Republic v CA and Ceferino Paredes, Jr. GR No. 112115, March 9, 2001

Facts:

Respondent Paredes appeared to have purchased a certain parcel of land of which he applied for a free patent. His application was approved and was issued with a Free Patent and an OCT on May 1, 1976. On June 27, 1984 theSangguniang Bayan adopted a resolution undertaking the assistance of the Municipality of San Francisco to recover possession of the land as it was averred to have been designated by the Bureau of Lands as a school site for the San Francisco Town Site Reservation, long before title to it was issued in private respondent's name. They also questioned the claim of the respondent to have posted his application for free patent on the door of their Municipal Hall because if he did they would have filed an opposition thereto. The Bureau of Lands filed the necessary action on their behalf for the recovery of the land, cancellation of the free patent title under the respondent’s name and the reversion of the land to the public domain. It also amended its complaint to include the Development Bank of the Philippines as respondent where Paredes had mortgaged the property.

Trial court decision: Declared the title of Paredes null and void and ordered the cancellation of his patent title and ordered both Paredes and DBP to surrender the OCT to the Register of Deeds and the cancellation of the same. On DBPs cross-claim that it was a purchaser for value in good faith, the court ordered Paredes to pay DBP the outstanding balance of its loan.

CA decision: Reversed the trial court decision hence this petition with the following issues raised by the petitioner:

Issue:

Whether or not the free patent title issued to respondent is contrary to the Free Patent Law?

Whether or not Paredes caused misrepresentation and fraud on his application for the free patent?

Ruling:

Proclamation No. 366 classified certain agricultural lands in Mindanao as alienable and disposable which qualified individuals may only acquire by purchase or homestead. Respondent acquired the land by a free patent and not according to the mode of acquisition provided by the Proclamation. There are distinct differences between a homestead patent and a free patent although both are patents granted by the Public Land Act. Homestead patent requires that the applicant must have complied with the residence and cultivation requirements of the law and residing continuously to the property for at least 1 year in the municipality where the land is located. Free patent requires that the applicant must have continuously occupied and cultivated either by himself or his predecessors-in-interest an agricultural public land for at least 30 years and the same has not been occupied by any person. On this ground alone, the SC finds reason to nullify the title of the respondents.

Moreover, the SC also noted that it is beyond dispute that the land was reserved as a school site before the issuance of the patent of the respondents. It also points out that the respondent is aware that the occupation of his predecessor-in-interest, Almario Garay, on said land was disturbed by the attempt of the government to construct a school building thereon but this was prevented when he sought the help of an attorney to prevent the encroachment made upon the property and such was reserved to be designated as a school site. Respondent did not disclose this fact upon filing his application and stated therein that the property is not claimed or occupied by any other person, it is unreserved and unappropriated. This was construed by the SC to be a misrepresentation, fraud and deceit on the part of the respondent. The petitioner also sufficiently established through their resolution that the respondent did not post his application to the Municipal building as attested by the acting mayor of their municipality. Otherwise the state would have filed their opposition to assert that the property in dispute is designated as a school site.

The court also ruled that the respondent cannot invoke estoppel against the petitioner because although the respondent acquired its title without any opposition from the government, the latter is not estopped to question the validity of his certificate of title because the principle of estoppel does not operate against the State.

SC set aside the CA decision and reinstated the trial court’s decision.