G.R. No. L-62737 - People vs. Borromeo

On 18 October 1967, Socorro Orcullo filed an application for a free patent over Lot No. 1434 of Cad-315-D, a parcel of land covering 12.8477 hectares in Barangay Abugon, Sibonga, Cebu.
On 14 February 1971, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued Free Patent No. 473408 for the lot, and the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cebu issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-6667.
The subject lot was subsequently sold by one of Orcullo’s heirs to SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc. (petitioner).

Sometime in 1995, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General, initiated a complaint seeking the annulment of title and reversion of the lot.
The basis of the complaint was the discovery that the land was allegedly part of the timberland and forest reserve of Sibonga, Cebu—information that surfaced when Pedro Urgello filed a letter-complaint concerning alleged illegal cutting of mangrove trees and unauthorized construction activities within the area covered by his Fishpond Lease Agreement.
On 14 July 1995, Pedro Urgello also filed a complaint-in-intervention against the heirs of Orcullo, adopting the allegations presented by the Republic.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, Branch 11, in its Decision dated 15 May 1999, dismissed both the reversion complaint and the complaint-in-intervention.

The RTC held that the petitioner’s acquisition was legal and valid as it found no evidence that the subject lot was part of the timberland or forest reserve at the time the free patent and OCT were issued.
The trial court emphasized the presumption of regularity of the issuance of the free patent and title.

The CA held that timber or forest lands are not subject to private ownership unless declassified as agricultural lands.
In its Decision and Resolution, the CA invalidated the issuance of Free Patent No. 473408 and OCT No. 0-6667, canceled the title, and declared that the subject lot reverts to the public domain as part of the timberland reserve.
The CA allowed Urgello’s Fishpond Lease Agreement to continue until its expiration but precluded its renewal.

The petitioner contended that the DENR officer’s testimony—relied upon by the CA—was merely an opinion that extrapolated from Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705, particularly Section 13, regarding unclassified lands.
It was argued that since P.D. No. 705 took effect on 19 May 1975, long after the issuance of the free patent and title in 1971, the law’s provision could not be applied retroactively.
The petitioner further questioned the evidentiary basis for the reversion claim, specifically:

The authenticity and admissibility of Land Classification (L.C.) Map No. 2961, which was not submitted as a certified true copy or an official publication.
The reliability of the projection survey conducted by the DENR and the accuracy of the instruments used.

Lastly, petitioner contended that respondent failed to overcome the presumption of regularity attached to the originally issued free patent and title.

The respondent relied on the Regalian doctrine, which posits that all public domain lands inherently belong to the State and that any private ownership arising therefrom can be subject to reversion if obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.
The respondent maintained that the subject lot, by virtue of being part of an unclassified forest zone until later classified under P.D. No. 705, should have been treated as timberland and thus not subject to private appropriation.
Evidence such as the DENR officer’s testimony and the L.C. Map was presented to support the claim that the lot was part of the forest reserve; however, issues were raised regarding the admissibility and credibility of such evidence.

Whether the issuance of Free Patent No. 473408 and OCT No. 0-6667 over Lot No. 1434 was regular and valid despite later assertions that the lot was part of timberland or a forest reserve.
Whether the application of Presidential Decree No. 705, particularly Section 13, can have retroactive effect on a free patent and title issued in 1971, prior to the law’s effectivity in 1975.
Whether the evidence presented by the respondent—specifically, the testimony of DENR personnel and the use of L.C. Map No. 2961—sufficiently established that the subject lot belongs to the timberland or forest reserve.
Whether the respondent discharged its burden of proving that the free patent and title were obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or irregular exercise of power given the presumption of regularity in such issuances.
Whether the rules on the admissibility of evidence, including the best evidence rule, were properly observed by the respondent in relying on a photocopy of a document allegedly in the custody of a public officer.