Title
Republic vs. Heirs of Bernabe
Case
G.R. No. 237663
Decision Date
Oct 6, 2020
Military land in Pampanga fraudulently registered; Republic, as beneficial owner, validly filed for title cancellation and reversion; BCDA President's VCAFS upheld.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 237663)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Procedural History
    • Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
    • Respondents: Heirs of Ma. Teresita A. Bernabe (registered owner) and Cooperative Rural Bank of Bulacan (CRBB), mortgagee and later placed under PDIC receivership.
    • At the trial court (RTC, Branch 59, Angeles City), the Republic’s Second Amended Complaint for Cancellation of Title and Reversion was dismissed on CRBB’s Motion to Dismiss.
    • The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the dismissal in CA-G.R. CV No. 104631, holding that (a) the Republic lacked standing as real party in interest, and (b) the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping (VCAFS) was defective.
  • Land and Title History
    • July 31, 1908 Proclamation by Governor General Smith reserved parcels in Pampanga for military use (Fort Stotsenburg/Clark Air Base).
    • Lot No. 727 (Psd-5278) was surveyed and awarded to Jose Henson, subdivided into Lots 727-A to 727-G; Lot 727-G further subdivided into 63 portions (Survey Plan Csd-11198).
    • One portion (Lot 965, formerly Lot 42 of Csd-11198) was fraudulently registered by Francisco Garcia in 1968 (OCT No. 83); sold to Nicanor Romero (TCT No. 21685) and thereafter to Bernabe (TCT No. 107736).
    • Bureau of Lands investigation found the subject property within the military reservation, uncultivated, with no monuments — cadastral registration was void for fraud.
  • Reversion Proceedings and Pleadings
    • December 5, 2011: Republic filed Amended Complaint adding CRBB; March 5, 2012: Second Amended Complaint.
    • CRBB moved to dismiss, arguing (a) improper party (should be Director of Lands or BCDA), (b) no BCDA authorization for VCAFS signatory, and (c) need to proceed in Liquidation Court.
    • OSG opposed, invoking State’s imprescriptibility and jura regalia, and asserting its exclusive power to file reversion suits.
  • RTC and CA Decisions
    • May 13, 2014 RTC Resolution granted CRBB’s motion, dismissed complaint without prejudice to BCDA filing with valid VCAFS.
    • CA Decision (February 21, 2018) affirmed: (a) BCDA, not Republic, is real party in interest under Proclamation 163 (1993) and R.A. 7227; (b) VCAFS signed by BCDA President lacked board authorization; (c) dismissed appeal.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA erred in holding that the Republic is not the real party in interest and cannot invoke imprescriptibility.
  • Whether the CA erred in ruling that the VCAFS was defective for lack of valid BCDA board authorization.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.