LAND PATENTS ACTIONS AGAINST IMPROPER OR ILLEGAL ISSUANCE OF PATENTS WHO INSTITUTES REPUBLIC VS. DELA CRUZ G.R.

. No. L-35644 September 30, 1975 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DIRECTOR OF THE COMMISSION OF PARKS AND WILD LIFE, petitioner, vs. HON. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as Judge of CFI Camarines Sur, Naga City, Branch III, ELVIRA C. MEDUA and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CAMARINES SUR, respondents. FACTS: The subject land in this case is Lot 920 of the Pili Cadastre with an area of 1,839.4083 hectares. It is the property actually and officially designated and technically identified in the plans and survey of the cadastral case as Forest Reserve. The property includes the spring sources of the Naga City Water System, the Pili Waterworks, the Relay Station of the Bureau of Telecommunications, wood lands with falls, creeks and streams and other tributaries of the Anayan, Himaao and Binasagan Rivers which supply potable as well as irrigation waters to thousands of farms and farmers in the valley below. According to the petitioner the Lot 920 was and is inalienable and indisposable because it is a part of the Mt. Isarog National Park under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission of Parks and Wildlife, thus could not be the subject matter of cadastral proceedings nor be the subject of acquisition by, and award or decree by the cadastral court in favor of, private individuals such as respondent Medua. The Republic prayed that the decision rendered by the cadastral court and the decree issued on March 1, 1971 be declared null and void ab initio on grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the cadastral court over the land, fraud and lack of authority on the part of the Assistant Commissioner of Land Registration under RA No. 1151 to issue the decree in question. The respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that petitioner's complaint states no cause of action. She contends that the supposed fraud which led to the issuance of the decision and decree in her favor did not constitute extrinsic but intrinsic fraud. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent and granted the Motion to Dismiss. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in granting the Motion to Dismiss filed by respondent Medua HELD: YES The respondent courts order of dismissing the case filed by the Republic is to completely box out the latters petition for any recourse for the recovery or reversion of the subject lot that it claims as inalienable being a public land. The respondent court dismisses the Republic's separate action because of being prematurely filed since the 1 year period given by Act 496 has not yet lapsed yet it knows that the petition for review or reopening previously filed by the Republic can no longer be prosecuted due to its having granted the Republic's motion for withdrawal thereof precisely by virtue of its filing of the present separate action. It is a settled matter that the Republic has the right to revert and recover inalienable land of the public domain which has been obtained by a person. Titles issued to private parties by the Bureau of Lands when the land covered thereby is not disposable public land but forest land are void ab initio. The Court stressed therein that "A patent is void at law if the officer who issued the patent had no authority to do so .... If a person obtains a title under the Public Land Act which includes, by mistake or oversight, lands which cannot be registered under the Torrens System, or when the Director of Lands did not have jurisdiction over the same because it is public forest, the grantee does not, by virtue of said certificate of title alone, become the owner of the land illegally included." The Republic is therefore clearly entitled to a trial and if it substantiates its factual allegations at the trial, it would be duly entitled to a judgment that the decision and decree issued in the cadastral proceeding over Lot 920, which is part of a national park and inalienable land of the public domain, are null and void ab initio.