Saad Agro-Industries vs. Republic. GR No. 152570, September 27, 2006 PDF

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc. vs. Republic
*
G.R. No. 152570. September 27, 2006.
SAAD AGRO-INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioner, vs.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
PEDRO URGELLO, Intervenor-Appellant.
Constitutional Law; Regalian Doctrine; Under the Regalian

doctrine or jura regalia, all lands of the public domain belong to the
State and the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership
in land and charged with the
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
523
VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 523
conservation of such patrimony. Lands not otherwise appearing to be

clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.
·Under the Regalian doctrine or jura regalia, all lands of the
public domain belong to the State, and the State is the source of any
asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony. Under this doctrine, lands not
otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the State. In instances where a parcel of land
considered to be inalienable land of the public domain is found
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 1 of 16
under private ownership, the Government is allowed by law to file

an action for reversion, which is an action where the ultimate relief
sought is to revert the land to the government under the Regalian
doctrine. Considering that the land subject of the action originated
from a grant by the government, its cancellation is a matter
between the grantor and the grantee.
Reversion; Free Patents; A complaint for reversion involves a

serious controversy, involving a question of fraud and
misrepresentation committed against the government and it is aimed
at the return of the disputed portion of the public domain; Fraud
and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent and
annulment of title, should never be presumed but must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence not
even being adequate.·It has been held that a complaint for
reversion involves a serious controversy, involving a question of
fraud and misrepresentation committed against the government
and it is aimed at the return of the disputed portion of the public
domain. It seeks to cancel the original certificate of registration,
and nullify the original certificate of title, including the transfer
certificate of title of the successors-in-interest because the same
were all procured through fraud and misrepresentation. Thus, the
State, as the party alleging the fraud and misrepresentation that
attended the application of the free patent, bears that burden of
proof. Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of
patent and annulment of title, should never be presumed but must
be proved by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of
evidence not even being adequate.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Antonio Almirante, Jr. for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
Zosa & Quijano Law Offices for intervenor Urgello.
524

TINGA, J.:
The instant petition for review assails the Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 18 July 2001 and

18 March 2002 in CAG.R. CV No. 64097, reversing and
setting aside the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu, Branch 11, Cebu City in Civil Case No. CEB-17173.
The antecedents follow.
On 18 October 1967, Socorro Orcullo (Orcullo) filed her
application for Free Patent for Lot No. 1434 of Cad-315-D,
a parcel of land with an area of 12.8477 hectares located in
Barangay Abugon, Sibonga, Cebu. Thereafter, on 14
February 1971, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources issued Free Patent No. 473408 for Lot No. 1434,
while the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cebu issued
Original
1
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-6667
2
over the said
lot. Subsequently, the subject lot was sold to SAAD Agro-
Industries, Inc. (petitioner) by one of OrculloÊs heirs.
Sometime in 1995, the Republic of the Philippines, 3
through the Solicitor General, filed a complaint for
annulment of title and reversion of the lot covered by Free
Patent No. 473408 and OCT No. 0-6667 and reversion of
Lot No. 1434 of Cad-315-D to the mass of the public
domain, on the ground that the issuance of the said free
patent and title for Lot No. 1434 was irregular and
erroneous, following the discovery that the lot is allegedly
part of the timberland and forest reserve of Sibonga, Cebu.
The discovery was made after Pedro Urgello filed a letter-
complaint with the Regional Executive Director of the
Forest Management Sector, Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) Region VII, Cebu City,
about the alleged illegal cutting of mangrove trees and
construction of dikes within the area cov-
_______________
1 Records, pp. 234-236.

2 Id., at p. 26, Amended Complaint.
3 Docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-17173, entitled „Republic of the
Philippines represented by the Director, Lands Management Bureau v.
The Heirs of the Late Socorro Orcullo, SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc. and
the Register of Deeds of Cebu,‰ raffled to Branch 11, RTC Cebu City,
presided by Judge Isaias Dicdican.
525
VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 525

4
ered by UrgelloÊs Fishpond Lease Agreement. On 14 July
1995, Urgello filed a complaint-in-intervention against the5
heirs of Orcullo, adopting the allegations of respondent.
However, the heirs failed to file their answer6
to the
complaint and were7 thus declared in default.
In its Decision dated 15 May 1999, the trial court
dismissed the complaint, finding that respondent failed to
show that the subject lot is part of the timberland or forest
reserve or that it has been classified as such before the
issuance of the free patent and the original title. According
to the trial court, the issuance of the free patent and title
was regular and in order, and must be accorded full faith.
Considering the validity of the free patent and the OCT,
petitionerÊs purchase of the property was also declared
legal and valid. The trial court also denied the complaint-
in-intervention filed by Urgello. 8
On appeal, the Court of Appeals in its Decision reversed
and set aside the trial courtÊs judgment. It held that timber
or forest lands, to which the subject lot belongs, are not
subject to private ownership, unless these are first
classified as agricultural lands. Thus, absent any
declassification of the subject lot from forest 9to alienable
and disposable land for agricultural purposes, the officers
erred in approving OrculloÊs free patent application and in 10
issuing the OCT; hence, title to the lot must be cancelled.
Consequently, the Court of
_______________
4 Fishpond Lease Agreement No. 4622, issued by the Ministry of

Agriculture and Natural Resources, was dated 29 October 1986 and had
a period of 25 years. The lease covers 12,8477 hectares of land located in
Sitio Abugon, Barrio Candaguit, Sibonga, Cebu. It appears that the area
covered by the lease is the same area included in Free Patent No.
473408.
5 Records, pp. 15-17.
6 Id., at p. 69.
7 Rollo, pp. 90-100.
8 Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, concurred in by
Associate Justices Eloy R. Bello, Jr. and Perlita J. Tria-Tirona.
9 In his testimony, Isabelo R. Montejo, Community Environment and
Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) for Argao, Cebu, stated that there
was no classification of the land of the public domain in Sibonga, Cebu
prior to 1980, and thus the subject lot remained an unclassified forest
zone and incapable of private appropriation. TSN, 8 November 1996, pp.
13-15.
10 Rollo, p. 73.
526

Appeals invalidated the sale of the lot to petitioner.

However, it declared that UrgelloÊs Fishpond Lease
Agreement may continue until its expiration because lease
does not pass title to the lessee; but thereafter, the lease
should not be renewed. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals
decreed:
„WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED

and SET ASIDE and another one issued declaring Free Patent No.
473408 and the corresponding OCT [No.] 0-6667 as NULL and
VOID ab initio.
SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc. is directed to surrender the ownerÊs
duplicate copy of OCT [No.] 0-6667 to the Register of Deeds of Cebu
City.
The Register of Deeds of Cebu City is hereby ordered to cancel
OCT [No.] 0-6667 and all other transfer certificates of title that may
have been subsequently issued.
Lot No. 1434, CAD 315[-]D located at Barangay Abugon,
Sibonga, Cebu, subject matter of this case, is hereby REVERTED as
11
part of [the] public domain and to be classified as timberland.‰
PetitionerÊs motion for reconsideration, claiming

insufficiency of evidence and failure to consider pertinent
laws, proved futile as it was dismissed for lack of merit.
The Court of Appeals categorically stated that there was a
preponderance of evidence 12 showing that the subject lot is
within the timberland area.
Petitioner now claims that the Court of Appeals erred in
relying on the DENR officerÊs testimony. It claims that the
testimony was a mere opinion to the effect that if there was
no classification yet of an area, such area should be
considered as a public forest. Such opinion was premised on
the officerÊs construction of a provision of Presidential
Decree (P.D.) 13
No. 705, otherwise known as the Revised
Forestry Code, the pertinent portion of which reads:
„Those still to be classified under the present system shall continue
14
to remain as part of the public forest.‰
_______________
11 Id., at p. 74. Decision of the Court of Appeals.

12 Resolution dated 18 March 2002, Rollo, pp. 86-88.
13 Promulgated on 19 May 1975.
14 Presidential Decree No. 705 (1975), Sec. 13.
527
VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 527

Petitioner points out that P.D. No. 705 took effect on 19

May 1975, or long after the issuance of the free patent and
title in question. Thus, the provision stating that all public
lands should be considered as „part of the public forests‰
until a land classification team has declassified them is
applicable only after the effectivity of P.D. No. 705 and
cannot be made retroactive to cover and prejudice vested
rights acquired prior 15
to the effectivity of said law,
petitioner concludes. It adds that if the subject lot was
encompassed by the term „public forest,‰ the same should
have been designated as a „Timberland Block,‰ not as
Cadastral Lot No. 1434, CAF-315-D, Sibonga Cadastre
which16 was the designation made by the Republic prior to
1972.
Petitioner also questions the Court of AppealsÊ reliance
on the land classification map (L.C. Map) presented by
respondent. The trial court had previously declared L.C.
Map No. 2961 as inadmissible, finding that „the plaintiff
has not duly proved the authenticity and contents.‰
According to petitioner, the L.C. Map presented in court is
neither a certified true copy nor one attested to be a true
copy by any DENR official having legal custody of the
original thereof, and thus should not have been made 17
the
basis of the cancellation of the free patent and title.
Petitioner further contends that the projection survey
conducted by the DENR to determine if the subject lot falls
within the forest area „is not clear, precise and conclusive,‰
since the foresters who conducted the survey used a
magnetic box compass, an unreliable and inaccurate
instrument, whose results are easily affected by high
18
tension wires and stones with iron minerals.
Finally, petitioner claims that respondent failed to
overcome the presumption of regularity of the issuance of
the free patent and title in favor of Socorro Orcullo.
_______________
15 Rollo, p. 216.
16 Id., at pp. 51-52.
17 Id., at p. 52.
18 Id., at p. 53.
528

In sum, petitioner asserts that respondent failed to show

that the subject lot is inside the timberland block, thereby
casting doubt on the accuracy of the survey conducted by
the Bureau of Forestry and the opinions of DENR officers.
Since respondent is the original plaintiff in the reversion
case, the burden is on it to prove that the subject lot is part
of the timberland block, petitioner adds.
There is merit in the petition.
Under the Regalian doctrine or jura regalia, all lands of
the public domain belong to the State, and the State is the
source of any asserted right to ownership in land 19
and
charged with the conservation of such patrimony. Under
this doctrine, lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
within20 private ownership are presumed to belong to the
State. In instances where a parcel of land considered to be
inalienable land of the public domain is found under
private ownership, the Government
21
is allowed by law to file
an action for reversion, which is an action where the
ultimate relief sought is to revert the land to the
government under the Regalian doctrine. Considering that
the land subject of the action originated from a grant by the
government, its cancellation
22
is a matter between the
grantor and the grantee.
It has been held that a complaint for reversion involves
a serious controversy, involving a question of fraud and
misrepresentation committed against the government and
it is aimed at the return of the disputed portion of the
public domain. It seeks to cancel the origi-
_______________
19 Sps. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 606, 624; 295 SCRA 296,
312 (1998), citing Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 219
SCRA 340 (1993).
20 Id.
21 Commonwealth Act No. 141, The Public Land Act, (year of
effectivity).
Section 101.·All lands for the reversion to the Government of lands of the
public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor-
General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of
the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
22 Caro v. Sucaldito, G.R. No. 157536, 16 May 2005, 458 SCRA 595,
605.
529
VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 529

nal certificate of registration, and nullify the original

certificate of title, including the transfer certificate of title
of the successors-ininterest because the same 23
were all
procured through fraud and misrepresentation. Thus, the
State, as the party alleging the fraud and
misrepresentation that attended the application of the free
patent, bears that burden of proof. Fraud and
misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent
and annulment of title, should never be presumed but must
be proved by clear and convincing evidence, 24mere
preponderance of evidence not even being adequate. It is
but judicious to require the Government, in an action for
reversion, to show the details attending the issuance of
title over the alleged inalienable land and explain why such
issuance has deprived the State of the claimed property.
In the instant case, the Solicitor General claimed that
„Free Patent No. 473408 and Original Certificate of Title
No. 0-6667 were erroneously and irregularly obtained as
the Bureau of Lands (now Lands Management Bureau) did
not acquire jurisdiction over the land subject thereof, nor
has it the power and authority to dispose of the same
through [a] free patent grant, hence, said patent and title
25
are null and void ab initio.‰ It was incumbent upon
respondent to prove that the free patent and original title
were truly erroneously and irregularly obtained.
Unfortunately, respondent failed to do so.
The Court finds that the findings of the trial court
rather than those of the appellate court are more in accord
with the law and jurisprudence.
In concluding that the subject parcel of land falls within
the timberland or forest reserve, the Court of Appeals
relied on the testimony of Isabelo R. Montejo that as it had
remained unclassified until 1980 and consequently became
an unclassified forest zone, it was incapable of private
appropriation. The pertinent portions of MontejoÊs
testimony read:
_______________
23 Morandarte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123586, 12 August 2004,

436 SCRA 213, 223, citing Republic v. Sebastian, 166 SCRA 140, 144
(1998).
24 Id.
25 Records, Amended Complaint, pp. 22-29, 27.
530

Q: And in that particular [R]evised Forestry Code, there

is that statement that unless classified by a land
classification team, an area can never be released.
A: Yes sir.
xxx
Q: Prior to 1980, there was no classification was [sic] ever
of the lands of the public domain in the town of
Sibonga?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In other words, nobody knew in the whole DNR before
and now DENR what areas were timberland and what
areas are not timberland in the town of Sibonga prior
to 1980?
A: Yes, sir, that is why the law states that if there is no
classification should be [sic] considered as the public
26
forest in order to protect the resources.
Obviously, respondentÊs counsel and witness were referring

to P.D. No. 705 particularly Section 13 thereof which reads:
CHAPTER II
CLASSIFICATION AND SURVEY
SEC. 13. System of Land Classification.·The Department Head

shall study, devise, determine and prescribe the criteria, guidelines
and methods for the proper and accurate classification and survey
of all lands of the public domain into agricultural, industrial or
commercial, residential, settlement, mineral, timber or forest, and
grazing lands, and into such other classes as now or may hereafter
be provided by law, rules and regulations.
In the meantime, the Department Head shall simplify through
interbureau action the present system of determining which of the
unclassified lands of the public domain are needed for forest
purposes and declare them as permanent forest to form part of the
forest reserves. He shall declare those classified and determined not
to be needed for forest purposes as alienable and disposable lands,
the administrative jurisdiction and management of which shall be
transferred to the Bureau of Lands: Provided, That mangrove and
other swamps not needed for shore protection and suitable for
fishpond purposes shall be released to, and be placed under the
administrative jurisdiction and management of, the Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
_______________
26 TSN, 8 November 1996, pp. 13-15.
531
VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 531

Those still to be classified under the Present system shall

continue to remain as part of the public forest. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Reliance on this provision is highly misplaced. P.D. No. 705

was promulgated only on 19 May 1975, or four (4) years
after the free patent and title were awarded to Orcullo.
Thus, it finds no application in the instant case. Prior
27
forestry laws, including P.D. No. 389, which was revised
by P.D. No. 705, does not contain a similar provision.
Article 4 of the Civil Code provides that „laws shall have no
retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided.‰ The
Court does not infer any intention on the part of then
President Marcos to ordain the retroactive application of
Sec. 13 of P.D. No. 705. Thus, even assuming for the nonce
that subject parcel was unclassified at the time Orcullo
applied for a free patent thereto, the fact remains that
when the free patent and title were issued thereon in 1971,
respondent in essence segregated said parcel from the mass
of public domain. Thus, it can no longer be considered
unclassified and forming part of the public forest as
provided in P.D. No. 705.
RespondentÊs main basis for asserting that the subject
lot is part of the timberland
28
or forest reserve is a purported
L.C. Map No. 2961. However, at the hearing on 6 June
1997, the trial court denied admission of the map for the
purpose of showing that the subject lot falls within a
timberland reserve after respondent had failed to submit
either a 29
certified true copy or an official publication
thereof. The Court observes that the document adverted
to is a mere photocopy of the purported original, 30
and not
the blue print as insisted by respondent. A mere
photocopy does not qualify as competent evidence of the
existence of the L.C. Map. Under the best evidence rule,
the original document must be produced, except:
_______________
27 Otherwise known as the Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines,

promulgated on 5 February 1974.
28 Copy of L.C. Map 2961, Records, p. 318.
29 Records, p. 160.
30 In its Comment, respondent argues that „It was the blue print of the
Land Classification (L.C.) Map No. 2961 that was presented in court.
Rollo, p. 173.
532

1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or
cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on

the part of the offeror;
2. When the original is in the custody or under the
control of the party against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or
other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of
the whole; and
4. When the original is a public record in the custody 31
of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
In this case, respondent claims that the presentation of the

original L.C. Map is unnecessary since it is in the custody 32
of a public officer or is recorded in the public office.
Evidence, indeed, is admissible when the original of a
document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded
in a public office. However, to prove its contents, there is a
need to present a certified
33
copy issued by the public officer
in custody thereof. In addition, while the L.C. Map may be
considered a public document
34
and prima facie evidence of
the facts stated therein, the map, to be admissible for any
purpose, must be evidenced by an official publication
thereof or by a copy35attested by the officer having legal
custody of the record.
The rules of admissibility must be applied uniformly.
The same rule holds true when the Government is one of
the parties. The Government, when it comes to court to
litigate with one of its citizens, must submit to the rules of
procedure and its rights and privileges at every stage of the
proceedings are substantially in every respect the same as
those of its citizens; it cannot have a superior advantage.
This is so because when a sovereignty submits itself to the
jurisdiction of the court and participates therein, its claims
and rights are
_______________
31 RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 3.

32 Rollo, p. 173.
533
VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 533

justiciable by every other principle and rule applicable to

the claims and36rights of the private parties under similar
circumstances. Failure to abide by the rules on
admissibility renders the L.C. Map submitted by
respondent inadmissible as proof to show that the subject
lot is part of the forest reserve.
Some officers from the CENRO office in Argao, Cebu
testified that they personally saw the subject lot and that it
falls within the timberland or forest reserve. Ultimately,
however, the basis of their declaration is the L.C. Map
which respondent failed to present in accordance with the
rules on admissibility. Two foresters in 37
fact testified that
the subject lot was a mangrove area. The foresters who
conducted the survey may have been competent and their
techniques reliable; nevertheless, the observation that
mangroves grow in the subject lot is not conclusive as to
the nature of the land at present or at the time the free
patent and title were issued. Assuming that the area is
covered by mangroves when they surveyed it, there is no
proof that it was not planted with trees and crops at the
time Orcullo applied for free patent. Respondent was also
unable to establish that the subject lot has „very deep and
muddy soil‰ or are „mudflats,‰ such38that it is unsuitable for
fruit and non-fruit bearing trees. Yet these are factual
matters which the Court does not generally delve into. As it
is, a mere declaration from the said officers, without any
other supporting evidence, is not sufficient to establish that
the area in question is part of the forest reserve.
Even assuming that the L.C. Map submitted by
respondent is admissible in evidence, still the land in
question can hardly be considered part of the timberland or
forest reserve. L.C. Map No. 2961, which purports to be the
„correct map of the areas demarcated as permanent forest
pursuant of the provisions of P.D. No. 705 as
_______________
36 National Housing Authority v. Baello, G.R. No. 143230, 20 August

2004, 437 SCRA 86, 106, citing Carr v. United States, 98 U.S. 433 (1878).
37 TSN, 8 November 1996, p. 5; TSN, 8 November 1996, p. 6.

38 According to respondent these plants do not thrive on mangrove
swamps, which are „very deep and muddy soil with additive or are
mudflat,‰ citing TSN, 8 November 1996, pp. 6 and 16; Rollo, p. 174.
534

39
amended‰ was made only in 1980. Thus, the delineation of
the areas was made nine (9) years after Orcullo was
awarded the free patent over the subject
40
lot.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals, the Court, finding that
the disputed land was classified as timberland 25 years
after private individuals had commenced their continuous
possession and cultivation thereof in good faith, declared
that they have the better right. The Court held:
„It is not disputed that the aforesaid Land Classification Project No.
3, classifying the 22-hectare area as timberland, was certified by
the Director of Lands only on December 22, 1924, whereas the
possession thereof by private respondents and their predecessor-in-
interest commenced as early as 1909. While the Government has
the right to classify portions of public land, the primary
right of a private individual who possessed and cultivated
the land in good faith much prior to such classification must
be recognized and should not be prejudiced by after-events
which could not have been anticipated. Thus, We have held
that the Government, in the first instance may, by
reservation, decide for itself what portions of public land
shall be considered forestry land, unless private interests
41
have intervened before such reservation is made.‰
(Emphasis supplied.)
Obviously, private interests have intervened before

classification was made pursuant to P.D. No. 705. Not only
has Orcullo by herself and through her predecessors-in-
interest cultivated and possessed the subject lot since 1930,
a free patent was also awarded to her and a title issued in
her name as early as 1971. In fact, it appears that the
issuance of the free patent and certificate of title was
regular and in order. Orcullo complied with the requisites
for the acquisition of free patent provided under
Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), as certified
by the Director of Lands and approved

42
by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources.
_______________
39 Records, p. 317.
40 No. L-46048, 29 November 1988, 168 SCRA 77.
41 Id., at pp. 83-84, citing Ankron v. Government of the Philippine
Islands, 40 Phil. 10, 16 (1919).
42 Records, p. 234.
535
VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 535

Besides, the records do not show that respondent has

considered the lot in question as forest reserve prior to the
issuance of Free Patent No. 473408 and OCT No. 0-6667.
To declare the land now as forest land on the authority of
L.C. Map No. 2961 approved only in 1980, and opinions
based on the said map, would unduly deprive petitioner of
their registered property.
The Regalian doctrine is well-enshrined not only in the
present Constitution, but also in the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions. The Court has always recognized and upheld
the Regalian doctrine as the basic foundation of the StateÊs
property regime. Nevertheless, in applying this doctrine,
we must not lose sight of the fact that in every claim or
right by the Government against one of its citizens, the
paramount considerations of fairness and due process must
be observed. Respondent in this case failed to show that the
subject lot is part of timberland or forest reserve it
adverted to. In the face of the uncontroverted status of Free
Patent No. 473408 and OCT No. 0-6667 as valid and
regular issuances, respondentÊs insistence on the
classification of the lot as part of the forest reserve must be
rejected.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision
of the Court of Appeals dated 16 July 2001 and the
Resolution dated 18 March 2002 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated 15
May 1999 dismissing the complaint for reversion and the
complaint-in-intervention is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio, Carpio-Morales

and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

set aside.
Note.·The adverse possession which may be the basis

of a grant of title in the confirmation of an imperfect title
refers only to alienable or disposable portions of the public
domain. (Celestial vs. Cachopero, 413 SCRA 469 [2003])
··o0o··
536
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Saad Agro-Industries vs. Republic. GR No. 152570, September 27, 2006 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saad Agro-Industries vs. Republic. GR No. 152570, September 27, 2006 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SAAD AGRO-INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioner, vs.

PEDRO URGELLO, Intervenor-Appellant.

Constitutional Law; Regalian Doctrine; Under the Regalian

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 523

SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc. vs. Republic

conservation of such patrimony. Lands not otherwise appearing to be

under private ownership, the Government is allowed by law to file

Reversion; Free Patents; A complaint for reversion involves a

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The instant petition for review assails the Decision and

Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 18 July 2001 and

1 Records, pp. 234-236.

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 525

4 Fishpond Lease Agreement No. 4622, issued by the Ministry of

526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Appeals invalidated the sale of the lot to petitioner.

„WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED

PetitionerÊs motion for reconsideration, claiming

„Those still to be classified under the present system shall continue

11 Id., at p. 74. Decision of the Court of Appeals.

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 527

Petitioner points out that P.D. No. 705 took effect on 19

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In sum, petitioner asserts that respondent failed to show

public domain. It seeks to cancel the origi-

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 529

nal certificate of registration, and nullify the original

23 Morandarte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123586, 12 August 2004,

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Q: And in that particular [R]evised Forestry Code, there

Obviously, respondentÊs counsel and witness were referring

SEC. 13. System of Land Classification.·The Department Head

26 TSN, 8 November 1996, pp. 13-15.

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 531

Those still to be classified under the Present system shall

Reliance on this provision is highly misplaced. P.D. No. 705

27 Otherwise known as the Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines,

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or

cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on

In this case, respondent claims that the presentation of the

31 RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 3.

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 533

justiciable by every other principle and rule applicable to

36 National Housing Authority v. Baello, G.R. No. 143230, 20 August

37 TSN, 8 November 1996, p. 5; TSN, 8 November 1996, p. 6.

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Obviously, private interests have intervened before

by the Director of Lands and approved

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 535

Besides, the records do not show that respondent has

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio, Carpio-Morales

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

Note.·The adverse possession which may be the basis

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like