Republic vs. Heirs of Daquer

Facts:

The petition was filed by the Republic of the Philippines against the Heirs of Ignacio Daquer and the Register of Deeds, Province of Palawan, seeking cancellation of a homestead patent, the corresponding Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. G-3287), and reversion of the land to the public domain. The contested parcel is Lot No. H-19731 (approximate area granted: 65,273 sq. m.), located in Centro, Bacuit (now El Nido), Palawan.

On October 22, 1933, Ignacio Daquer applied for Homestead Application No. 197317 under Act No. 2874 (the Public Land Act). On September 3, 1936, the Director of Lands approved the application and issued Homestead Patent No. V-67820; the patent was registered and OCT No. G-3287 was issued in Daquer’s name. Daquer died on April 3, 1969; his children (Porcepina Daquer Aban, Alita Daquer Quijano, and Neria Daquer Laguta) are the present heirs and registered possessors.

In 2000 the Community Environment and Natural Resource Office (CENRO), acting on a directive to inventory suspected spurious titles, investigated and, through Land Management Officer Mariano Lilang, Jr., and Senior Forest Management Specialist Leonardo Publico, issued a July 10, 2000 certification that Lot No. H-19731 was “still within the Unclassified Zone” as per Land Classification Map No. 1467 (certified 16 September 1941). On April 1, 2003, the Republic filed a Complaint for Cancellation of Free Patent, Original Certificate of Title and Reversion, alleging that the land remained in the inalienable public domain (forest/timberland) and that the Bureau/Director of Lands lacked jurisdiction to issue patents over such land.

At trial (Branch 95, Regional Trial Court, Puerto Princesa City), the Republic presented Lilang as witness; respondents presented Porcepina and another neighbor who testified the area was timberland and that the heirs paid taxes and possessed the property. On September 28, 2007, the RTC denied the Republic’s complaint for lack of merit, relying on presumptions of regularity in official acts and treating unclassified lands as presumptively agricultural under Krivenko v. Register of Deeds; the RTC also held the issuance of the homestead patent effectively meant the land had been classified as alienable and disposable.

The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals. In CA-G.R. CV No. 90488 the CA affirmed the RTC in a January 14, 2010 Decision (opinion by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok); the CA denied reconsideration on September 7, 2010. The Republic thereafter filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court (petition filed October 28, 2010). Th...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Does the mere issuance of a homestead patent classify an otherwise unclassified public land into alienable and disposable agricultural land?
• Was the issuance of Homestead Patent No. V-67820 jurisdictionally defective because Lot No. H-19731 remained in the inalienable public domain when the homestead a...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)