Title
Authority of the Freeport Area of Bataan vs. F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 240047
Decision Date
May 14, 2021
AFAB sought to reclaim lands erroneously titled to FFCCI within Mariveles' Freeport Area. SC ruled only the State, via OSG, can file reversion claims, dismissing AFAB's petition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 240047)

Antecedent Facts

The legal dispute originated from the historical establishment of Mariveles, Bataan, as a Foreign Trade Zone, culminating in the enactment of R.A. No. 9728 which converted the Bataan Economic Zone into a special economic zone and freeport known as the Freeport Area of Bataan (FAB). This transition led to the creation of AFAB to manage the FAB, subsequently transferring relevant land titles, including certain parcels under the authority of FFCCI, which were allegedly erroneously registered.

Amended Complaint and FFCCI's Motion to Dismiss

AFAB filed an Amended Complaint for the Declaration of Nullity and Cancellation of Title against FFCCI concerning the Subject Properties, asserting that these lands were reserved under Proclamations 899 and 939 and thus inalienable. FFCCI responded with a Motion to Dismiss, arguing lack of cause of action, improper jurisdiction, and that the AFAB was not the real party in interest. The RTC denied the Motion, affirming AFAB’s right to pursue the case.

Court of Appeals Decision

FFCCI subsequently petitioned the Court of Appeals, which initially affirmed the RTC's ruling but later reversed itself in an Amended Decision, granting FFCCI's Motion to Dismiss. The CA determined that the Amended Complaint did not sufficiently state a cause of action as it improperly sought to annul a prior title from a lower court, putting the reversion action within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General rather than AFAB.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court reviewed the CA's Amended Decision, concluding that the CA did not err in determining that AFAB was not the real party in interest, as reversion claims to public domain lands must be instituted by the Solicitor General on behalf of the State. Therefore, the correct legal standing belonged to the State, affirming that the Subject Properties should remain under public dominion and could not be privately owned.

Examination of Relevant Legal Principles

Key legal principles were discussed, including the inapplicability of prescription or laches against the State concerning reversion claims. The Court clarified that lands held as public domain

...continue reading

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