G.R. No.

184746 August 8, 2012

SPOUSES CRISPIN GALANG and CARlOA GALANG, Petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES CONRAO S. RE!ES AN "E E #AS$RO RE!ES %As su&st'tut(d &) t*('+
l(gal *('+, -(+.(n'g'ldo #. R()(s/, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
0ENO1A, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 4 see!s to reverse and set aside the "pril #,
$%%& Decision
'
of the Court of "ppeals (CA) and its Octo(er ), $%%& Resolution,
$
in C"*+.R.
C,. No. &))%.
$*( "a2ts
On Septe-(er 4, '##., spouses Conrado S. Re/es and 0e de 1astro Re/es (the Reyeses) filed a
case for the annul-ent of Ori2inal Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P*#$& a2ainst spouses Crispin
and Caridad +alan2 (the Galangs) with the Re2ional Trial Court, "ntipolo, Ri3al
(RTC),doc!eted as Civil Case No. #.*4)%.
In their Co-plaint,
4
the Re/eses alle2ed that the/ owned two properties5 6'7 a su(division pro8ect
!nown as Ponderosa 9ei2hts Su(division (Ponderosa), and 6$7 an ad8oinin2 propert/ covered (/
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. '&$$, with an area of ',$%' s:.-.;
4
that the properties
were separated (/ the <ari2-an Cree!, which dried up so-eti-e in '#&% when it chan2ed its
course and passed throu2h Ponderosa; that the +alan2s, (/ e-plo/in2 -anipulation and fraud,
were a(le to o(tain a certificate of title over the dried up cree! (ed fro- the Depart-ent of
Environ-ent and Natural Resources (DENR), throu2h its Provincial Office (PENRO); that,
specificall/, the propert/ was deno-inated as =ot .4, Cad $# E>t., Case*', with an area of
',.4 s:.-. covered (/ OCT No. P*#$&; that the/ discovered the e>istence of the certificate of
title so-eti-e in <arch '##. when their careta!er, 0ederico Enteroso (Enteroso), infor-ed the-
that the su(8ect propert/ had (een fraudulentl/ titled in the na-es of the +alan2s; that in '#&4,
prior to such discover/, Enteroso applied for the titlin2 of the propert/, as he had (een occup/in2
it since '#)& and had (uilt his house on it; that, later, Enteroso re:uested the- to continue the
application (ecause of financial constraints on his part;

that the/ continued the application, (ut

later learned that the application papers were lost in the "ssessor?s Office;
)
and that as the
owners of the land where the new course of water passed, the/ are entitled to the ownership of
the propert/ to co-pensate the- for the loss of the land (ein2 occupied (/ the new cree!.
The +alan2s in their "nswer
.
denied that the land su(8ect of the co-plaint was part of a cree!
and countered that OCT No. P*#$& was issued to the- after the/ had co-plied with the free
patent re:uire-ents of the DENR, throu2h the PENRO; that the/ and their predecessor*in*
interest had (een in possession, occupation, cultivation, and ownership of the land for :uite so-e
ti-e; that the propert/ descri(ed under TCT No. '&$$ (elon2ed to "polonio +alan2, their
predecessor*in*interest, under OCT No. 4##'; that the propert/ was transferred in the na-es of
the Re/eses throu2h falsified docu-ent;
&
that assu-in2 ex gratia argumenti that the cree! had
indeed chan2ed its course and passed throu2h Ponderosa, the Re/eses had alread/ clai-ed for
the-selves the portion of the dried cree! which ad8oined and co*e>isted with their propert/; that
Enteroso was a(le to occup/ a portion of their land (/ -eans of force, coercion, -achinations,
and stealth in '#&'; that such unlawful entr/ was then the su(8ect of an "ccion Pu(liciana (efore
the RTC of "ntipolo Cit/ 6@ranch .$7; and that at the ti-e of the filin2 of the Co-plaint, the
-atter was still su(8ect of an appeal (efore the C", under C"*+.R. C, No. 4%#.
The RTC Decision
In its Decision,
#
dated Aul/ '), $%%4, the RTC dis-issed the co-plaint for lac! of cause of action
and for (ein2 an erroneous re-ed/. The RTC stated that a title issued upon a patent -a/ (e
annulled onl/ on 2rounds of actual and intrinsic fraud, which -uch consist of an intentional
o-ission of fact re:uired (/ law to (e stated in the application or willful state-ent of a clai-
a2ainst the truth. In the case (efore the trial court, the Re/eses presented no evidence of fraud
despite their alle2ations that the +alan2s were not in possession of the propert/ and that it was
part of a dried cree!. There (ein2 no evidence, these contentions re-ained alle2ations and could
not defeat the title of the +alan2s. The RTC wrote5
" title issued upon patent -a/ (e annulled onl/ on 2round of actual fraud.
Such fraud -ust consist of an intentional o-ission of fact re:uired (/ law to (e stated in the
application or willful state-ent of a clai- a2ainst the truth. It -ust show so-e specific facts
intended to deceive and deprive another of his ri2ht. The fraud -ust (e actual and intrinsic, not
-erel/ constructive or intrinsic; the evidence thereof -ust (e clear, convincin2 and -ore than
-erel/ preponderant, (ecause the proceedin2s which are (ein2 assailed as havin2 (een
fraudulent are 8udicial proceedin2s, which (/ law, are presu-ed to have (een fair and re2ular.
6=i(udan v. Pal-a +il 4 SCR" '.7
9owever, aside fro- alle2ations that defendant +alan2 is not in possession of the propert/ and
that the propert/ was part of a dried cree!, no other sufficient evidence of fraud was presented (/
the plaintiffs. The/ have, thus, re-ained alle2ations, which cannot defeat the defendants title.
'%
The RTC added that the land, havin2 (een ac:uired throu2h a ho-estead patent, was presu-a(l/
pu(lic land. Therefore, onl/ the State can institute an action for the annul-ent of the title
coverin2 it.
It further opined that (ecause the Re/eses clai-ed to have ac:uired the propert/ (/ ri2ht of
accretion, the/ should have filed an action for reconve/ance, e>plainin2 Bthat the re-ed/ of
persons whose propert/ had (een wron2l/ or erroneousl/ re2istered in another?s na-e is not to
set aside the decreeCtitle, (ut an action for reconve/ance, or if the propert/ has passed into the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value, an action for da-a2es.B
''
The Court of Appeals Decision
In its Decision, dated "pril #, $%%&, the C" reversed and set aside the RTC decision and ordered
the cancellation of OCT No. P*#$& and the reconve/ance of the land to the Re/eses.
The C" found that the Re/eses had proven (/ preponderance of evidence that the su(8ect land
was a portion of the cree! (ed that was a(andoned throu2h the natural chan2e in the course of
the water, which had now traversed a portion of Ponderosa. "s owners of the land occupied (/
the new course of the cree!, the Re/eses had (eco-e the owners of the a(andoned cree! (ed
iso !a"to. Inas-uch as the su(8ect land had (eco-e private, a free patent issued over it was null
and void and produced no le2al effect whatsoever. A osteriori, the free patent coverin2 the
su(8ect land, a private land, and the certificate of title issued pursuant thereto, are null and void.
'$
The +alan2s -oved for a reconsideration,
'4
(ut their -otion was denied in a Resolution dated
Octo(er ), $%%&.
9ence, this petition.
Issu(s
The +alan2s present, as warrantin2 a review of the :uestioned C" decision, the followin2
2rounds5
$-E -ONORA3LE COUR$ O" APPEALS CO00I$$E GRA4E A3USE O"
ISCRE$ION A0OUN$ING $O LAC# O" 5URISIC$ION IN NO$ RESOL4ING
$-A$ $-E O""ICE O" $-E SOLICI$OR GENERAL, NO$ $-E PRI4A$E
RESPONEN$S, -AS $-E SOLE AU$-ORI$! $O "ILE 6CASES "OR7
ANNUL0EN$ O" $I$LE IN4OL4ING PU3LIC LAN.
$-E -ONORA3LE COUR$ O" APPEALS CO00I$$E GRA4E A3USE O"
ISCRE$ION A0OUN$ING $O LAC# O" 5URISIC$ION IN -OLING $-A$
PRI4A$E RESPONEN$S -A4E A CAUSE O" AC$ION AGAINS$ PE$I$IONERS
E4EN 8I$-OU$ E9-AUS$ION O" A0INIS$RA$I4E RE0EIES.
$-E -ONORA3LE COUR$ O" APPEALS CO00I$$E GRA4E A3USE O"
ISCRE$ION A0OUN$ING $O LAC# O" 5URISIC$ION IN E4IA$ING "RO0
$-E "ININGS O" "AC$ O" $-E $RIAL COUR$ AN IN$ERPRE$ING AR$ICLE
420 IN RELA$ION $O AR$ICLE 461 O" $-E CI4IL COE O" $-E P-ILIPPINES 3!
SU3S$I$U$ING I$S O8N OPINION 3ASE ON ASSU0P$ION O" "AC$S.
'4
" readin2 of the records discloses that these can (e s/nthesi3ed into two principal issues, to wit5
6'7 whether the Re/eses can file the present action for annul-ent of a free patent title and
reconve/ance; and 6$7 if the/ can, whether the/ were a(le to prove their cause of action a2ainst
the +alan2s.
$*( Cou+t:s Rul'ng
Re2ardin2 the first issue, the +alan2s state that the propert/ was for-erl/ a pu(lic land, titled in
their na-es (/ virtue of 0ree Patent No. %4&%$*#)*$&4. issued (/ the DENR. Thus, the/ posit
that the Re/eses do not have the personalit/ and authorit/ to institute an/ action for annul-ent of
title (ecause such authorit/ is vested in the Repu(lic of the Philippines, throu2h the Office of the
Solicitor +eneral.
'
In this re2ard, the +alan2s are -ista!en. The action filed (/ the Re/eses see!s the transfer to
their na-es of the title re2istered in the na-es of the +alan2s. In their Co-plaint, the/ alle2ed
that5 first, the/ are the owners of the land, (ein2 the owners of the properties throu2h which the
<ari2-an cree! passed when it chan2ed its course; and second, the +alan2s ille2all/
dispossessed the- (/ havin2 the sa-e propert/ re2istered in their na-es. It was not an action for
reversion which re:uires that the State (e the one to initiate the action in order for it to prosper.
The distinction (etween the two actions was elucidated in the case of #eirs o! $ionisala v% #eirs
o! Da"ut,
')
where it was written5
An o+d'na+) 2';'l a2t'on <o+ d(2la+at'on o< null't) o< <+(( =at(nts and 2(+t'<'2at(s o< t'tl( 's
not t*( sa.( as an a2t'on <o+ +(;(+s'on. The difference (etween the- lies in the alle2ations as
to the character of ownership of the realt/ whose title is sou2ht to (e nullified. In an a2t'on <o+
+(;(+s'on, t*( =(+t'n(nt all(gat'ons 'n t*( 2o.=la'nt >ould ad.'t Stat( o>n(+s*'= o< t*(
d's=ut(d land. 9ence in Ga&ila v% 'arriga where the plaintiff in his co-plaint ad-its that he has
no ri2ht to de-and the cancellation or a-end-ent of the defendant?s title (ecause even if the
title were cancelled or a-ended the ownership of the land e-(raced therein or of the portion
affected (/ the a-end-ent would revert to the pu(lic do-ain, we ruled that the action was for
reversion and that the onl/ person or entit/ entitled to relief would (e the Director of =ands.
On the other hand, a 2aus( o< a2t'on <o+ d(2la+at'on o< null't) o< <+(( =at(nt and 2(+t'<'2at( o<
t'tl( >ould +(?u'+( all(gat'ons o< t*( =la'nt'<<:s o>n(+s*'= o< t*( 2ont(st(d lot =+'o+ to t*(
'ssuan2( o< su2* <+(( =at(nt and 2(+t'<'2at( o< t'tl( as >(ll as t*( d(<(ndant:s <+aud o+
.'sta@(A as t*( 2as( .a) &(, 'n su22(ss<ull) o&ta'n'ng t*(s( do2u.(nts o< t'tl( o;(+ t*(
=a+2(l o< land 2la'.(d &) =la'nt'<<. In such a case, the nullit/ arises strictl/ not fro- the fraud
or deceit (ut fro- the fact that the land is (e/ond the 8urisdiction of the @ureau of =ands to
(estow and whatever patent or certificate of title o(tained therefor is conse:uentl/ void a( initio.
$*( +(al =a+t) 'n 'nt(+(st 's not t*( Stat( &ut t*( =la'nt'<< >*o all(g(s a =+(B(C'st'ng +'g*t o<
o>n(+s*'= o;(+ t*( =a+2(l o< land 'n ?u(st'on (;(n &(<o+( t*( g+ant o< t'tl( to t*( d(<(ndant.
In #eirs o! (ar"iano Nagano v% Court o! Aeals we ruled D
> > > > fro- the alle2ations in the co-plaint > > > private respondents clai- ownership of the
$,$% s:uare -eter portion for havin2 possessed it in the concept of an owner, openl/,
peacefull/, pu(licl/, continuousl/ and adversel/ since '#$%. This clai- is an assertion that the lot
is private land > > > > Conse:uentl/, -erel/ on the (asis of the alle2ations in the co-plaint, the
lot in :uestion is apparentl/ (e/ond the 8urisdiction of the Director of the @ureau of =ands and
could not (e the su(8ect of a 0ree Patent. 9ence, the dis-issal of private respondents? co-plaint
was pre-ature and trial on the -erits should have (een conducted to thresh out evidentiar/
-atters. It would have (een entirel/ different if the action were clearl/ for reversion, in which
case, it would have to (e instituted (/ the Solicitor +eneral pursuant to Section '%' of C.". No.
'4' > > > >
It is o(vious that private respondents alle2e in their co-plaint all the facts necessar/ to see! the
nullification of the free patents as well as the certificates of title coverin2 =ot '%' and =ot '%'..
Clearl/, the/ are the real parties in interest in li2ht of their alle2ations that the/ have alwa/s (een
the owners and possessors of the two 6$7 parcels of land even prior to the issuance of the
docu-ents of title in petitioners? favor, hence the latter could onl/ have co--itted fraud in
securin2 the- D
> > > > That plaintiffs are a(solute and e>clusive owners and in actual possession and cultivation
of two parcels of a2ricultural lands herein particularl/ descri(ed as follows Etechnical description
of =ot '%'. and =ot '%' > > > > 4. That plaintiffs (eca-e a(solute and e>clusive owners of the
a(ovesaid parcels of land (/ virtue of inheritance fro- their late father, 9onorio Dacut, who in
turn ac:uired the sa-e fro- a certain @lasito Facapin and fro- then on was in possession
thereof e>clusivel/, adversel/ and in the concept of owner for -ore than thirt/ 64%7 /ears > > > >
4. That recentl/, plaintiff discovered that defendants, without the !nowled2e and consent of the
for-er, fraudulentl/ applied for patent the said parcels of land and as a result thereof certificates
of titles had (een issued to the- as evidenced (/ certificate of title No. P*'#&'# in the na-e of
the 9rs. of "-(rocio 1ionisala, and No. P* $%$$# in the na-e of Isa(el 1ionisala > > > > . That
the patents issued to defendants are null and void, the sa-e havin2 (een issued fraudulentl/,
defendants not havin2 (een andCor in actual possession of the liti2ated properties and the
state-ent the/ -a/ have -ade in their application are false and without (asis in fact, and, the
Depart-ent of Environ-ent and Natural Resources not havin2 an/ 8urisdiction on the properties
the sa-e not (ein2 an/-ore pu(lic (ut alread/ private propert/ > > > >
It is not essential for private respondents to specificall/ state in the co-plaint the actual date
when the/ (eca-e owners and possessors of =ot '%' and =ot '%'.. The alle2ations to the effect
that the/ were so precedin2 the issuance of the free patents and the certificates of title, i.e., Bthe
Depart-ent of Environ-ent and Natural Resources not havin2 an/ 8urisdiction on the properties
the sa-e not (ein2 an/-ore pu(lic (ut alread/ private propert/,B are un:uestiona(l/ ade:uate as
a -atter of pleadin2 to oust the State of 8urisdiction to 2rant the lots in :uestion to petitioners. If
at all, the oversi2ht in not alle2in2 the actual date when private respondents? ownership thereof
accrued reflects a -ere deficienc/ in details which does not a-ount to a failure to state a cause
of action. The re-ed/ for such deficienc/ would not (e a -otion to dis-iss (ut a -otion for (ill
of particulars so as to ena(le the filin2 of appropriate responsive pleadin2s.
Gith respect to the purported cause of action for +(2on;()an2(, it is settled that in this !ind of
action the free patent and the certificate of title are respected as incontroverti(le. 8*at 's soug*t
'nst(ad 's t*( t+ans<(+ o< t*( =+o=(+t), 'n t*'s 2as( t*( t'tl( t*(+(o<, >*'2* *as &((n
>+ong<ull) o+ (++on(ousl) +(g'st(+(d 'n t*( d(<(ndant:s na.(. All t*at .ust &( all(g(d 'n
t*( 2o.=la'nt a+( t>o %2/ <a2ts >*'2* ad.'tt'ng t*(. to &( t+u( >ould (nt'tl( t*( =la'nt'<<
to +(2o;(+ t'tl( to t*( d's=ut(d land, na.(l), %1/ t*at t*( =la'nt'<< >as t*( o>n(+ o< t*( land
and, %2/ t*at t*( d(<(ndant *ad 'll(gall) d's=oss(ss(d *'. o< t*( sa.(.
Ge rule that private respondents have sufficientl/ pleaded 6in addition to the cause of action for
declaration of free patents and certificates of title7 an action for reconve/ance, -ore specificall/,
one which is (ased on i-plied trust. "n i-plied trust arises where the defendant 6or in this case
petitioners7 alle2edl/ ac:uires the disputed propert/ throu2h -ista!e or fraud so that he 6or the/7
would (e (ound to hold and reconve/ the propert/ for the (enefit of the person who is trul/
entitled to it. In the co-plaint, private respondents clearl/ assert that the/ have lon2 (een the
a(solute and e>clusive owners and in actual possession and cultivation of =ot '%' and =ot '%'.
and that the/ were fraudulentl/ deprived of ownership thereof when petitioners o(tained free
patents and certificates of title in their na-es. These alle2ations certainl/ -easure up to the
re:uisite state-ent of facts to constitute an action for reconve/ance.
'.
EE-phases suppliedH
In this case, the co-plaint instituted (/ the Re/eses (efore the RTC was for the annul-ent of the
title issued to the +alan2s, and not for reversion. Thus, the real part/ in interest here is not the
State (ut the Re/eses who clai- a ri2ht of ownership over the propert/ in :uestion even (efore
the issuance of a title in favor of the +alan2s. "lthou2h the Re/eses have the ri2ht to file an
action for reconve/ance, the/ have failed to prove their case. Thus, on the second issue, the
Court a2rees with the RTC that the Re/eses failed to adduce su(stantial evidence to esta(lish
their alle2ation that the +alan2s had fraudulentl/ re2istered the su(8ect propert/ in their na-es.
The C" reversed the RTC decision 2ivin2 the reason that the propert/ was the for-er (ed of
<ari2-an Cree!, which chan2ed its course and passed throu2h their Ponderosa propert/, thus,
ownership of the su(8ect propert/ was auto-aticall/ vested in the-.
The law in this re2ard is covered (/ "rticle 4)' of the Civil Code, which provides5
"rt. 4)'. River (eds which are a(andoned throu2h the natural chan2e in the course of the waters
ipso facto (elon2 to the owners whose lands are occupied (/ the new course in proportion to the
area lost. 9owever, the owners of the lands ad8oinin2 the old (ed shall have the ri2ht to ac:uire
the sa-e (/ pa/in2 the value thereof, which value shall not e>ceed the value of the area occupied
(/ the new (ed.
If indeed a propert/ was the for-er (ed of a cree! that chan2ed its course and passed throu2h the
propert/ of the clai-ant, then, pursuant to "rticle 4)', the ownership of the old (ed left to dr/ (/
the chan2e of course was automati"ally ac:uired (/ the clai-ant.
'&
@efore such a conclusion can
(e reached, the fact of natural a(andon-ent of the old course -ust (e shown, that is, it -ust (e
proven that the cree! indeed chan2ed its course without artificial or -an*-ade intervention.
Thus, the clai-ant, in this case the Re/eses, -ust prove three !e/ ele-ents (/ clear and
convincin2 evidence. These are5 6'7 the old course of the cree!, 6$7 the ne) course of the cree!,
and 647 the chan2e of course of the cree! fro- the old location to the new location (/ natural
occurrence.
In this re2ard, the Re/eses failed to adduce indu(ita(le evidence to prove the old "ourse, its
natural a&andonment and the ne) "ourse. In the face of a Torrens title issued (/ the 2overn-ent,
which is presu-ed to have (een re2ularl/ issued, the evidence of the Re/eses was clearl/
wantin2. Incorro(orated testi-onial evidence will not suffice to convince the Court to order the
reconve/ance of the propert/ to the-. This failure did not escape the o(servation of the Office of
the Solicitor +eneral. Thus, it co--ented5
In the case at (ar, it is not 2l(a+ >*(t*(+ o+ not t*( 0a+'g.an C+((@ d+'(dBu= natu+all) &a2@
'n 1D80. Neither did private respondents su(-it an/ findin2s or report fro- the @ureau of =ands
or the DENR Re2ional E>ecutive Director, who has the 8urisdiction over the su(8ect lot,
re2ardin2 the natu+( o< 2*ang( 'n t*( 2ou+s( o< t*( 2+((@:s >at(+s. Gorse, what is even
un2(+ta'n in the present case is the (Ca2t lo2at'on of the su(8ect -atter of dispute. This is
evident fro- the decision of the Re2ional Trial Court which failed to specif/ which portion of
the land is actuall/ (ein2 disputed (/ the contendin2 parties.
>>>
Since the propriet/ of the re-ed/ ta!en (/ private respondents in the trial court and their le2al
personalit/ to file the aforesaid action depends on whether or not the liti2ated propert/ in the
present case still for-s part of the pu(lic do-ain, or had alread/ (een converted into a private
land, t*( 'd(nt'<'2at'on o< t*( a2tual =o+t'on o< t*( land su&E(2t o< t*( 2ont+o;(+s) &(2o.(s
n(2(ssa+) and 'nd's=(nsa&l( in decidin2 the issues herein involved.
>>>
Nota(l/, private respondents failed to su(-it durin2 trial an/ convincin2 proof of a si-ilar
declaration (/ the 2overn-ent that a portion of the <ari2-an Cree! had alread/ dried*up and
that the sa-e is alread/ considered aliena(le and disposa(le a2ricultural land which the/ could
ac:uire throu2h ac:uisitive prescription.
Indeed, a thorou2h investi2ation is ver/ i-perative in the li2ht of the conflictin2 factual issues as
to the character and actual location of the propert/ in dispute. These factual issues could properl/
(e resolved (/ the DENR and the =and <ana2e-ent @ureau, which have the authorit/ to do so
and have the dut/ to carr/ out the provisions of the Pu(lic =and "ct, after (oth parties have (een
full/ 2iven the chance to present all their evidence.
'#
EE-phases suppliedH
<oreover, durin2 cross*e>a-ination, Conrado S. Re/es ad-itted that the plan surve/ed for 0e de
Castro Re/es and Aose de Castro, -ar!ed (efore the RTC as E>hi(it B"*$,B was prepared (/ a
2eodetic en2ineer without conductin2 an actual surve/ on the 2round5
COINSE= 0OR DE0END"NTS5
I a- showin2 to /ou E>hi(it B"*$B which is a plan surve/ed for 0e de 1astro Re/es and
Aose de 1astro. This plan was prepared (/ the 2eodetic en2ineer without conductin2
actual surve/ on the 2round, is it notJ
"5 I cannot a2ree to that :uestion.
K5 @ut (ased on the certification of the 2eodetic en2ineer, who prepared this it appears that
this plan was plotted onl/ (ased on the certification on this plan -ar!ed as E>hi(it B"*$B, is it
notJ
"5 Fes, sir.
K5 So, (ased on this certification that the 2eodetic en2ineer conducted the surve/ of this plan
(ased on the technical description without conductin2 actual surve/ on the 2roundJ
"5 Fes, sir.
$%
"t so-e point, <r. Re/es ad-itted that he was not sure that the propert/ even e>isted5
COINSE= 0OR DE0END"NTS5
The su(8ect -atter of this docu-ent E>hi(it I is that, that propert/ which at present is
titled in the na-e of 0e de Castro Re/es -arried to Conrado Re/es, et.al. is that correctJ
"5 Fes.
K5 The su(8ect -atter of this case now is the ad8oinin2 lot of this TCT '&$$, is that correctJ
"5 I do not !now.
K5 Fou -ean /ou do not !now the lot su(8ect -atter of this caseJ
"5 I do not !now whether it reall/ e>ists.
K5 Aust answer the :uestion, /ou do not !nowJ
"5 Fes.
$'
The conflictin2 clai-s here are 6'7 the title of the +alan2s issued (/ the DENR, throu2h the
PENRO, and 6$7 the clai- of the Re/eses, (ased on unsu(stantiated testi-on/, that the land in
:uestion is the for-er (ed of a dried up cree!. "s (etween these two clai-s, this Court is
inclined to decide in favor of the +alan2s who hold a valid and su(sistin2 title to the propert/
which, in the a(sence of evidence to the contrar/, the Court presu-es to have (een issued (/ the
PENRO in the re2ular perfor-ance of its official dut/.
The (otto- line here is that, fraud and -isrepresentation, as 2rounds for cancellation of patent
and annul-ent of title, should never (e presu-ed, (ut -ust (e proved (/ clear and convincin2
evidence, with -ere preponderance of evidence not (ein2 ade:uate. 0raud is a :uestion of fact
which -ust (e proved.
$$
In this case, the alle2ations of fraud were never proven. There was no evidence at all specificall/
showin2 actual fraud or -isrepresentation. Thus, the Court cannot sustain the findin2s of the
C".*+)hi*
8-ERE"ORE, the petition 's GRAN$E. The "pril #, $%%& Decision and the Octo(er ),
$%%& Resolution of the Court of "ppeals, in C"*+.R. C,. No. *&))%, are here(/ RE4ERSE
and SE$ ASIE. Civil Case No. #.*4)% of the Re2ional Trial Court of "nti polo Cit/, @ranch
.4, is here(/ ordered IS0ISSE for lac! of -erit.
SO ORDERED.
Source: http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_184746_2012.html