RP v Heirs of Alejaga Sr

Facts: December 28, 1978: Respondent Felibe Alejaga Sr. filed with the District Land Office of Roxas City a Free Patent
Application of a parcel of land. (.3899 hectares, Roxas City) Efren Recio, Land Inspector, submitted the necessary report regarding
the application. (Investigation & Verification Report)

March 14, 1979: The District Land Officer (DLO) approved the application and the issuance of a Free Patent to the applicant. It was
then forwarded to Register of Deeds for the registration and issuance of a OCT. Thereafter, Original Certificate of Title and a Free
Patent No. (VI-2) 3358 was issued to Alejaga.

April 4, 1979: The heirs of Ignacio Arrobang requested the Director of Lands of Manial for the investigation of DLO (conducted by
Isagani Cartagena) in Roxas for the irregularities in the issuance of a title of a foreshore land in favor of Alejaga. After investigation,
the Land Management Bureau of Manila requested the Director of Lands to cancel the Free Patent and the corresponding OCT.In the
meantime, Alejaga obtained a NACIDA loan. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage to PNB.

April 18, 1990: The government through the Solicitor General instituted an action for Annulment/Cancellation of Patent and Title
and Reversion against respondent Alejaga, the PNB of Roxas City and defendant Register of Deeds of Roxas City covering Free Patent
Application of the land. While the case was pending, Alejaga was substituted by his heirs. RTC ruled against responding saying that
the OCT and Patent were obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. Hence, null and void. CA reversed RTC’s ruling.

Issue: WON there was fraud in the issuance of the OCT and Free Patent.

Held: YES

Fraud attended the application of Free Patent

Republic (petitioner) has adduced a preponderance of evidence before the trial court, showing manifest fraud in procuring the
patent. This Court agrees with the RTC that in obtaining a free patent over the lot under scrutiny, petitioner had resorted to
misrepresentation or fraud, signs of which were ignored by the Court of Appeals.

First reason: Issuance of the free patent was not made in accordance with the law
First, the issuance of the free patent was not made in accordance with the procedure laid down by CA or the Public Land Act. Under
Section 91 thereof, an investigation should be conducted for the purpose of ascertaining whether the material facts set out in the
application are true.

Further, after the filing of the application, the law requires sufficient notice to the municipality and the barrio where the land is
located, in order to give adverse claimants the opportunity to present their claims. Note that this notice and the verification and
investigation of the parcel of land are to be conducted after an application for free patent has been filed with the Bureau of Lands.

There was no proper investigation and verification of the application

In this case, however, Felipe Alejaga Sr.’s Application for Free Patent was dated and filed on December 28, 1978. On the other hand,
the Investigation & Verification Report prepared by Land Inspector Elfren L. Recio of the District Land Office of the Bureau of Lands
of Roxas City was dated December 27, 1978.

As correctly pointed out by the trial court, investigation and verification should have been done only after the filing of the
application. Hence, it would have been highly anomalous for Recio (Land Inspector) to conduct his own investigation and verification
on December 27, 1998, a day before Felipe Alejaga Sr. filed the Application for Free Patent.

Second reason: The claim of the Alejagas that an actual investigation was conducted is not sustained by the Verification &
Investigation Report itself, which bears no signature.
Their reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty31 is thus misplaced. Since Recio’s signature does
not appear on the December 27, 1978 Report, there can be no presumption that an investigation and verification of the parcel of
land was actually conducted. Strangely, respondents do not proffer any explanation why the Verification & Investigation Report was
not signed by Recio. Even more important and as will later on be explained, this alleged presumption of regularity -- assuming it ever
existed -- is overcome by the evidence presented by petitioner.

Third reason: The the report of Special Investigator Isagani P. Cartagena has not been successfully rebutted.
In that report, Recio supposedly admitted that he had not actually conducted an investigation and ocular inspection of the parcel of
land. Cartagena’s statement on Recio’s alleged admission may be considered as "independently relevant." A witness may testify as
to the state of mind of another person -- the latter’s knowledge, belief, or good or bad faith -- and the former’s statements may then
be regarded as independently relevant without violating the hearsay rule.

Doctrine of independently relevant statements

The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that conversations communicated to a witness by a third person may be
admitted as proof that, regardless of their truth or falsity, they were actually made. Evidence as to the making of such statements is
not secondary but primary, for in itself it (a) constitutes a fact in issue or (b) is circumstantially relevant to the existence of such fact.

Since Cartagena’s testimony was based on the report of the investigation he had conducted, his testimony was not hearsay and was,
hence, properly admitted by the trial court.

The Free Patent was void (The issuance of the Alejagas’ patent and title was tainted with fraud)
There are several badges of frauds (check the list above). Thus, the free patent granted to Felipe Alejaga Sr. is void. Such fraud is a
ground for impugning the validity of the Certificate of Title. The invalidity of the patent is sufficient basis for nullifying the Certificate
of Title issued in consequence thereof, since the latter is merely evidence of the former.