Chavez vs.

PEA
On January 19, 1988, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Special Patent No.
3517, granting and transferring to PEA "the parcels of land so reclaimed under the
Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project (MCCRRP) containing a total
area of (1,915,894) square meters. on April 9, 1988, the Register of Deeds of the
Municipality of Paraaque issued TCT Nos. 7309, 7311, and 7312, in the name of PEA,
covering the three reclaimed islands known as the "Freedom Islands" which have a total
land area of (1,578,441) square meters or 157.841 hectares.
On April 25, 1995, PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement ("JVA" for brevity) with
AMARI, a private corporation, to develop the Freedom Islands. The JVA also required
the reclamation of an additional 250 hectares of submerged areas surrounding these
islands to complete the configuration in the Master Development Plan of the Southern
Reclamation Project-MCCRRP. PEA and AMARI entered into the JVA through
negotiation without public bidding. 4 On April 28, 1995, the Board of Directors of PEA, in
its Resolution No. 1245, confirmed the JVA. 5On June 8, 1995, then President Fidel V.
Ramos, through then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, approved the JVA. 6
On April 27, 1998, petitioner Frank I. Chavez filed the instant Petition for Mandamus
with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order. contends the government stands to lose billions of pesos in the sale
by PEA of the reclaimed lands to AMARI. Petitioner prays that PEA publicly disclose the
terms of any renegotiation of the JVA, invoking Section 28, Article II, and Section 7,
Article III, of the 1987 Constitution on the right of the people to information on matters of
public concern. Petitioner assails the sale to AMARI of lands of the public domain as a
blatant violation of Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting the sale of
alienable lands of the public domain to private corporations. Finally, petitioner asserts
that he seeks to enjoin the loss of billions of pesos in properties of the State that are of
public dominion
ISSUE: whether AMARI, a private corporation, can acquire and own under the Amended
JVA 367.5 hectares of reclaimed foreshore and submerged areas in Manila Bay in view
of Sections 2 and 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which state that:
RULING : NO
The 1987 Constitution continues the State policy in the 1973 Constitution banning
private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain.
Like the 1973 Constitution, the 1987 Constitution allows private corporations to hold
alienable lands of the public domain only through lease. As in the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions, the general law governing the lease to private corporations of reclaimed,
foreshore and marshy alienable lands of the public domain is still CA No. 141.
Reclaimed lands are lands of the public domain. However, by statutory authority,
the rights of ownership and disposition over reclaimed lands have been

transferred to PEA, by virtue of which PEA, as owner, may validly convey the
same to any qualified person without violating the Constitution or any statute.
The constitutional provision prohibiting private corporations from holding public
land, except by lease (Sec. 3, Art. XVII, 70 1987 Constitution), does not apply to
reclaimed lands whose ownership has passed on to PEA by statutory grant."

G.R. No. L-40912 September 30, 1976

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the MINDANAO MEDICAL
CENTER, petioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ALEJANDRO Y DE JESUS, respondents.
whether or not petitioner Mindanao Medical Center has registerable title over a full
12.8081-hectare land by virtue of an executive proclamation in 1956 reserving the area
for medical center site purposes
FACTS: On November 23, 1934, the Director of Lands granted the sales application of
Eugenio de Jesus for a land with an area of 22 hectares at P100.50 per hectare or
P2,211.00 for the whole tract.
On August 28, 1936, the Director of Lands ordered an amendment of the Sales
Application of Eugenio de Jesus stating that "a portion of the land covered by Sales
Application No. 5436 (E-3231) of Eugenio de Jesus is needed by the Philippine Army for
military camp site purposes, the said application is amended so as to exclude therefrom
portion "A" as shown in the sketch on the back thereof, and as thus amended, it will
continue to be given due course." The area excluded was Identified as Lot 1176-B-2,
the very land in question, consisting of 12.8081 hectares.
On September 7, 1936, President Manuel L. Quezon issued Proclaimation No. 85
withdrawing Lot No. 1176-B-2 from sale and settlement and reserving the same for
military purposes, under the administration of the Chief of Staff, Philippine Army.
On August 11, 1956, President Ramon Magsaysay revoked Proclamation No. 85 and
declared the disputed Lot 1176-B-2 open to disposition under the provisions of the
Public land Act for resettlement of the squatters in the Piapi Beach, Davao City. 6 In the
following October 9, President Magsaysay revoked this Proclamation No. 328 and
reserved the same Lot No. 1176-B-2 for medical center site purposes under the
administration of the Director of Hospital. 7

Whereupon, on December 6, 1969, petitioner Mindanao Medical Center applied for the
Torrens registration of the 12.8081-hectare Lot 1176-B-2 with the Court of First Instance
of Davao. The Medical Center claimed "fee simple" title to the land on the strength of
proclamation No. 350 reserving the area for medical center site purposes.
Respondent Alejandro de Jesus, the son and successor-in-interest of sale applicant
Eugenio de Jesus, opposed the registration oil the ground that his father, Eugenio de
Jesus, had aquired a vested right on the subject lot by virtue of the Order of Award
issued to him by the Director of Lands.
After due hearing, the Court of First Instance of Davao rendered judgment on
September 2, 1966, directing "the registration of the title to Lot No. 1176-B-2 of
Subdivision Plan Bsd-5134, shown on Plan Ap-6512, situated in the Barrio of Central,
City of Davao, and containing an area of 128,081 square meters in the name of the
Mindanao Medical Center, Bureau of Medical Services, Department of Health.
On July 2, 1974, the Appellate Court held: +.wph!1
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby modified insofar as it
denies the claim of appellant Arsenio Suazo, the same is hereby affirmed,
in regard the appeal of appellant Alejandro Y. de Jesus, registration Lot
1176-B-2, situated in Barrio Central, Davao City, and containing an area of
12.8081 square meters, is hereby decreed in the name of said appellants,
but said appellant is hereby ordered to relinquish to the appellee that
portion of Lot 1176-B-2 which is occupied by the medical center and
nervous disease pavilion and their reasonable appartenances, no costs.
On July 5, 1974, petitioner Mindanao Medical Center moved for reconsideration,
maintaining ownership over the entire area of 12.8081 hectares, but the Appellate Court
in a Special Division of Five denied the motion on June 17, 1975. 8
Forthwith, petitioner Mindanao Medical Center elevated the matter to Us thru the
present appeal.
ISSUE
RULING
. Petitioner Mindanao Medical Center has registerable title over the whole contested
area of 12.8081 hectares, designated Lot No. 1176-B-2, and not only on a portion
thereof occupied by the Medical Center, its nervous disease pavilion and their
reasonable appurtenances. Proclamation No. 350, dated October 9, 1956, of President
Magsaysay legally effected a land grant to the Mindanao Medical Center, Bureau of
Medical Services, Department of Health, of the whole lot, validity sufficient for initial
registration under the Land Registration Act. Such land grant is constitutive of a "fee
simple" tile or absolute title in favor of petitioner Mindanao Medical Center.

With regard to the vested right claimed by--- Lands covered by reservation are not
subject to entry, and no lawful settlement on them can be acquired. 23 The claims o0f
persons who have settled on occupied, and improved a parcel of public land which is
later included in a reservation are considered worthy of protection and are usually
respected, but where the President, as authorized by law, issuesa proclamation
reserving certain lands and warning all persons to depart therefrom, this terminates any
rights previously avquired in such lands by a person who was settled thereon in order to
obtain a preferential right of purchase. 24 And patents for lands which have been
previously granted, reserved from sale, or appropriate, are void. 25

Marcos (1969)
On May 21, 1965 the Pirasos sought the reopening of Civil Reservation Case No. 1,
LRC Rec. No. 211 of the Court of First Instance of Baguio City, praying for the issuance
in their favor of title to a parcel of land (Lots 140 and 141, Baguio Cadastre) consisting
of 290,283 square meters situated in Baguio City. On September 11, 1965, Daisy
Pacnos filed an opposition. She sought to be allowed to introduce evidence to prove her
alleged right to registration of a portion of the land, consisting of an area of 28,215.52
square meters which was granted by the respondent judge.
On February 15, 1968, the Solicitor General filed a motion to annul the decision dated
October 7, 1967, based on lack of jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether or not Judge Pio Marcos has jurisdiction over the subject matter
Ruling: NO.
The establishment of military reservations is governed by Act No. 627 of the Philippine
Commission and Section 1 of that Act provides that 'All lands or buildings, or any interest
therein, within the Philippine Islands lying within the boundaries of the areas now or hereafter
set apart and declared to be military reservations shall be forthwith brought under the operations
of the Land Registration Act,
Respondent Judge is devoid of jurisdiction to pass upon the claim of private respondents
invoking the benefits of Republic Act No. 931.RA 931 provided that all persons "claiming title
to parcels of land that have been the object of cadastral proceedings" in actual possession of the
same at the time of the survey but unable for some justifiable reason to file their claim in the
proper court during the time, limit established by law, "in case such parcels of land on account of
their failure to file such claims, have been, or are about to be declared land of the public domain
by virtue of judicial proceedings" instituted within the forty-year period next preceding June 20,
1953, the time of the approval of this particular enactment, are granted "the right within five
years" from said date to petition for a reopening of the judicial proceedings but "only with
respect to such of said parcels of land as have not been alienated, RESERVED, leased, granted,
or otherwise provisionally or permanently disposed of by the Government

Marcos 1973
On November 12, 1966 Carantes heirs, filed under Civil Reservation Case No. 1 3 of
the Court of First Instance of Baguio City a petition for the re-opening of said proceeding
to have them declared owners, and for the registration in their favor of four lots with a
total area of 74,017 square meters.
The Director of Lands duly opposed, as a report of an investigator of his office was that
the area sought to be registered is inside Camp John Hay in Baguio City but the
application was granted by respondent Judge being of the belief that "the proper party
to appeal should be Camp John Hay."
On August 22, 1969 that the Solicitor-General entered his appearance in the case and
filed a motion to annul the decision based on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the
court over the subject matter of the proceedings as the land in question is part of a duly
established military reservation. Such motion was denied by respondent Judge on
December 8, 1969. It must be noted that the location of the lot inside Camp John Hay is
not a subject of dispute. Apparently, the respondent Judge in refusing to set aside his
decision was impressed by the claim that the private respondents had been in
possession "since the Spanish regime," and thus came within the protection of the
words annotated on all survey plans of Camp John Hay, to wit: "subject to prior and
existing private rights."
ISSUE : Whether or not Judge Pio Marcos has jurisdiction over the subject matter
RULING : As held in Republic v. Marcos (1969) "Republic Act No. 931 speaks in a
manner far from ambiguous. It is quite explicit and categorical. Only persons "claiming
to parcels of land that have been the object of cadastral proceedings' are granted the
right to petition for a re-opening thereof if the other conditions named therein are
successfully met. It cannot admit of doubt, therefore, that if the parcels of land were not
the object of cadastral proceedings, then this statute finds no application. Considering
that as far back as October 10, 1910, the then President of the United States, William H.
Taft, issued an executive order reserving for naval purposes the lots now disputed, they
could not have been the object of the cadastral proceedings involving the Baguio
townsite reservation, decided only on November 13, 1922." 8 It was then stated in the
opinion: "The Cadastral Act was enacted on February 11, 1913, taking effect on its
passage. As is made clear in the first section thereof, when public interest requires that
titles to any land be settled and adjudicated, in the opinion of the then executive, the

Governor General, he could order the Director of Lands, to make a survey and plan of
such lands. Clearly, it does not include the survey of lands declared as reservations."

G.R. No. 155785

April 13, 2007

SIMPLICIO GALICIA, for himself, and as Attorney-in-Fact of ROSALIA G. TORRE,

PAQUITO GALICIA, NELLIE GALICIA, LETICIA G. MAESTRO and CLARO
GALICIA, Petitioners,
vs.
LOURDES MANLIQUEZ vda. de MINDO and LILIA RICO MINANO, Respondents.
FACTS
A complaint was filed with the (RTC) of Odiongan, Romblon by petitioners, in their
capacity as heirs of Juan Galicia (Juan), against Milagros Rico-Glori for Recovery of
Possession and Ownership and Annulment of Title. They contended that their
predecessor, Juan, was the true and lawful owner of a parcel of land containing an area
of 5.5329 hectares which was declared in his name under various tax declarations and
that Juan was driven away from the property through force by the heirs of a certain Ines
Ramirez (Ines), one of whom is defendant Milagros; because of poverty and lack of
knowledge, Juan was not able to assert his right to the said property but he informed his
children that they own the above-described parcel of land.
Defendants denied the allegations of petitioners .They contended that the subject
property was part of a larger parcel of land which was acquired by Ines, Milagross
predecessor-in-interest in 1947 from a certain Juan Galicha who is a different person
from Juan Galicia.
During the scheduled pre-trial conference on May 21, 1997, none of the defendants
appeared. Petitioners were then allowed to present evidence ex parte and the Trial
court ruled in favor of them.
On December 15, 1997, the RTC received a Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene
with an attached Answer-in-Intervention filed by the compulsory heirs of Ines, who are
also co-heirs of defendant Milagros. The intervenors contended that the subject parcel
of land forms part of the estate of Ines which is yet to be partitioned among them and
that they are indispensable parties.
In its Order of December 23, 1997, the RTC denied the said motion to intervene on the
ground that it has already rendered judgment.

On May 23, 2000, respondents filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA
anchored on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over their persons and property and on
extrinsic fraud which was granted and set aside the decision of the RTC.
The petinioners filed with the SC a petition for review alleging that THE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN NOT DISMISSING THE
PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND OF ESTOPPEL ON
THE PART OF THE respondents

ISSUE: whether or not the respondents are estopped from filing the
annulment of judgment
RULING; NO, The SC ruled that the petition for annulment of judgment filed with the CA,
Section 3, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for annulment of
judgment based on extrinsic fraud must be filed within four years from its discovery; and
if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.
In the present case, the CA found no evidence to show when respondents acquired
knowledge of the complaint that petitioners filed with the RTC. Moreover, the Court finds
that herein respondents' right to due process is the overriding consideration in allowing
them to intervene in Civil Case No. OD-306.

G.R. No. L-4340-46

May 28, 1952

Rebecca Levin vs J. Bass

Rebecca Levin is a widow, 65 years old and the registered owner of a lot on which two
houses stood bearing No. 326 and No. 328 San Rafael Street, Manilaas evidenced by
transfer certificate of title No. 62680. She was illiterate and knew only how to sign her
name. At about the end of December 1943 Joaquin V. Bass called on Rebecca Levin at
her house on No. 328 San Rafael street, Manila, and representing himself to be a real
estate broker asked her whether she would sell her lot and house at No. 326 adjoining
her residence. She authorized Bass to sell her house because of his misrepresentation
that she would gain by selling her house and of the threat made by him that she might
lose it.
Not long after the signing by Rebecca Levin of the documents giving Bass authority
to sell the house at No. 326 San Rafael street and the pretended purchase by her

through him of the building on Antonio Rivera street, the latter called on the former at
her house. She was sick and bass offered a medicine which was later discovered
poison.
After this even, investigation was requested by Levin and it was found out that the lots
were transferred and registered in the name of Joaquin V. Bass and mortgaged by him.
in October 1944, for and in consideration of P200,000, Bass sold to Eugenio Mintu the
lot and house at No. 328 San Rafael street, P90,000 of which was paid on the date of
the execution of the deed of sale;
ISSUE : whther or not the sale made by Joaquin V. Bass to Eugenio Mintu is valid as
against Rebecca Levin
RULING : NO, the court ruled that as between Bass and Mintu the sale is valid but not
as against Rebecca Levin who could avail herself of all her legal and equitable
remedies against Joaquin V. Bass and reach the property acquired fraudulently by the
latter and subsequently sold to Eugenio Mintu who admittedly is an innocent purchaser
for value, for the reason that the later though an innocent purchaser for value is not a
holder of a certificate of title.
In voluntary registration such as sale, mortgage, lease and the like, if the owner's
duplicate certificate be not surrendered and presented or if no payment of registration
fees be made within 15 days, entry in the day book of the deed of sale does not operate
to convey and affect the land sold.2 In voluntary registration, such as an attachment,
levy upon, execution, lis pendens and the like entry thereof in the day book is a
sufficient notice to all persons of such adversed claim. 3 Eugenio Mintu fulfilled or took
the steps he was expected to take in order to have the Registrar of Deeds in and for the
City of Manila issue to him the corresponding transfer certificate of title on the lot and
house at No. 328 San Rafael Street sold to him by Joaquin V. Bass. The evidence
shows that Eugenio Mintu is an innocent purchaser for value. Nevertheless, the court
below held that the sale made by Bass to Mintu is as against Rebecca Levin without
force and effect because of the express provision of law which in part says:
. . . Provided, however, That in all cases of registration procured by fraud the
owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to
such fraud, without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for
value of certificate of title; (Section 55, Act 496, as amended by Act 3322).