my POLICY IN REVERSION Ar v ANNULMENT OF TITLE CASES..." " (Revised ¢5 of July 1, 2008) : [. Distinction between «ction for reversion and action for declaration of nullity of Jand titles Prefatorily, distiriction must be fade between an action for lreversion and.an action fo * declaration of nullity of land titles. Reversion Is a proceeding by which the State seeks the return of lands of the public domain or the improvements thereon through the cancellation of private title erroneously or fraudulently Issued over it (Figuracion vs. Libi, 539 SCRA 50, 60[2007}): Otherwise stated, reversion Is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert land back to the government under the Regalian doctrine. Actions for reversion should be flied’ by the: Office of the Solicitor General at the Ibehest of the Director of-Lands siitté the fahd titisubject of the action loriginated from a grant by the government, thus, thelr cancellation Is la matterthé“grantor and the grantee (De Guzman vs, Court of |Appeals, 394 SCRA 302, 309[2002}). The .proper official to initiate an action for reversion Is the [Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, who is authorized by law to do so. on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. Only the State can Institute an. action for reversion of the land to the ‘public domain; a private individual cannot bring such: action, pursuant to ISection 101. of the Public Land Act (Alvarico v. Sola, 383 SCRA 232, 239-240[2002]; Urquiaga v: Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 738, 745[ 1999]; Causapin v. CA, 233 SCRA 615, 624-625 [1994]), thus: Sec, 101. = All actions for reversion to the Government of . lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shalt be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in fils stead, in the proper courts, In the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Even aftér the lapse of one year, the State may still bring an action under Séction 101 of the Public Land Act for the reversion to the public domain of lands which have been fraudulently granted to private Individuals (Republic vs. Court'of Appeals, 255 SCRA 335 [1996]). The right of reversion or reconveyance to the State Is not barréd by prescription (Republic. v. Animas, 56 SCRA 499[1974]; Articles 1108(4], 1113, Civil Code). Prescription and laches will not bar actions filed by the State to recover its own property acquired through fraud by private individuals:(Republic,¥:. Melrs,of Félipe Alejaga, Sr., 393 SCRA 361, 374[2002]; Republic.sHeits of ‘Agustin L. Angelés, 390 SCRA-502, 503, 509[2002]). This is settled law (Republic v. Heirs, of6 2 Felipe Alejaga, Sr., supra, citing? Baguio vs Republic, 301 SCRA 450[1999]; Republic v. Cout of Appeals, 111 SCRA 721[1989]; “Repub v. Court of Appesis, (83 SCRA 620[1990]; Republic v. Mina, 114 SCRA 945[1982]; Direcvor of Lands. v, Abanilla, 124 SCRA 358[1983)). : Appropriately, actions f& reversion may be instituted under Section 124 of the Publi¢ Land ‘ct, thus: Sec. 124, "Any" aéquisitfert, ‘cofVeyante, alienation, transfer, or other contract made dr executed'in violation of any. of the provisions of sections one hundred and eighteen, one hundred and twenty, one hundred and twenty-one, one hundred and twenty two, and one hundred and twenty-three of this Act shall be unlawful and null-and void from its execution and shall produce the effect of annulling and canceling the grant, title, patent, or Permit originally issued, recognized or confirmed, actually oF presumptively, and cause the reversion of the property and its improvements to the State. (Inclusion of this provision suggested by Sol. Ramolete) The acquisition of lands in violation of the pertinent provisions of the Public Land Act is null and void and’entitles the government, thru the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, to file or initiate reversion procéedings. On the other hand, a cause of action’ for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the plaintire’ rship of the contested lot prior to thi nce of such fee_patent_and-certificate of title as well as the defendant's fr jud_or mistake, as the ‘case may be, in successfully” obtaining these documents of title over the parcel of land claimed by plaintiff. In such a case, the nullity arises strictly not from the fraud or deceit but-from the fact that the fand 1S-beyonidl th isdiction of the” Bure ‘a The real party-in-interest is ni State ‘but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-existing right of ownership over the parcel of land in question even before the grant of title to the defendant (Heirs of Anibrocio Kionisala.v. Heirs of Honorio Dacut, 378 SCRA 206, 214-215[2002];'cited lnrEvangelista: w/Santlago, 457 SCRA 744, 764[2005]), The line of distinetion having béen.drawn, OSG lawyers should be able to discriminate between requests for. reversion and requests for cancellation or declatation of nullity of free patent and certificate of title. In the former, the rellef sought is the return of the land back to the government. In the'latter, it Is the recognition of ownership of the private party suing as plaintiff over the subject land.oO QO ‘ . a II. Reason for backlug of DENR requests for reversion and cancellation of tiles Going to the bar-klog of DINR requests of the filing of reversion and cancellation of ti'Je cases,-il has been observed that the tedious work of OSG lawyers Is further stymied by the following factors: (1) many of the reques!s have incomplete documentation: (2) the DENR requests are not accompanied by a list of lawyers to be deputized to prosecute the cases; (3) many reverslon and cancellation of title cases filed by the OSG In court are dismissed for failure to prosecute, on account of the inability of OSG deputized DENR lawyers to appear and prosecute the cases’in court. Bk ne III. OSG lawyers should require complete documentation of requests for reversion and cancellation of titles For the documentation to be complete, the OSG lawyer should look for: Oo 1." A formal endorsement. from -the : DENR Secretary or his duly-designated Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary, or the Lands Management Bureau Director. 2, Investigation report by the LMB Director (Pliiero v. Director of ands, 57 SCRA’ 386, 392[1974]; Republic v. Lozada, 90 SCRA 502, 511[1979]), or the DENR investigator upon authority of the DENR’ Regional Executive Director or CENRO, cf. Lands Office Circular No. 68, cited in Manual on Settlement of Land Disputes) 3. Such investigation report should provide: (a) clear and convincing evidence and not’ merely Preponderance of evidence of fraud and: misrepresentation committed agalrist the government In securing the title sought to be cancelled, explaining the details attending the Issuance of title over the alleged inallenable land, and (b) that the intended complaint for reversion is aimed at the return_of the disputed: portion of the public domain.to.the government, explaining: whY:such;ithe issuance of title deprived the State of the clalined property (see SAAD Agro-Industries, ‘Inc. v. Republic, 530 SCRA, 522, 528- 529[2006)).+ IV. Proper subjects of reversion. ~.” as. When the le ids are titled In violation of Secttons 118, 120; 121, 122 arid 123 of the Publié .and Act (Section 124, CA No. 141, as amended). 2. Fraudulently titled non-registrable properties, such as the following: a. forest of timberland, public forest, forest reserves (Director of Lands vs. Aquino, 192 SCRA’ 296; 304[1990]; Cirector of Lands vs. Rivas, 141 SCRA 329, 334 [1986]; Section 3, Article XII, 1987 Constitution), including natural resources like watershed reservations or areas (Director of Land Management v. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 455, 458, 463-464; Collado v. Court of Appeals, 390 SCRA 343, 359, 364, 372[2002] In rel. to Section 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution). b. mineral lands (Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 71, 75-76 [1991]; Section 3, Article XII, 1987 Constitution); c.._ military reservations (Republic vs. Marcos, 52 SCRA 238, 242 [1973]). d. other kinds of reservations, such as for park purposes (Palomo vs. CA, 266 SCRA 392, 400-401 [1997]; Section 3, Article X11, 1987 Constitution); medical center site (Republic vs, Court of Appeals,.73 SCRA 146, 152-153 [1976}); Baguio Townsite Reservation, where all lands ee within the reservation, save those excepted from the effect oe of the 1922 decision in Civil reservation Case No, 1, are no longer reglstrable under the:. Land Registration Act (Republic vs. Sangalang, 159 SCRA 515,520 [1988]). e._ foreshore’ lahd or seashore (Cagampang vs. “Morano, 22 SCRA 1040, 1042[i968)). fi navigable rivers, streams and creeks (Republic vs. Lozada, 90 SCRA 503, 5i0 [1979]); Maneclang vs. TAC, 161 SCRA 469, 471 [1985]) and man-made alluvial deposit along a river, moreso If it 1s part of the river bed (Republic vs. CA,132 SCRA 514, 520-522 [1984]). g. - lakes (Art. 502 [4], New Civil Code). h. mangrove swamps. (Director of Forestry vs. Villareal, 170 SCRA 598, 602[1980]). i. public market, public plaza, municipal streets or public bulldings (Municipality of Antipolo vs. Zapanta, 133 SCRA 820, 824 [1984]). (adopted with: modification from the enumeration of non-registrable properties: by Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, citing Aquino, Land Registration and Related Proceedings, 2002 Rev. Ed., andQ fi Noblejas, Registration of Li - Ed.). 3. When land Is titled o: patentee or grantee (Section 91 Director of Lands, 57 SCRA 7.86, 90 SCRA'503, 509-511[1979 . 4. When the acqusitic.r (Sec. 35 [5], Chapter XI, ‘Title 111, 1 5 i Titles and Deeds, 1992 Rev, he basis of false statements by the A No. 141, as amended; Piero v: #91-392[1974]; Republic v. Lozada, is in violation of the Constitution , Book IV, E.0. No. 292), as when a private corporation acqui-es title to land’ of the Public domain in violation of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, 4 a Vv. Recommended courses of action. OSG lawyers through their ASGs must: (1) return to the DENR all requests for the filing of reversion and cancellation of title cases with Incomplete documentation, together with their records: (2) reject requests for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title although they are couched os mwests for reversion and cancellation of title, where the intended beneficiary Is a private party; (3) reject requests where no DENR lawyers have been designated to handle anid prosecute the cases to be filed by the OSG? and (4) -return to the DENR the records of terminated or dismissed reversion cases. (5) In case the request is properly endorsed and fully documented, the reversion complaint may. be filed and sald’ complaint should be verified by the DENR Secretary or his duly-designated official. . Lastly, the ASGS must inform the OSG Docket Division ‘of the lawyers to which the DENR requests for reversion are presently assigned, for it to update its records, Respectfully submitted Aa & Ola RENAN E, RAMOS Assistant Solicitor General