#3 Cagayan de Oro Landless Residents vs.

CA, 254 SCRA 220 (1996)

Case Title, GR CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC. (COCLAI), Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro
Number, Date City, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and the NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA), respondents.

G.R. No. 106043. March 4, 1996.

Ponente HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.
Topic Special Patent
Facts  The subject lot was formerly classified as timberland until the time it was reclassified by the
(Petitioner; government as public land. Petitioner COCLAI was authorized to survey land, for purposes of
Respondent) subdivision into residential lots. Meanwhile, respondent NHA initiated expropriation proceedings
including the subject lot.
 Petitioner COCLAI intervened and said that instead of being paid through money, it preferred
acquisition of any housing area of NHA. Upon learning of the annulment of the title over the same
land, the respondent NHA sought the suspension of the expropriation proceedings.
 The SC then finally resolved by annulling the title and declaring the subject lot to be public land.
Members of the petitioner COCLAI was found settling in the land. A Presidential Proclamation was
then issued reserving the entire subject lot for a slum improvement project of the NHA.
 This led to the rejection of the survey submitted by petitioner and the demolition of the settlement
constructed by members of the petitioner. This prompted petitioner to file a case for forcible entry on
which the trial court decided in its favor. During the pendency of the civil case, a special patent was
issued for the entire subject land. The petitioner sought the execution of decision, which was
countered by a case for quieting of title by the NHA.
Issue and  Whether the NHA has a better right to the possession of the lot, as a necessary consequence of
Ruling ownership – YES
(Doctrine) o The OCT issued to NHA serves as conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title to the property.
o Moreover, the certificate of title was not controverted by petitioner in a proper proceeding nor
did it show that the issuance of the Original Certificate of Title by the register of deeds to NHA was
tainted with bad faith or fraud. Hence, said certificate of title enjoys the presumption of having
been issued by the register of deeds in the regular performance of its official duty
o The certificate of title vested not only ownership over the lot but also the right of possession as a
necessary consequence of the right of ownership. Proclamation granted to NHA the authority to
“develop, administer and dispose” of Lot “in accordance with the guidelines of the Slum
Improvement and Resettlement Program and the approved development plan of the area.”
o Once a decree of registration is issued under the Torrens systems and the one year period from
the issuance of the decree of registration has lapsed, without said decree being controverted by
any adverse party, the title becomes perfect and cannot later on be questioned
o Furthermore, the original certificate of title issued by the RD under an administrative proceeding
pursuant to Special Patent is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under a judicial
registration proceeding as the land covered by said certificate is a disposable public land.
Dispositive  SC dismissed petition