Title
S.N. Aboitiz Power-Magat, Inc. vs. Municipality of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao
Case
G.R. No. 198647
Decision Date
Nov 20, 2017
A dispute over land jurisdiction arose when a municipality challenged the validity of titles issued based on alleged fraudulent survey plans, but the Supreme Court ruled the complaint failed to state a cause of action, as no ownership claim was asserted.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 198647)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Case Background
    • The Municipality of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao (respondent) filed an Amended Complaint on September 17, 2008, alleging fraudulent acquisition of Special Patent No. 3723 by the National Power Corporation (NPC).
    • The complaint asserted that certain parcels of land were incorrectly surveyed and included in the patent as part of Barangay General Aguinaldo, Ramon, Isabela, while they were actually located in Barangay Sto. Domingo, Alfonso Lista, Ifugao.
    • Based on these survey plans, NPC obtained Special Patent No. 3723 registered at the Register of Deeds of Santiago City in 2004, followed by issuance of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-1.
    • NPC alienated the parcels to Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM), which subsequently transferred them to petitioner SN Aboitiz Power Magat, Inc. (SNAP).
  • Relief Sought by Respondent Municipality
    • The respondent municipality prayed for nullification of Special Patent No. 3723 and OCT No. 0-1 on grounds of fraud and failure to reflect the true location of the parcels.
    • Alternatively, the municipality requested the amendment of such titles to correctly reflect the land’s location in Barangay Sto. Domingo, Alfonso Lista, Ifugao.
    • The municipality clarified it claimed only its right of jurisdiction (territorial authority), not ownership of the land. It argued the Register of Deeds of Isabela had no jurisdiction to register the titles.
  • Petitioner’s Response
    • Instead of an answer, SNAP filed a Motion to Dismiss citing prescription and failure to state a cause of action, while upholding the validity of its title, TCT No. TSC-16666.
    • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the Motion to Dismiss, ruling that the case required presentation of evidence on the parties’ conflicting claims before resolution. SNAP was ordered to file an answer.
  • Procedural History
    • SNAP’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC.
    • SNAP filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied the petition and affirmed the RTC’s resolutions.
    • SNAP’s Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was likewise denied.
    • This prompted the filing of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether the dismissal of the case by the lower courts was proper.
  • Whether the respondent municipality’s complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action to annul or amend Special Patent No. 3723 and OCT No. 0-1.
  • Whether the territorial dispute raised by the respondent can be resolved in an action for nullity or amendment of titles.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.