Chapter IV-Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942) #4th Batch The trial court denied the application,
rial court denied the application, holding that the applicants had failed to prove their
Republic vs. CA and De La Rosa
Republic of the Philippines, Benguet & Atok vs. Court of Appeals & De La Rosa
G.R. No. L-43938, April 15, 1988
Cruz, J.:
FACTS: These consolidated cases arose from the application for registration of a parcel of
land filed on February 11, 1965, by Jose de la Rosa on his own behalf and on behalf of his
three children, Victoria, Benjamin and Eduardo. The land, situated in Tuding, Itogon, Benguet
Province, was divided into 9 lots and covered by plan Psu-225009. According to the
application, Lots 1-5 were sold to Jose de la Rosa and Lots 6-9 to his children by Mamaya
Balbalio and Jaime Alberto, respectively, in 1964.
The application was separately opposed by Benguet Consolidated, Inc. as to Lots 1-5, Atok
Big Wedge Corporation, as to Portions of Lots 1-5 and all of Lots 6-9, and by the Republic of
the Philippines, through the Bureau of Forestry Development, as to lots 1-9.
In support of the application, both Balbalio and Alberto testified that they had acquired the
subject land by virtue of prescription; Balbalio claimed to have received Lots 1-5 from her
father shortly after the Liberation.
Benguet opposed on the ground that the June Bug mineral claim covering Lots 1-5 was sold
to it on September 22, 1934, by the successors-in-interest of James Kelly, who located the
claim in September 1909 and recorded it on October 14, 1909. From the date of its purchase,
Benguet had been in actual, continuous and exclusive possession of the land in concept of
owner, as evidenced by its construction of adits, its affidavits of annual assessment, its
geological mappings, geological samplings and trench side cuts, and its payment of taxes on
the land.
For its part, Atok alleged that a portion of Lots 1-5 and all of Lots 6-9 were covered by the
Emma and Fredia mineral claims located by Harrison and Reynolds on December 25, 1930,
and recorded on January 2, 1931, in the office of the mining recorder of Baguio. These claims
were purchased from these locators on November 2, 1931, by Atok, which has since then
been in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the said lots as evidenced by its
annual assessment work on the claims, such as the boring of tunnels, and its payment of
annual taxes thereon.
The Bureau of Forestry Development also interposed its objection, arguing that the land
sought to be registered was covered by the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve under
Proclamation No. 217 dated February 16, 1929. Moreover, by reason of its nature, it was not
subject to alienation under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973.
claim of possession and ownership of the land sought to be registered.
The applicants appealed to the respondent court, which reversed the trial court and
recognized the claims of the applicant, but subject to the rights of Benguet and Atok
respecting their mining claims. In other words, the Court of Appeals affirmed the surface
rights of the de la Rosas over the land while at the same time reserving the sub-surface rights
of Benguet and Atok by virtue of their mining claims. Both Benguet and Atok have appealed
to this Court, invoking their superior right of ownership.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT APPLICANTS ALL SURNAMED DELA ROSA HAVE
SUPERIOR RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE SURFACE RIGHTS OVER THE LAND IN
QUESTION WHILE OPPOSITORS BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. AND ATOK BIG
WEDGE MINING COMPANY ARE RESERVED OF THEIR SUB-SURFACE RIGHTS BY
VIRTUE OF THEIR MINING CLAIM AS DECIDED BY THE RESPONDENT COURT.
HELD: NO. Our holding is that Benguet and Atok have exclusive rights to the property in
question by virtue of their respective mining claims which they validly acquired before the
Constitution of 1935 prohibited the alienation of all lands of the public domain except
agricultural lands, subject to vested rights existing at the time of its adoption. The land was
not and could not have been transferred to the private respondents by virtue of acquisitive
prescription, nor could its use be shared simultaneously by them and the mining companies
for agricultural and mineral purposes. It is true that the subject property was considered forest
land and included in the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve, but this did not impair the rights
already vested in Benguet and Atok at that time. Such rights were not affected either by the
stricture in the Commonwealth Constitution against the alienation of all lands of the public
domain except those agricultural in nature for this was made subject to existing rights. The
perfection of the mining claim converted the property to mineral land and under the laws then
in force removed it from the public domain. By such act, the locators acquired exclusive rights
over the land, against even the government, without need of any further act such as the
purchase of the land or the obtention of a patent over it. As the land had become the private
property of the locators, they had the right to transfer the same, as they did, to Benguet and
Atok. The Court of Appeals justified this by saying there is no conflict of interest between the
owners of the surface rights and the owners of the sub-surface rights. This is rather doctrine,
for it is a well-known principle that the owner of piece of land has rights not only to its
surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable
height. Under the aforesaid ruling, the land is classified as mineral underneath and
agricultural on the surface, subject to separate claims of title. This is also difficult to
understand, especially in its practical application.
The Regalian doctrine which, as its name implies, is intended for the benefit of the State, not
of private persons. The rule simply reserves to the State all minerals that may be found in
public and even private land devoted to "agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential or
1
(for) any purpose other than mining." Thus, if a person is the owner of agricultural land in
which minerals are discovered, his ownership of such land does not give him the right to
extract or utilize the said minerals without the permission of the State to which such minerals
belong.
The flaw in the reasoning of the respondent court is in supposing that the rights over the land
could be used for both mining and non-mining purposes simultaneously. The correct
interpretation is that once minerals are discovered in the land, whatever the use to
which it is being devoted at the time, such use may be discontinued by the State to
enable it to extract the minerals therein in the exercise of its sovereign prerogative.
The land is thus converted to mineral land and may not be used by any private party,
including the registered owner thereof, for any other purpose that will impede the mining
operations to be undertaken therein. The Regalian doctrine then extends not only to land but
also to all natural wealth that may be found in the bowels of the earth.
MATEO H. REYES v. MATEO RAVAL REYES, GR No. L-21703-04, 1966-08-31
Facts:
three brothers
Mateo H., Juan H., and Francisco H.
all surnamed Reyes... are the registered owners of several parcels of land,... of the Laoag
(Ilocos Norte)... embraced in and covered by Original
Certificate of Title... of the same cadastral surve... hese titles were issued pursuant to a
decree of registration... petitioners... filed... a motion for issuance of writs of possession over
all the lots
Respondent... opposed the motion... he claimed that he has... been in, and is entitled to, the
possession thereof... having acquired by way of absolute sale (not recorded) from petitioners'
brother... he court a quo issued... the writ of possession... petitioners presented... a motion to
compel respondent... to surrender and deliver to them the owners' duplicates of Original
Certificates of Title
Respondent opposed this motion.
The court a quo denied petitioners' motion... on the ground that the parcels of land covered
by both titles are subjects of litigation in Civil Case... and the same has not yet been decided
on the merits by it.
Issues:
who between petitioners-appellants or respondent-appellee has a better right to the
possession or custody of the disputed owners' duplicates of certificates of title.
Ruling:
we see no valid and plausible reason... to justify, on this ground, the withholding from the
registered owners, such as the petitioners-appellants herein, the custody and possession of
the owners' duplicates of certificates of title
In a decided case, this Court has already held that the owner of the land in whose... favor and
in whose name said land is registered and inscribed in the certificate of title has a more
preferential right to the possession of the owner's duplicate than one whose name does not
appear in the certificate and has yet to establish his right to the possession thereto.
It being undisputed that respondent had already availed of an independent civil action to
recover his alleged co-owner's share in the disputed lots by filing a counterclaim for partition
in said Civil Case... his rights appear to be amply protected... we again see no justifiable
reason for respondent to retain the custody of the owners' duplicates of certificates of title.
respondent Mateo Raval Reyes is hereby ordered to deliver to petitioners the owners'
duplicates of Original Certificates of Title
LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, petitioner, vs. MANUEL
DUMYUNG, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BAGUIO CITY, and the COURT OF
FIRST INSTANCE OF BAGUIO CITY (BRANCH I), respondents. LEPANTO
CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, petitioner, vs. FORTUNATO DUMYUNG, THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BAGUIO CITY, and the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF BAGUIO CITY (BRANCH I), respondents. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING
COMPANY, petitioner, vs. DUMYUNG BONAYAN, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
BAGUIO CITY, and the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BAGUIO CITY (BRANCH
I), respondents. Sycip, Salazar, Luna, Manalo & Feliciano, Jesus B. Santos and Hill &
Associates for petitioner. Floro B. Bugnosen for private respondents. SYNOPSIS The
2
 Republic of the Philippines filed separate civil actions for annulment of the free patent
and the corresponding certificates of title issued pursuant thereto to herein private
respondents on the ground of misrepresentation and false data and information
furnished by said respondents. The Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company
intervened alleging that a portion of the titled lands in question was within its ordinary
timber license, and other portion, embraced in its mineral claims. The proceedings on
these cases were suspended until after the three criminal cases for falsification of
public documents filed by the Republic of the Philippines against private respondents
for allegedly making untrue statements in their application for free patents over the
subject lands were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Thereafter, upon motion
of private respondents and without having received any evidence in the civil cases,
the trial judge dismissed said cases, and ruled that respondents' original certificates
of title had become indefeasible, that they were entitled to the benefits of Republic
Act 3872 as members of the cultural minorities, and their acquittal in the criminal
cases for falsification was a bar to these civil cases. Hence, this petition. The
Supreme Court held that the trial judge erred in ruling on the factual issues in these
civil cases without having received evidence thereon, and ruled that the acquittal of
private respondents from the criminal cases for falsification could not be a bar to
these civil cases, for, the only issue in the criminal cases was whether or not there
was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the private
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/26402 1 of 9 8/28/2013 6:00 PM
respondents had committed the acts of falsification, and the factual issues of whether
or not the lands in question were timber and mineral, and whether or not private
respondents belonged to the cultural minorities and are qualified under Republic Act
3872 to be issued free patents on said lands were not in issue in said criminal cases.
Cases remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. SYLLABUS 1. LAND
REGISTRATION; MEMBERS OF CULTURAL MINORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO
ACQUIRE PUBLIC LAND, DISPOSABLE OR NOT, UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO.
3872. A member of the cultural minorities who has continuously occupied and
cultivated either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of
land, whether disposable or not since July 4, 1956, shall be entitled to a free patent
issued to him for such tract or tracts of land not exceed 20 hectares; provided that at
the time he filed his free patent application he is not the owner of any real property
secured or disposable under the provision of the Public Land Law. (Section 44,
Republic Act 3872) 2. ID.; CERTIFICATION OF TITLE COVERING TIMBER OR
MINERAL LAND IS VOID. It is well settled that a certificates of title is void when
it covers property of public domain classified as forest or timber and mineral lands.
Any title issued on non-disposable lots even in the hands of alleged innocent
purchaser for value, shall be cancelled. 3. CIVIL PROCEDURE; ACQUITTAL IN
CRIMINAL CASE IS NOT A BAR TO A CIVIL CASE; CASE AT BAR. The
acquittal of private respondents in the criminal cases for falsification of public
documents by allegedly making untrue statements in their application for free patents
is not a bar to civil actions to cancel their certificates of title issued pursuant to the
said free patents. For, the only issue in the criminal cases for falsification was
whether there was evidence beyond doubt that the private respondent had committed
the acts of falsification alleged in the informations, and the factual issues of whether
or not the private respondents are entitled to the benefits of Republic Act No. 3872,
and whether or not the lands in question are timber and mineral were not in issue in
said criminal cases. 4. ID.; ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE; JUDGMENT;
PREMATURE DISMISSAL OF ACTION. In a suit for cancellation of title of land
on the grounds that the lands covered are mineral and timber lands, it is premature
for the trial court to rule that the certificates of title issued to defendants have become
indefeasible and that defendants are entitled to the benefits of Republic Act 3872 as
members of the cultural minorities, and thereby dismiss the actions without first
receiving evidence on the factual issues, namely whether or not the lands in question
are timber and mineral lands and whether private respondents belong to the cultural
minorities and qualified to be issued free patents. 5. APPEAL; REMAND OF A CASE
TO THE TRIAL COURT WHERE NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTS FINDINGS.
Where the trial court prematurely dismisses a suit for cancellation of title of land
without first receiving evidence on the factual issues raised in the action, the order of
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/26402 2 of 9 8/28/2013 6:00 PM
dismissal, upon appeal, shall be set aside and remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings. D E C I S I O N FERNANDEZ, J p: This is a petition to review the order
of the Court of First Instance of Baguio City, Branch I, dismissing the three
complaints for annulment of titles in Civil Cases Nos. 1068, 1069 and 1070 entitled
"Republic of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus, Manuel Dumyung, et al., Defendants,
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, Intervenor" for being without merit. 1 The
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, commenced in the
Court of First Instance of Baguio City Civil Cases Nos. 1068, 1069 and 1070 for
annulment of Free Patents Nos. V-152242, V-155050 and V-152243, and of the
corresponding Original Certificates of Title Nos. P-208, P-210 and P-209, on the
ground of misrepresentation and false data and informations furnished by the
defendants, Manuel Dumyung, Fortunato Dumyung and Dumyung Bonayan,
respectively, the land embraced in the patents and titles are identified as Lots 1, 2
and 3 of survey plan Psu-181763 containing a total area of 58.4169 hectares, more
or less, and situated in the Municipal District of Mankayan, Sub-province of Benguet,
Mountain Province. The Register of Deeds of Baguio City was made a formal party
defendant. The complaints in Civil Cases Nos. 1068, 1069 and 1070 are all dated
September 22, 1961. 2 The defendants filed their respective answers. 3 The Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Company, petitioner herein, filed motions for intervention dated
February 5, 1962 in the three (3) civil cases 4 which were granted. 5 The complaints
in intervention alleged that a portion of the titled lands in question is within the
intervenor's ordinary timber license No. 140-'62 dated July 7, 1961 expiring and up
for renewal on June 30, 1962 and another portion of said lands is embraced in its
mineral claims. 6 The defendants in the three (3) civil cases filed an amended joint
answer with counterclaim to the complaint in intervention. 7 The said amended joint
3
 answer was admitted in an order dated September 10, 1972. 8 Before the hearing on
the merits of the three (3) civil cases, the plaintiff, Republic of the Philippines
represented by the Director of Lands, filed in the Court of First Instance of Baguio
City three (3) criminal cases for falsification of public documents, docketed as
Criminal Cases Nos. 2358, 2359 and 2360, against the defendants Manuel
Dumyung, Fortunato Dumyung and Dumyung Bonayan, private respondents herein,
for allegedly making untrue statements in their applications for free patents over the
lands in question. The proceedings on the three (3) civil cases were suspended
pending the outcome of the criminal cases. After the presentation of evidence by the
prosecution in the three (3) criminal cases, the defense filed
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/26402 3 of 9 8/28/2013 6:00 PM
a motion to dismiss the same on the ground that the accused had complied with all
the legal requirements in the acquisition of their patents which were duly issued by
the Director of Lands and that they are not guilty of the alleged falsification of public
documents. In an order dated December 6, 1967, the trial court sustained the theory
of the defense and dismissed the three (3) criminal cases, with costs de officio, for
insufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction of the three (3) accused. 9
Thereupon, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss dated October 12, 1968 in Civil
Cases Nos. 1068, 1069 and 1070 on the following grounds: (1) extinction of the penal
action carries with it the extinction of the civil action when the extinction proceeds
from a declaration that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist; (2) the
decision of the trial court acquitting the defendants of the crime charged renders
these civil cases moot and academic; (3) the trial court has no jurisdiction to order
cancellation of the patents issued by the Director of Lands; (4) the certificates of title
in question can no longer be assailed; and (5) the intervenor Lepanto has no legal
interest in the subject matter in litigation. 10 The Court of First Instance of Baguio,
Branch I, dismissed the three (3) civil cases because: LLjur "After a careful
examination and deliberation of the MOTION TO DISMISS, these civil cases filed by
the defendants as well as the two OPPOSITIONS TO MOTION TO DISMISS filed by
both plaintiff and intervenor Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company and the records
of all the three civil cases, it clearly shows that upon the issuance of said Free
Patents on November 26, 1960, the same were duly registered with the office of the
Register of Deeds of Baguio and Benguet, pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 122 of
Act 496, as amended, and consequently, these properties became the private
properties of the defendants, under the operation of Sec. 38 of said Act; hence, these
titles enjoy the same privileges and safeguards as Torrens titles (Director of Lands
vs. Heirs of Ciriaco Carle, G. R. No. L-12485, July 31, 1964). It is therefore clear that
OCT Nos. P-208, P-209 and P210 belonging to the defendants are now indefeasible
and this Court has no power to disturb such indefeasibility of said titles, let alone
cancel the same. The records of this case further disclose that the defendants are
ignorant natives of Benguet Province and are members of the so-called Cultural
Minorities of Mountain Province, who are the same persons accused in the dismissed
criminal cases, based on the same grounds. It should be noted that these cases fall
squarely under Sec. 3 of Rule III of the New Rules of Court." 11 The plaintiff,
Republic of the Philippines represented by the Director of Lands, and the intervenor,
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, filed separate motions for reconsideration of
the order dismissing Civil Cases Nos. 1068, 1069 and 1070. 12 Both motions for
reconsideration were denied by the trial court. 13 Thereupon the intervenor, Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Company, filed the instant petition. The petitioner assigns the
following errors: http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/26402 4 of 9 8/28/2013
6:00 PM
"I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WERE 'INDEFEASIBLE' SIMPLY
BECAUSE THEY WERE ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE
FREE PATENTS OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS. "II THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO
THE BENEFITS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3872. "III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE ACQUITTAL OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IN THE
CRIMINAL CASES FOR FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BARRED THE
CIVIL ACTIONS FOR ANNULMENT OF THE FREE PATENTS AND CANCELLATION
OF THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATES OF TITLE OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS."
14 Timber and mineral lands are not alienable or disposable. The pertinent provisions
of the Public Land Act, Commonwealth Act No. 141, provide: "Sec. 2. The provisions
of this Act shall apply to the lands of the public domain; but timber and mineral lands
shall be governed by special laws and nothing in this Act provided shall be
understood or construed to change or modify the administration and disposition of the
lands commonly called 'friar lands' and those which, being privately owned, have
reverted to or become the property of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, which
administration and disposition shall be governed by the laws at present in force or
which may hereafter be enacted." "Sec. 6. The President, upon the recommendation
of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, shall from time to time classify the
lands of the public domain into (a) Alienable or disposable, (b) Timber, and (c)
Mineral lands, and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such lands from one
class to another, for the purposes of their administration and disposition." The
principal factual issue raised by the plaintiff, Republic of the Philippines represented
by the Director of Lands, and the intervenor, petitioner herein, is that the lands
covered by the patents and certificates of title are timber lands and mineral lands
and, therefore, not alienable. Without receiving evidence, the trial court dismissed the
three (3) cases on the ground that upon the issuance of the free patents on
November 26, 1960, said patents were duly registered in the Office of the Registry of
Deeds of Baguio pursuant to Section 122 of Act 496, as amended, and said
properties became the http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/26402 5 of 9
8/28/2013 6:00 PM
private properties of the defendants under the operation of Section 38 of the Land
Registration Act. The trial court concluded that these titles enjoy the same privileges
4
 and safeguards as the torrens title, and Original Certificates of Title Nos. P-208, P-
209 and P-210 of the defendants are now indefeasible. In its order denying the
motion for reconsideration the trial court said: "On the ground of lack of jurisdiction on
the part of the Director of Lands to dispose of the properties since they are within the
forest zone, the court finds Republic Act No. 3872, to clear this point. Section 1,
amending Section 44 of the Land Act in its second paragraph states: 'A member of
the national cultural minorities who has continuously occupied and cultivated, either
by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of land, whether
disposable or not since July 4, 1955, shall be entitled to the right granted in the
preceding paragraph of this section: PROVIDED, that at the time he files his free
patent application, he is not the owner of any real property secured or disposable
under this provision of the Public Land Law.' The 'preceding paragraph' refers to the
right of a person to have a free patent issued to him, provided he is qualified, which in
this case the Director of Lands has the jurisdiction to dispose, whether the land be
disposable or not. This provision of law, certainly, applies to herein defendants. The
reason for this law is explicit and could very well be seen from its EXPLANATORY
NOTE, which reads: 'Because of the aggresiveness of our more enterprising
Christian brothers in Mindanao, Mountain Province, and other places inhabited by
members of the National Cultural Minorities, there has been an exodus of the poor
and less fortunate non-christians from their ancestral homes during the last ten years
to the fastnesses of the wilderness where they have settled in peace on portions of
agricultural lands, unfortunately, in most cases, within the forest zones. But this is not
the end of the tragedy of the national cultural minorities. Because of the grant of
pasture leases or permits to the more aggressive Christians, these National Cultural
Minorities who have settled in the forest zones for the last ten years have been
harassed and jailed or threatened with harassment and imprisonment. The thesis
behind the additional paragraph to Section 44 of the Public Land Act is to give the
national cultural minorities a fair chance to acquire lands of the public domain.' xxx
xxx xxx It is for this reason that is, to give these national cultural minorities who
were driven from their ancestral abodes, a fair chance to acquire lands of the public
domain , that Republic Act 3872 was passed. This is the new government policy
on liberalization of the free patent provisions of the Public Land Act emphasizing
more consideration to and sympathy on the members of the national cultural
minorities, which our courts of justice must uphold." 15 The trial court assumed
without any factual basis that the private respondents are entitled to the
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/26402 6 of 9 8/28/2013 6:00 PM
benefits of Republic Act 3872. The pertinent provision of Republic Act No. 3872
reads: "SECTION 1. A new paragraph is hereby added to Section 44 of
Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred forty-one, to read as follows: "SEC. 44.
Any natural-born citizen of the Philippine who is not the owner of more than twenty-
four hectares and who since July fourth, nineteen hundred and twenty-six or prior
thereto, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his
predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of agricultural public lands subject to
disposition, or who shall have paid the real estate tax thereon while the same has not
been occupied by any person shall be entitled, under the provisions of this chapter, to
have a free patent issued to him for such tract or tracts of such land not to exceed
twenty-four hectares. "A member of the national cultural minorities who has
continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-
in-interest, a tract or tracts of land, whether disposable or not since July 4, 1955, shall
be entitled to the right granted in the preceding paragraph of this section: Provided,
That at the time he files his free patent application he is not the owner of any real
property secured or disposable under this provision of the Public Land Law." There is
no evidence that the private respondents are members of the National Cultural
Minorities; that they have continuously occupied and cultivated either by themselves
or through their predecessors-in-interest the lands in question since July 4, 1955; and
that they are not the owner of any land secured or disposable under the Public Land
Act at the time they filed the free patent applications. These qualifications must be
established by evidence. Precisely, the intervenor, petitioner herein, claims that it was
in possession of the lands in question when the private respondents applied for free
patents thereon. It was premature for the trial court to rule on whether or not the titles
based on the patents awarded to the private respondents have become indefeasible.
It is well settled that a certificate of title is void when it covers property of public
domain classified as forest or timber and mineral lands. Any title issued on non-
disposable lots even in the hands of alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be
cancelled. 16 In Director of lands vs. Abanzado 17 this Court said: "4. To complete
the picture, reference may be made to the learned and scholarly opinion of Justice
Sanchez in Director of Forestry v. Muoz, a 1968 decision. After a review of
Spanish legislation, he summarized the present state of the law thus: 'If a Spanish
title covering forest land is found to be invalid, that land is public forest land, is part of
the public domain, and cannot be appropriated. Before private interests have
intervened, the government may decide for itself what portions of the public domain
shall be set aside and reserved as forest land. Possession of forest lands, however
long, cannot ripen into private ownership.' Nor is this all. He reiterated the basic state
objective on the matter in clear and penetrating language: 'The view this Court takes
of the cases at bar is but in adherence to public policy that should be followed with
respect to forest lands. Many have written much, and many more have spoken, and
quite often, above the pressing need for forest preservation, conservation, protection,
development and reforestation. Not without justification. For, forests constitute a vital
segment of any country's natural resources. It is of common knowledge by now that
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/26402 7 of 9 8/28/2013 6:00 PM
absence of the necessary green cover on our lands produces a number of adverse or
ill effects of serious proportions. Without the trees, watersheds dry up; rivers and
lakes which they supply are emptied of their contents. The fish disappears. Denuded
areas become dust bowls. As waterfalls cease to function, so will hydroelectric plants.
With the rains, the fertile topsoil is washed away; geological erosion results. With
erosion come the dreaded floods that wreak havoc and destruction to property
5
 crops, livestock, houses and highways not to mention precious human
lives, . . .'." The acquittal of the private respondents in the criminal cases for
falsification is not a bar to the civil cases to cancel their titles. The only issue in the
criminal cases for falsification was whether there was evidence beyond reasonable
doubt that the private respondents had committed the acts of falsification alleged in
the informations. The factual issues of whether or not the lands in question are timber
or mineral lands and whether or not the private respondents are entitled to the
benefits of Republic Act No. 3872 were not in issue in the criminal cases. llcd There
is need to remand these cases to the trial court for the reception of evidence on (1)
whether or not the lands in question are timber and mineral lands; and (2) whether
the private respondents belong to the cultural minorities and are qualified under
Republic Act 3872 to be issued free patents on said lands. WHEREFORE, the order
dismissing Civil Cases Nos. 1968, 1969 and 1970 of the Court of First Instance of
Baguio City is hereby set aside and said cases are remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings, without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Teehankee,
Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio Herrera, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1.
Annex "L", Rollo, pp. 104-106. 2. Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 20-23, Annex "A-1", Rollo, pp.
24-27; and Annex "A-2", Rollo, pp. 28-31. 3. Annex "B", Annex "B-1" and Annex "B-2",
Rollo, pp. 32-47. 4. Annex "C", Annex "C-1" and Annex "C-2", Rollo, pp. 48-54. 5.
Annex "D", Rollo, pp. 55-56. 6. Annex "E", Annex "E-1" and Annex "E-2", Rollo, pp.
57-65. 7. Annex "F-1", Rollo, pp. 68-72. 8. Annex "F-2", Rollo, p. 73. 9. Rollo, p. 105.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/26402 8 of 9 8/28/2013 6:00 PM
10. Annex "H", Rollo, pp. 77-84. 11. Rollo, pp. 105-106. 12. Annexes "M" and "N",
Rollo, pp. 107-117. 13. Annex "O", Rollo, pp. 118-120. 14. Brief for Petitioner, pp. a-b.
15. Annex "O", Rollo, pp. 119-120. 16. Ledesma vs. Municipality of Iloilo, 49 Phil.
769. 17. 65 SCRA 5. 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Click here for our
Disclaimer and Copyright Notice http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/print/26402 9 of
9 8/28/2013 6:00 PM
LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. MANUEL DUMYUNG, GR Nos. L-31666-
68, 1979-04-30
Facts:
The Republic of the Philippines... represented by the Director of Lands... commenced
City Civil Cases... on the ground of misrepresentation and false data and informations
furnished by the defendants
The lands embraced... situated in the... o
Benguet, Mountain Province.Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, petitioner... filed
motions for intervention... which were granted
The complaints in intervention alleged that a portion of the titled lands in question is within the
intervenor's ordinary timber license... and another portion of said lands is... embraced in its
mineral claims.
The plaintiff, Republic... and the intervenor,... filed separate motions for reconsideration of the
order dismissing Civil Cases
Both motions for reconsideration were denied
Issues:
the lands covered by the patents and certificates of title are timber lands and mineral... lands
and, therefore, not alienable.
Ruling:
There is no evidence that the private respondents are members of the National Cultural
Minorities; that they have continuously occupied and cultivated either by themselves or
through their predecessors-in-interest the lands... in question... and that they are not the
owner of any land secured or disposable under the Public Land Act at the time they filed the
free patent applications. These qualifications must be... established by evidence. Precisely,
the intervenor, petitioner herein, claims that it was in possession of the lands in question
when the private respondents applied for free patents thereon.
It is well settled that a certificate of title is void when it covers... property of public domain
classified as forest or timber and mineral lands. Any title issued on non-disposable lots even
in the hands of alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled.
6

REPUBLIC VS BENJAMIN GUERRERO G.R. No. 133168, March 28, 2006 FACTS:
December 1964: Benjamin Guerrerro filed with the Bureau of Lands a Miscellaneous Sales
Application covering a parcel of land situated at Pugad Lawin, Quezon City. This application
was approved and Miscellaneous Sales Patent was issued subsequent thereto. Angelina
Bustamante later filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands claiming that Guerrero obtained the
sales patent through fraud, false statement of facts and/or omission of material facts. This
was however dismissed by the Director of lands and further affirmed by then Minister of
Natural Resources. Through a MFR, an ocular investigation and relocation survey found
out that 83 sq. m. of the titled property of Guerrero is under actual physical possession of
Marcelo Bustamante, husband of Angeluna. Thus, upon the directive of the Office of The
President, the Director of Lands instituted a petition for the amendment of plan and technical
description. Guerrero opposed said motion through a motion to dismiss but however was
dismissed thereafter. However, the RTC ruled in favor of Guerrero stating that the Republic
failed to prove its allegation that Guerrero obtained the sales patent and certificate of title
through fraud and misrepresentation. RTC also ruled that the original certificate of title in the
name of Guerrero acquired the characteristics of indefeasibility after the expiration of 1 year
from the entry of the decree of registration. On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court.
ISSUES: 1. W/N the Republic has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Guerrero
procured Miscellaneous Sales Patent and OCT through fraud and misrepresentation. 2. W/N
Guerreros title acquired the characteristic of indefeasibility. HELD: 1. NO. the property in
question, while once part of the lands of the public domain and disposed of via a
miscellaneous sales arrangement, is now covered by a Torrens certificate. Grants of public
land were brought under the operation of the Torrens system by Act No. 496, or the Land
Registration Act of 1903. Under the Torrens system of registration, the government is required
to issue an official certificate of title to attest to the fact that the person named is the owner of
the property described therein, subject to such liens and encumbrances as thereon noted or
what the law warrants or reserves. Upon its registration, the land falls under the operation of
Act No. 496 and becomes registered land. Time and again, we have said that a Torrens
certificate is evidence of an indefeasible title to property in favor of the person whose name
appears thereon. However, Section 38 of Act No. 496 recognizes the right of a person
deprived of land to institute an action to reopen or revise a decree of registration obtained by
actual fraud. However, the Republic in this case failed to prove that there is actual and
extrinsic fraud to justify a review of the decree. It has not adduced adequate evidence that
would show that respondent employed actual and extrinsic fraud in procuring the patent and
the corresponding certificate of title. Petitioner miserably failed to prove that it was prevented
from asserting its right over the lot in question and from properly presenting its case by
reason of such fraud. 2. YES. Guerreros title, having been registered under the Torrens
system, was vested with th garment of indefeasibility. NB: The Torrens system was adopted in
this country because it was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the
integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is
established and recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the
sellers title thereto is valid, he should not run the risk of being told later that his
acquisition was ineffectual after all. This would not only be unfair to him. What is worse is that
if this were permitted, public confidence in the system would be eroded and land transactions
would have to be attended by complicated and not necessarily conclusive investigations and
proof of ownership. The further consequence would be that land conflicts could be even more
abrasive, if not even violent. The government, recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens
7
system, should be the first to accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once the
conditions laid down by the law are satisfied. While the Torrens system is not a mode of
acquiring titles to lands but merely a system of registration of titles to lands, justice and equity
demand that the titleholder should not be made to bear the unfavorable effect of the mistake
or negligence of the States agents, in the absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or
of manifest damage to third persons. The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to
land and put a stop forever to any question as to the legality of the title, except claims that
were noted in the certificate at the time of the registration or that may arise subsequent
thereto. Otherwise, the integrity of the Torrens system shall forever be sullied by the
ineptitude and inefficiency of land registration officials, who are ordinarily presumed to have
regularly performed their duties.