Francisco Baguio v RP, GR No. 119682, January 21, 1999 (301 SCRA 450)

"Free Patent"

Facts:

William Michael filed with the Bureau of Lands an application for foreshore lease of a public land. The application was recommended for approval by the land investigator who also recommended that the applicant be granted a provisional permit to occupy the land for one year. By virtue of the permit, Michael made reclamation of the land introducing improvements therein. Upon the expiration of the permit the Highways District Engineer recommended to the Director of Lands that the land be leased to Michael. On the other hand, the land investigator recommended granting Michael the authority to survey the foreshore land in view of the completion of the reclamation made by him on the premises. On February 25, 1968, Michael filed a miscellaneous sales application covering the reclaimed foreshore land. On the other hand, petitioner Baguio applied to the Bureau of Lands for a free patent over the same land stating that the land was agricultural and he has been in actual and continuous possession of the same. A free patent was issued in Baguio’s favor by the Register of Deeds of Cebu. The petitioner now demands rental payment from Michael for using the land occupied by Michael Slipways, Inc. and filed an opposition to Michael’s miscellaneous sales application on the said land. In turn, Michael filed a protest on the issuance of the free patent to Baguio by the Bureau of Lands since he is the actual possessor of the land since 1963 and introduced substantial improvement thereon.

Upon recommendation of the Land Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the government filed a petition for the cancellation of the patent and reversion of land to the public domain. Ricardo Michael was allowed to intervene as heir and successor-in-interest of William Michael. The trial court cancelled the free patent of Baguio and ordered the reversion of the land to public domain. It ruled that the false statement that Baguio made in his application for free patent had the effects of ipso facto canceling the free patent granted to him. On appeal, petitioner assails the court decision of cancelling his patent since the action has already prescribed and that it erred in ruling that he acted in bad faith and procured the registration of his free patent through fraud and misrepresentation.