G.R. No.

L-32941 July 31, 1973

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
HON. PIO R. MARCOS, in his capacity as Judge, Court of First Instance of Baguio, Branch I,
ALSON CARANTES, BILL CARANTES and EDUARDO CARANTES, respondents.

Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Dominador L. Quiroz and
Solicitor Rosalio A. de Leon for petitioner.

Jesus M. Ponce for private respondents.

FERNANDO, J.:

A perusal, even the most cursory, of this petition for review on certiorari, would make evident its
being impressed with merit. Respondent Judge, under color of a statutory provision  and at the
1

instance of private respondents, did re-open Civil Registration Case No. 1 of the Court of First
Instance of Baguio establishing the Baguio Townsite Reservation, promulgated as far back as
November 13, 1922, thus enabling private respondents to apply for the registration of an area of
74,017 square meters inside the Camp John Hay Leave and Recreation Center. In the decision now
sought to be set aside in this suit dated November 9, 1968, its registration therefor was ordered in
favor of the aforesaid private respondents. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines thus has a
legitimate grievance. Republic v. Marcos,  a 1969 a decision, speaks authoritatively. It does provide
2

a firm, not to say rocklike foundation. Respondent Judge was without power to re-open the aforesaid
Civil Reservation Case No. 1 which was not a cadastral proceeding. What is more, it is undeniable
that the land in question, being a part of a duly established military camp or reservation, cannot be
thus ordered registered in favor of private respondents. We have to grant the petition.

It would appear from the facts that on November 12, 1966, respondents, the Carantes heirs, filed
under Civil Reservation Case No. 1  of the Court of First Instance of Baguio City a petition for the re-
3

opening of said proceeding to have them declared owners, and for the registration in their favor of
four lots with a total area of 74,017 square meters therein described. Then on December 14, 1966,
respondent Judge issued an order requiring the publication and posting of notices thereof. The
Director of Lands duly opposed, as a report of an investigator of his office was that the area sought
to be registered is inside Camp John Hay in Baguio City. This notwithstanding, on November 9,
1968, the respondent Judge rendered his decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"[Wherefore], this Court hereby orders the registration of this parcel of land, situated in Res. Sec. "J",
Baguio City, identified as Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 as shown on survey plan PSU 223402, and described in
its Technical Descriptions and Surveyor's Certificate, with a combined total area of 74,017 square
meters, more or less, in the names of the petitioners, pro-indiviso, namely, [Alson Carantes], married
to Monica Pedro, [Eduardo Carantes], married to Jesusa Rosal, and [Bill Carantes], married to
Budaet Onias, all of legal ages, Filipino citizens, with residence and postal addresses at Loakan,
Baguio City, Philippines."  The efforts exerted by the Director of Lands and the City of Baguio to
4

appeal said decision, seasonably made, did not prosper, respondent Judge being of the belief that
"the proper party to appeal should be Camp John Hay." Unfortunately, with the Solicitor-General not
having been informed of what did transpire, such denial went unchallenged.  It was not until August
5

22, 1969 that the Solicitor-General entered his appearance in the case and filed a motion to annul
the decision based on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the
proceedings as the land in question is part of a duly established military reservation. Such motion
was denied by respondent Judge on December 8, 1969. It must be noted that the location of the lot
inside Camp John Hay is not a subject of dispute. Apparently, the respondent Judge in refusing to
set aside his decision was impressed by the claim that the private respondents had been in
possession "since the Spanish regime," and thus came within the protection of the words annotated
on all survey plans of Camp John Hay, to wit: "subject to prior and existing private rights."
6

What is immediately apparent is that even if the above decision were not flawed by a grave infirmity,
it could not survive after the decision of this Court in Republic v. Marcos,  as noted in the brief for
7

private respondents, an action against the very same judge whose actuation over a matter not
dissimilar was challenged and — challenged successfully. For the absence of jurisdiction under such
statutory provision from which he would derive his competence as well as the location of the
disputed area inside a military reservation deprived the decision now sought to be nullified of the
slightest claim to validity. Nor could private respondents derive comfort from the doctrine of estoppel
which as they should be the first to realize cannot operate against the state. Accordingly, as noted at
the outset, we grant the petition.