G.R. No.

133168 March 28, 2006

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
BENJAMIN GUERRERO, Respondent

Facts:
 Petition for review to set aside the CA’s decision of affirming the RTC’s decision regarding the
“Petition for Amendment of Plan and Technical Description of Original Certificate of Title No. 0-28
in the name of Benjamin Guerrero, Registry of Deeds of Quezon City."
 Sometime in December 1964 - respondent Benjamin Guerrero filed with the Bureau of Lands
(now Lands Management Bureau) a Miscellaneous Sales Application No. V-83191 covering a
parcel of land situated at Pugad Lawin, Quezon City, consisting of 256 square meters
 Upon favorable report and recommendation of the District Land Officer, Guerrero’s application was
approved
 boundaries of the land awarded specified as follows: N-Lot No. 10-C, Psd-37801; S-Culiat
Creek; E-Road; and W-Public Land. A sketch of the land awarded is contained at the back of the
Order of Award.
 August 16, 1982 - Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 8991 was issued in favor of respondent
 August 27, 1982 - corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. 0-28 was issued
 July 29, 1983 - Angelina Bustamante filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands claiming that
respondent obtained the sales patent through fraud, false statement of facts and/or omission of
material facts considering that 174 square meters awarded to respondent covered the land where
her house is situated and where she has been residing since 1961
 July 22, 1985 - formal investigation was conducted by the Bureau of Lands, after which the
Director of Lands issued an order dismissing the protest of Angelina Z. Bustamante. The dismissal
of the protest was affirmed by the then Minister of Natural Resources and by the Office of the
President.
 October 30, 1987 - Bustamante filed a motion for reconsideration so the President ordered that the
case be remanded to the DENR [Department of Environment and Natural Resources] for the
latter’s office to conduct an ocular investigation and resurvey of the disputed area.
 an ocular investigation and relocation survey was conducted by the DENR. Reports found: 83
square meters of the titled property of Guerrero consisting of 174 square meters is under ACTUAL
PHYSICAL POSSESSION of Marcelo Bustamante (husband of Angelina Bustamante) with only 91
square meters under the physical possession of Guerrero. It was also found out that OCT No. 0-28
is supposed to be traversed by a road 3 meters wide.
 January 10, 1989 - Office of the President, upon receipt of the [DENR] Ocular Investigation and
Relocation Survey Report issued an order directing the DENR to implement the … Report for the
‘proper correction’ of the technical description of the land covered by OCT No. 0-28 issued to
respondent.
 November 7, 1989 - Director of Lands [on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines] instituted the
instant action [Petition for Amendment of Plan and Technical Description of OCT No. 0-28 in the
name of Benjamin Guerrero
 April 6, 1990 - respondent] Benjamin Guerrero filed a motion to dismiss the petition
 July 8, 1992 - lower court denied the said motion to dismiss for lack of merit
 July 13, 1995 - RTC, on the postulate that petitioner Republic failed to prove its allegation that
respondent obtained the sales patent and the certificate of title through fraud and
misrepresentation, rendered judgment finding for the latter. The trial court likewise ruled that the
original certificate of title (OCT No. 0-28) in the name of respondent acquired the characteristics of
indefeasibility after the expiration of one (1) year from the entry of the decree of registration
 February 12, 1998 – CA affirmed the RTC’s decision in favor of the respondent.
ISSUES:
1. WON, petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that respondent procured
Miscellaneous Sales Patent (MSP) No. 8991 and OCT No. 0-28 through fraud and
misrepresentation.
HELD:
“petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed decision is AFFIRMED.”
1. No.
 Petitioner fails to convince the Court that the facts relied upon by it to justify a review of the
decree constitute actual and extrinsic fraud.
 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
 petitioner did not specifically allege how fraud was perpetrated by respondent in procuring
the sales patent and the certificate of title. Nor was any evidence proffered to substantiate
the allegation. Fraud cannot be presumed, and the failure of petitioner to prove it defeats it
own cause.
 the law requires that fraud be established, not just by preponderance of evidence, but by
clear and convincing evidence
 There was no proof that the area eventually awarded to respondent was intentionally and
fraudulently increased. It was never proven that respondent was a party to any fraud that
led to the award of a bigger area of 174 square meters instead of 91 square meters.
 Petitioner even failed to give sufficient proof of any error which may have been committed
by its agents who had surveyed the subject property nor had petitioner offered a sensible
explanation as to the reason for such discrepancy
 Presumption Of Regularity in the performance of official functions must be
respected.
 In the instant case, records reveal that on December 22, 1964, a day after respondent filed
his miscellaneous sales application, an actual investigation and site verification of the parcel of
land was conducted by Land Investigator Alfonso Tumbocon who reported that the land was
free from claims and conflicts. Likewise, the notice of sale of the lot in question was
posted at the District Land Office in San Miguel, Manila, at the Quezon City Hall, and at Pugad
Lawin, Quezon City for 30 consecutive days from February 17, 1965 to March 17, 1965 which
was the date scheduled for the sale of the lot. The said notice was worded as follows:
If there is any adverse claim to the land, such claim must be filed at the Bureau of Lands,
Manila on or before the date of the sale; otherwise such claim shall forever be barred.

 Order of Award" dated May 20, 1971, as well as the "Issuance of Patent"27 dated June 28,
1982 were both duly signed by the Director of Lands. The "Order of Award" even declared that
Guerrero has in good faith established his residence on the land in question.
 the "Issuance of Patent" stated that the land consisting of 174 square meters is free from any
adverse claim and that Guerrero has fully paid the purchase price of the lot.
 Having complied with all the requirements of the law preliminary to the issuance of the patent,
respondent was thus issued MSP No. 8991 dated August 16, 1982. Thereafter, the
corresponding OCT No. 0-28 was issued on August 27, 1982 in the name of respondent
Guerrero.
 To overturn this legal presumption will not only endanger judicial stability, but also violate the
underlying principle of the Torrens system
 Under Section 38 of Act No. 496, a petition for reopening and review of the decree of
registration must be filed within one year from the date of entry of said decree. Public land
grants or patents, the one-year period commences from the issuance of the patent by the
government.
 sales patent was issued to respondent on August 16, 1982, while petitioner
instituted an action to amend respondent’s certificate of title on November 7, 1989
or after the lapse of more than seven (7) years from the issuance of the patent.
Clearly, petitioner failed to timely avail of the remedy to contest Guerrero’s
title.

 Petitioner may still bring an action, even after the lapse of one year, for the reversion to the
public domain of lands which have been fraudulently granted to private individuals.
 However, In the present case, petitioner cannot successfully invoke this defense of
prescription since it was never proven that respondent’s patent and title were
obtained through actual fraud or other illegal means.
  As to Angelina, she indeed protested within one year but she filed the action with Bureau of
Lands instead of RTC. It is stated in the provision that all contest should be filed with the RTC
for the purpose of achieving a more in-depth and thorough determination of all issues involved.
 It was only on November 7, 1989 that such petition was filed by the Director of
Lands with the RTC and obviously, it was way beyond the one-year period
prescribed by law.
 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.
 Respondent’s certificate of title, having been registered under the Torrens system, was thus
vested with the garment of indefeasibility.

Additional information about FRAUD:

2 Kinds: Either be:
Actual or positive fraud Constructive fraud intrinsic extrinsic
 proceeds from an  detrimental effect upon * fraudulent acts * deprive parties of their day
intentional deception public interests and public pertain to an issue in court and thus prevent
practiced by means of the or private confidence, even involved in the them from asserting their
misrepresentation or though the act is not done original action, or right to the property
concealment of a material with an actual design to where the acts registered in the name of the
fact. commit positive fraud or constituting the fraud applicant.
injury upon other persons. were or could have
been litigated therein

 only actual and extrinsic fraud had been accepted and is contemplated by the law as a ground
to review or reopen a decree of registration