G.R. No. 2062 - People vs. Barrera

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated June 30, 2009 and the RTC Decision dated October 24, 2005, which had dismissed the Republic’s reversion and cancellation of title complaint filed against respondent Filemon Saromo.
The Republic, represented by the Director of the Land Management Bureau, sought to cancel Free Patent No. 17522 and Original Certificate of Title No. P-331 issued in favor of Saromo and revert the subject land to the State.
The petition further challenged a CA Resolution dated October 12, 2009 denying the Republic’s motion for reconsideration.

On September 25, 1980, Geodetic Engineer Francisco C. Guevarra surveyed the land for Saromo and prepared Survey Plan No. PSU-4-A-004479, which contained a NOTE stating:

“This survey is formerly a portion of China Sea.”
“This survey is inside unclassified public forest land and is apparently inside the area covered by Proclamation No. 1801 dated November 10, 1978.”
“This survey is within 100.00 meters strip along the shore line.”
Endorsed on December 11, 1980 by the District Land Officer, Batangas City.

The survey plan, which encompassed the designated salvage zone, was submitted and approved in the latter part of 1980, with the District Land Officer’s endorsement on December 11 and approval by Officer-in-Charge Flor U. Pelayo on December 12, 1980.

On December 24, 1980, Saromo, then approximately 50 years old, filed an Application for Free Patent covering 45,808 square meters of the subject land, asserting that the land was agricultural public land based on Survey No. PSU-4-A-004479 and that he had first occupied and cultivated the property in 1944.
Saromo executed affidavits confirming his application and responsibility for any potential legal liability if the land had been adjudicated otherwise. An additional affidavit executed on January 24, 1981 supported the public posting of his Notice of Application for Free Patent.
Subsequent investigation by various government engineers (including Alberto A. Aguilar and Engineer Carlita Cabrera) and the issuance of Order No. by District Land Officer Jaime Juanillo on May 18, 1981 led to the approval of Saromo’s free patent application and the issuance of Free Patent No. 17522 and Original Certificate of Title No. P-331.

In October 1981, Luis Mendoza filed a protest against Saromo’s free patent, prompting an investigation which was later hampered by the resignation of the investigating officer.
On September 6, 1999, the Director of Lands formed an investigation team which re-examined the validity of Saromo’s free patent.

The investigation revealed that the subject land was in fact “inside unclassified public forest land” and located within the area affected by Proclamation No. 1801.
The findings questioned the propriety and regularity of the issuance of the free patent, concluding that the title was null and void ab initio and that the land should revert to the State.

The RTC and CA heavily relied on the testimony of Engr. Guevarra, who explained that the note on the survey indicated “past and present annotations” and suggested that the land was agricultural and thus alienable and disposable.
Other experts such as Engr. Aguilar and Engr. Cabrera testified that the physical features of the land – including the presence of coconut trees and constructed improvements – were indicative of agricultural use.
The Republic, however, adduced evidence and expert testimony (including that of Engr. Leonito D. Calubayan) showing discrepancies in the land classification, highlighting that the subject land was still classified as unclassified public forest land, not declassified by any official proclamation.

Saromo’s free patent application contained inconsistencies regarding the date of first occupation and cultivation, with his sworn statement indicating 1944 despite evidence suggesting acquisition in 1967–1969.
These discrepancies raised issues of intentional misrepresentation, as the error could not be dismissed merely as a clerical lapse.
The admission contained in the survey plan’s note, under Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, was binding on Saromo, confirming that the land was “inside unclassified public forest land.”

Whether the CA erred on a question of law by upholding that the subject land was alienable and disposable at the time the free patent was issued to Saromo.
Whether the CA improperly declined to apply Section 91 of the Public Land Act by failing to address the alleged fraud and misrepresentation in Saromo’s free patent application.
Whether the CA erred in applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties concerning the issuance of the free patent.
Whether the principle of the Regalian doctrine, which mandates that all public land reverts to the State unless declassified by a positive act, applies in the present case.