alleges prior ownership of the contested lot.

Continuing Authority of the Director of Lands to Investigate Fraudulent Acquisition of Public Lands

 Director of Lands has continuing authority to conduct investigation to determine whether or not
public land has been fraudulently awarded or titled
 Indefeasibility of the title does not become a hindrance to the authority to investigate
 The government is not estopped by the error or mistake of its agents, nor barred by prescription

State Not Barred by Res Judicata or Estoppel

GR: When the government is the real party in interest, and it is proceeding mainly to assert its own right
to recover its own property, there can be no defense grounded on laches or prescription

XPN: Title of an innocent purchaser for value who relied on the clean certificates of title

 It is only fair and reasonable to apply the principle of estoppel by laches against the government
to avoid an injustice to innocent purchasers for value

Yujuico v. Republic (GR 168661)

PONENTE: Justice Velasco

FACTS: On April 26, 1974, the court rendered a judgment granting Fermina Castro’s registration of a
parcel of land. OCT No. 10215 was issued to Castro. Castro thereafter sold the land to Jesus Yujuico, who
caused the subdivision of the property into two lots. Lot 2 was issued in the name of Augusto Y. Carpio.
The lots were then mortgaged to several banks to secure various loans. The OSG filed a complaint for
annulment and cancellation of the titles issued to Yujuico and Castro on the ground that, at the time of
registration, said land was still underwater, and hence the registration court had no jurisdiction to
adjudicate it as private property.

ISSUE: Is petitioner estopped by laches?

HELD: Yes. The SC held that the lapse of almost three (3) decades in filing the case, the inexplicable lack
of action of the Republic and the injury this would cause to petitioners placed the Republic in estoppel
and laches.

Cancellation of Title
  Action for Cancellation is a remedy given to a private person in cases where there are two (2)
titles issued to different persons for the same lot
 When one of the two titles is held superior, the other should be declared null and void and
ordered cancelled
 The party adjudged to be the owner, pursuant to the valid certificate of title, is entitled to the
possession of the land covered by the title; the land does not “revert” to the mass of the public
domain

 Principle to be upheld is that where there are two (2) certificates of title issued to different
persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail
 The State is also vested with personality to bring action for cancellation to protect public
interest, preserve the integrity of the Torrens System, and safeguard the Assurance Fund

Action for Compensation from the Assurance Fund

 Section 95 of the Property Registration Decree provides for the remedy of compensation from
the Assurance Fund
 Assurance Fund is intended to relieve innocent persons from the harshness of the doctrine that
a certificate is conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title to land
 If a property is registered through fraud or mistake, and such property was passed into the
hands of an innocent purchaser, remedy is to file an action for damages from the person who
allegedly registered the property through fraud, or if he had become insolvent, file for an action
for recovery against the Assurance Fund within a period of six (6) years from the time to bring
such action accrues

Requisites for Recovery

1. Any person who sustains loss or damage under the following conditions:
a. There was no negligence on his part
b. The loss or damage sustained was through any omission, mistake, or malfeasance of the
court personnel, or the Registry of Deeds, his deputy, or other employees of the Registry in
the performance of their respective duties; or
2. Any person who has been deprived of any land or interest therein under the following
conditions:
a. There was no negligence on his part
b. He was deprived as a consequence of the bringing of his land or interest therein under the
provisions of the Property Registration Decree; or by the registration by any other person
as owner of such land; or by mistake, omission, or misdescription in any certificate of
owner’s duplicate, or in any entry or memorandum in the register or other official book or
by any cancellation
c. He is barred in any way from bringing an action for recovery
  Action for compensation from the Assurance Fund must be filed against the Register of Deed of
the province or city where the land is situated
 Register of Deeds and National Treasurer as co-defendants
 Person who brings an action for compensation against the Assurance Fund must be the
registered owner and must be in good faith

Criminal Prosecution

 The State may criminally prosecute for perjury the party who obtains registration through
fraud, such as by stating false assertions in the application for registration, sworn answer
required of applications in cadastral proceedings, or application for public land patent
 Policy of the law that judicial proceedings and judgments shall be free from fraud, and that
litigants and parties be encouraged to tell the truth, and they be punished if they do not
 On the matter of disposition of public lands, Section 91 of the Public Land Act provides that any
false statement therein or omission of facts, or alteration of material facts in the application
shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession, title, or permit