Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Saad Agro-Industries vs. Republic. GR No. 152570, September 27, 2006 PDF
Saad Agro-Industries vs. Republic. GR No. 152570, September 27, 2006 PDF
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
523
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 1 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
TINGA, J.:
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 2 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
_______________
525
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 3 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
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
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 4 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
13-15.
10 Rollo, p. 73.
526
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 5 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
14
to remain as part of the public forest.‰
_______________
527
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 6 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
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
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 7 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
_______________
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
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:
_______________
530
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 9 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
26
forest in order to protect the resources.
CHAPTER II
CLASSIFICATION AND SURVEY
_______________
531
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 10 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
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:
_______________
532
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 11 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 12 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
533
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 13 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
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.)
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 14 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
_______________
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
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 15 of 16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 503 8/5/20, 8:43 AM
··o0o··
536
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173bc07b6e8fc15e225003600fb002c009e/p/AQG559/?username=Guest Page 16 of 16