G.R. No. 217158 - Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. Department of Transportation and Communications

On January 15, 1996, petitioner Alsons Development and Investment Corporation (Alsons) entered into Industrial Forest Plantation Management Agreement (IFPMA) No. 21 with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) over a parcel of about 899 hectares in Sitio Mabilis, Barangay San Jose, General Santos City, South Cotabato. The agreement had a 25-year term.
Petitioner’s rights under IFPMA No. 21 were traced from an Ordinary Pasture Permit (OPP) No. 1475 issued in 1953 to Magno Mateo, which was subsequently assigned and transferred to Tuason Enterprises, Inc., and eventually to petitioner through successive cancellations and issuances of Pasture Lease Agreements (PLA).
Over time, the lease agreements were converted and expanded, transitioning from PLA to Industrial Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) No. 21 in 1992, re-issued in 1994, and then converted to IFPMA No. 21 in 1995, culminating in the 1996 agreement.

On August 15, 2005, the Heirs of Romeo D. Confesor (respondents) filed a protest (RED Claim No. 008-06) before DENR Region 12 for cancellation of IFPMA No. 21, claiming ownership through consolidated Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. V-1344 (P-144) P-2252, arguing DENR had no jurisdiction to lease the property as it was no longer public land.
Prior to the protest, the Land Registration Authority's Task Force Titulong Malinis investigated the OCT and submitted a report suggesting the title was spurious due to discrepancies in survey plans.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) later set aside Task Force report, declaring the title valid, authentic, and that the subject property was alienable and disposable with no adverse claim except that of respondents.
DENR conducted its own investigation, finding OCT No. V-1344 genuine but some segregated certificates of title derived from it were fake and spurious. DENR Region 12 dismissed respondents’ protest for lack of merit on August 22, 2005.
The DENR Secretary affirmed this dismissal on July 13, 2007, ruling also that respondents were guilty of laches for not raising ownership issues earlier.

Respondents appealed to the Office of the President (OP), which, in its July 6, 2009 Decision, reversed DENR’s ruling and ordered cancellation and revocation of the IFPMA No. 21 insofar as respondents’ property was concerned, upholding respondents’ ownership and asserting laches did not apply to lands under Torrens system.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was partially granted by OP in October 2009, applying laches and ruling that respondents failed to perfect Sales Patent V-1836 by not complying with requirements such as making permanent improvements.
Respondents’ subsequent motion for reconsideration led OP to again reverse itself in December 2010, reaffirming the cancellation order and respondents’ ownership.

Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA) questioning OP’s July 2009 Decision, citing the pendency of Civil Case No. 7711 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City, where the Republic sought annulment of respondents’ title as fake and spurious.
Petitioner moved for a status quo order or injunction to suspend enforcement of cancellation pending the civil case, which the CA denied in 2011. The motion for reconsideration was not acted upon.
Meanwhile, Civil Case No. 7711 was dismissed without prejudice in March 2013 for lack of judicial affidavits.
The CA, in its December 13, 2013 Decision, affirmed OP’s cancellation order, ruling that:

The subject property is alienable and disposable land with a valid Torrens title.
The Sales Patent and OCT are authentic, not spurious.
The issue of ownership could only be challenged directly in court within the limited period under law; laches does not apply to Torrens titles.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration against the CA decision was denied in November 2014.
The Republic re-filed the annulment and reversion case (Civil Case No. 8374) in March 2014 before the RTC.

Petitioner filed this petition for review challenging the CA ruling, arguing that ruling on cancellation of IFPMA No. 21 should await the outcome of the civil case on annulment and reversion of title pending before RTC.
Petitioner also argued the CA erred in disregarding DENR’s findings that evidence showed the respondents’ title was fake.

Whether the pending civil case for annulment of respondents’ title and reversion of the property before the RTC constitutes a prejudicial question that bars or suspends the administrative and judicial action for cancellation of IFPMA No. 21.

Whether factual issues on ownership and authenticity of title can be appropriately resolved in the current petition or should be left for the civil case directly attacking the title.