Delizo, Mark Alvin

Soquillo vs Tortola, G.R. No. 192450. July 23, 2012.

Topic: Joinder of parties

Ponente: Justice Reyes

Facts
Coloso, Jr. Sold a property in Misamis Oriental to Jamis which a
conditional deed of sale of unregistered land was executed. And as indicated
in a deed of definite sale, Jamis sold the land to Tortola. Tortola took
possession of the land, built a residential lot thereon, paid the realty taxes
thereon. However the receipts of the payment still states Coloso, Jr.

Tortola and his family moved to Bukidnon and left a caretaker to that
property. Tortola received a letter from the heirs of Coloso, Jr. seeking to
recover such property. The filed an application for free patent with the
CENRO of Cagayan de Oro which such application is granted on the premis
that the heirs were in possession and cultivated the land in question. After
obtainin the OCT to the land in question, the heirs of Coloso sold the land to
Soquillo, herein petitioner which filed a complaint before the MTC of
Alubijid, Misamis Oriental for unlawful detainer.

The caretaker left by Tortola failed to file and answer and was thus
ejected from the property. Tortola filed before the RTC of Inatao, Misamis
Oriental against the heirs of Coloso, Soquillo and the MTC of Alubijid for
annulment of titile/sale/judgement.

The RTC rendered a decision annuling the sale as it declared Tortola

to be the legal owner of the property pursuant to the deed of definite sale and
the cancellation of the tax declaration in the name of Coloso.

Soquillo appeal to the CA alleging that the state is a real party in

interest in this case since it this is a cancellation of a free patent. The CA
dismissed the petition of Soquillo which it declared that Soquillo not being a
buyer in good faith should not be allowed to be benefited from the title
obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.

Issue: WON the State is the real party in interest and not Soquillo.
Delizo, Mark Alvin

Ruling
The State is not the real party in interest in this case and thus there is
no ground to dismiss the coplaint of Tortola. An ordinary civil action for
declaration of nullity of free patents and certificates of title is not the same
as an action for reversion. The difference between them lies in the
allegations as to the character of ownership of the realty whose title is sought
to be nullified. In an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the
complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land.

On the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free

patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the plaintif ’s
ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such free patent and
certificate of title as well as the defendant’s fraud or mistake, as the case
may be, in successfully obtaining these documents of title over the parcel of
land claimed by plaintiff.

In Tortola’s complaint, he alleged prior ownership of the disputed

property and fraud exercised upon him by the heirs of Coloso, Jr. to obtain a
free patent and certificate of title covering the same. The complaint was not
for reversion but for the declaration of nullity of the free patent and title.
Hence, Tortola was the real party-in-interest and the complaint was properly
filed in his name.