ESCHEATS
For her part, Amelita maintained that the donation to petitioner is void because
Doctrine: Only the State can institute reversion proceedings UNDER Section 101 of the
Public Land Act.
Alvarico vs. SOLA
383 SCRA 232
June 6, 2002
Ponente: Quisumbing
NATURE OF CASE
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals in an action for
reconveyance.
FACTS
Fermina A. Lopez, a widown, was an awardee of Lots Nos. 4, 5, 3-B, 3-C and 6-
B, Sgs-3451 and being the winning bidder at the auction sale of these parcels
by the Bureau of Lands. On May 28, 1983, Fermina executed a Deed of Self-
Adjudication and Transfer of Rights over Lot 5 in favor of Amelita, who agreed to
assume all the obligations, duties, and conditions imposed upon Fermina
under MSA Application No. V-81066. The document of transfer was filed with
the Bureau of Lands.
Bureau of Lands issued an order approving the transfer of rights and granting
the amendment of the application from Fermina to Amelita. Consequently, an
OCT was issued in the name of Amelita and her husband.
On June 24, 1993, herein petitioner filed Civil Case No. CEB-1419110 for
reconveyance against Amelita.
Petitioner contention:
He claimed that on January 4, 1984, Fermina donated the land to him and
immediately thereafter, he took possession of the same. He averred that the
donation to him had the effect of withdrawing the earlier transfer to Amelita.
Rule 90: Escheats
Respondent’s contention:
Fermina was no longer the owner of the property when it was allegedly donated to
petitioner, the property having been transferred earlier to her. She added that the
donation was void because of lack of approval from the Bureau of Lands, and that she
had validly acquired the land as Fermina's rightful heir. She also denied that she is a
trustee of the land for petitioner.
After trial, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of petitioner. On appeal, RTC decision
was reversed.
ISSUE/s of the CASE
Whether or not a person imputing bad faith on the transfer of land patents may assailed
the validity of an OCT subsequently issued to the transferee of the land patents.
ACTION OF THE COURT
RTC: in favor of petitioner.
CA: Reversed
SC: Affirmed decision
RULING
The answer is in the negative. This allegation of bad faith on the part of Amelita Sola in
acquiring the title is devoid of evidentiary support. For one, the execution of public
documents, as in the case of Affidavits of Adjudication, is entitled to the
presumption of regularity, hence convincing evidence is required to assail and
controvert them. Second, it is undisputed that OCT No. 3439 was issued in 1989 in the
name of Amelita. It requires more than petitioner's bare allegation to defeat the Original
Certificate of Title which on its face enjoys the legal presumption of regularity of
issuance. A Torrens title, once registered, serves as notice to the whole world. All persons
must take notice and no one can plead ignorance of its registration.
Even assuming that respondent Amelita Sola acquired title to the disputed property in
bad faith, only the State can institute reversion proceedings under Sec. 101 of the Public
Land Act, to wit: All actions for reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain
or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in
his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
Page 1 of 3
 Reconveyance of Title against Maltos Spouse and the Register of Deeds of Agusan del Sur.
In other words, a private individual may not bring an action for reversion or any
action which would have the effect of canceling a free patent and the corresponding Contentions:
certificate of title issued on the basis thereof, such that the land covered thereby will Maltos Spouses: The sale was made in good faith and that in purchasing the property,
again form part of the public domain. Only the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his they relied on Borromeo’s title. Further, the parties were in pari delicto. Since the sale
stead may do so. Since Amelita Sola's title originated from a grant by the was made during the five-year prohibitory period, the land would revert to the public
domain and the proper party to institute reversion proceedings was the OSG.
government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee.30
RD: Deed of sale was presented for registration after the 5-year prohibitory period, thus, it
Clearly then, petitioner has no standing at all to question the validity of Amelita's title.
was ministerial on its part to register the deed.
It follows that he cannot "recover" the property because, to begin with, he has not
Heirs: Good faith was not a valid defense because the prohibitory period appeared on the
shown that he is the rightful owner thereof. face of the title of the property.

Actions of the Court:

DISPOSITIVE: RTC: Dismissed the Complaint on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. Also,
the heirs did not have a right of action because they were unable to establish their status
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. as heirs of the Borromeo. They may have declared themselves the legal heirs but they did
54624 is hereby AFFIRMED. The complaint filed by herein petitioner against not present evidence to prove their allegation. Further, the determination of their rights to
respondent in Civil Case No. CEB-14191 is declared properly DISMISSED. Costs succession must be established in special proceedings. The sale was null and void
against petitioner. because it was within the 5-year prohibitionary period under the Public Land Act.
CA: Reversed the Decision of the trial court and held that since Borromeo sold his
property.
Maltos vs Heirs of Eusebio Boromeo
Issue:
Whether CA erred in ordering the reconveyance of the property from petitioners Spouses
ELISEO MALTOS and ROSITA P. MALTOS, petitioners, Maltos to heirs of Borromeo.
vs.
HEIRS OF EUSEBIO BORROMEO, respondents Ruling:
No.
It is well-known that the homestead laws were designed to distribute disposable
G.R. No. 172720
agricultural lots of the State to land-destitute citizens for their home and cultivation.
September 14, 2015 Pursuant to such benevolent intention the State prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the
homestead (Sec. 116) within five years after the grant of the patent. After that five-year
period the law impliedly permits alienation of the homestead; but in line with the
Facts: primordial purpose to favor the homesteader and his family the statute provides that such
On February 13, 1979, Borromeo was issued Free Patent over a piece of agricultural land alienation or conveyance (Sec. 117) shall be subject to the right of repurchase by the
located in San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. On June 15, 1983, well within the 5-year homesteader, his widow or heirs within 5 years. It aims to preserve and keep in the family
prohibitory period, Borromeo sold the land to Maltos. Borromeo dies and his heirs of the homesteader that portion of public land which the State had gratuitously given to
claimed that prior to his death, he allegedly told his wife and his children to nullify the him.
sale made and have the Transfer Certificate of Title cancelled because the sale was within
the 5-year prohibitory period. The effect of violating the 5-year prohibitory period is provided under Sec. 124 of the
On June 23, 1993, heirs of Borromeo filed a Complaint for Nullity of Title and Public Land Act which provides: SECTION 124. Any acquisition, conveyance, alienation,

Page 2 of 3
Rule 90: Escheats
transfer, or other contract made or executed in violation of any of the provisions of
Sections 118, 120, 121, 122, and 123 of this Act shall be unlawful and null and void from
its execution and shall produce the effect of annulling and cancelling the grant, title,
patent, or permit originally issued, recognized or confirmed, actually or presumptively,
and cause the reversion of the property and its improvements to the State.

In this case, Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act is applicable since title already vested in
Eusebio Borromeo’s name. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that the
sale was made within the five-year prohibitory period. Thus, there is sufficient cause to
revert the property in favor of the state. However, this court cannot declare reversion of
the property in favor of the state in view of the limitation imposed by Section 101 that an
action for reversion must first be filed by the Office of the Solicitor General.

Supreme Court Ruling:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is denied, and the Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 77142 are AFFIRMED, without prejudice to the appropriate
institution of a case for reversion. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the
Solicitor General for its appropriate action with respect to the reversion of the land in
question.
SO ORDERED.

Page 3 of 3
Rule 90: Escheats