Republic vs.

CA and Ribaya
G.R. No. 113549 | July 5, 1996

Facts:
On 1920, a 25.5M sqm-land was surveyed for spouses Ribaya by a BOL
surveyor. The area was allegedly approved by acting Director of Lands in 1922. CA noted
that this does not show the signature of the surveyor. As per Land Classification Map,
said land was considered part of the public forest; released only for disposition in 1930.
On 1925, spouses Ribaya applied for registration and confirmation of title of the lot
before the CFI of Albay, that was then granted by the latter.
Later that year, resurvey was conducted, giving rise to Plan II which embraced 4
lands, measuring only 10K sqm, as approved by the Director in 1926. The application
was not amended to reflect the resurvey and the amended plan was not published.
Decrees were issued, while in1926, an OCT covering 4 lots embraced by Plan II was
issued in the names of the spouses Ribaya.
On 1964, heirs of Ribaya received compensation from FCSC of US for damages
sustained on the land during the war. In 1968, the OCT was subdivided, but then was
later cancelled, separating TCTs that were issued to the Heirs of Ribaya.
62 farmers, claiming ownership thereof, requested the Director to annul the OCT,
which was merited, and acted upon by filing a verified complaint on such case with the
Albay RTC. The Director contended that the indefeasibility of title does not lie against the
State in an action for reversion of land. He also argued that Spouses Ribaya were unable
to prove that their possession was open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious under a
bona fide claim of ownership. Likewise, he claimed that the amended survey plan was
unpublished, and that the land covered by OCT 3947 is inalienable, being part of a forest
land then – thus making the accuracy of the land doubtful. In that case, he further
contended that the LRC thus has no jurisdiction over such case.
RTC favored the Director, but the CA argued that referred OCT is incontestable
for no longer being part of a forest land when decreed, and that republication is
inapplicable since the original was already in compliance with the law. The possession of
spouses Ribaya was argued to be proven in bona fide in the claim of ownership due to
the donation in favor of the government, and the compensation received from the FCSC.

Issue:
Whether the Republic is barred by prescription to bring action, and that the LRC
acquired jurisdiction over such case.

Ruling:
No. The Republic is not barred to bring action to such case. Further, the LRC never
acquired jurisdiction over the same.
The action of the State to annul the issued certificates of title for the reversion of the
land is not barred by prescription. In Republic vs. Animas, fraudulently included in patents
or certificate of title may be recovered or reverted to the state in accordance with Sec.
101 of CA 141. Prescription does not lie against the State in such cases for the Statute
of Limitation does not run against the State.
Further, land registration is a proceeding in rem; and jurisdiction in rem cannot be
acquired unless there be constructive seizure of the land through publication, posting and
service of notice. Sec. 31 of Act 496 requires two publications as basis of LRC jurisdiction.
In the case, only one was accomplished. Thus, the LRC has no due jurisdiction over the
inalienable and disposable land covered by either the original or amended plan or the for
lack of sufficient publication of the first and the total want of the publication of the second.