Case Summary (G.R. No. 200973)
Antecedents and factual background
In 1996 Amor Hachero filed Free Patent Application No. 045307-969 for a 3.1308-hectare parcel in Busuanga. PENRO Palawan approved the application based on findings that (a) Hachero was a qualified Filipino, (b) the land had been classified alienable and disposable, (c) occupancy and cultivation dated to June 12, 1945 or earlier, (d) required publication and notice had been made with no superior claims, (e) no adverse claim pending at CENRO, and (f) the claim was complete with no recorded obstacle to issuance. Free Patent No. 045307-98-9384 issued October 15, 1998, and OCT No. E-18011 issued May 7, 1999.
Post-issuance reinspection and DENR action
Following a 2000 inspection and verification by DENR-CENRO, the subject land was discovered to remain classified as timberland and thus inalienable and not subject to private patent. On November 26, 2002, the Republic filed a complaint for cancellation of the free patent and OCT and for reversion (Civil Case No. 3726). Hachero was personally served but failed to file a responsive pleading; the trial court declared him in default and allowed the Republic to present evidence ex parte.
Evidence presented by the Republic at trial
The Republic’s sole witness, former CENRO officer Diosdado Ocampo, offered: (a) Hachero’s free patent application; (b) orders approving the application and issuance of patent; (c) the Free Patent No. 045307-98-9384; (d) OCT No. E-18011; (e) an Inspection Report dated July 24, 2000; and (f) a Verification dated July 17, 2000, both prepared by Sim Luto. The DENR also produced NAMRIA maps showing the subject land within unclassified public forest and beyond the alienable and disposable area, and identified the subject parcel as within timberland classification under Project No. 2A, L.C. Map No. 839 (released December 9, 1929).
RTC decision and reasoning
On March 29, 2006, the Regional Trial Court denied the Republic’s action for cancellation and reversion. The RTC emphasized that the free patent and title had been properly issued after findings of compliance, that the DENR/CENRO office itself had brought the land under Torrens, that the same office later reversing its position was inexplicable, that the specific L.C. Map No. 839 underlying the later verification was not shown to have been relied upon at the time of initial approval despite its alleged availability, that adjacent lands were alienable and disposable, and that the free patent and title, as public documents, carried a presumption of regularity which the Republic’s inspection and verification reports were insufficient to overcome.
Court of Appeals ruling and critique of DENR’s proof
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC on July 4, 2011. The CA held that the Inspection Report and Verification could not be given probative value because L.C. Map No. 839, which purportedly formed their basis, was not presented at trial. The CA found the inspection report standing alone insufficient to meet the Republic’s burden to justify reversion and doubted the later findings because the investigator was the same officer who earlier certified alienability.
Grounds and central arguments of the Republic’s petition
The Republic petitioned to the Supreme Court urging that: (1) findings by DENR investigating personnel enjoy the presumption of regularity that Hachero failed to rebut; and (2) prior factual misappreciation by DENR employees should not bind the government where the mistake concerns immutable matters such as alienability of public domain. The Republic argued the 2000 inspection and verification demonstrating timberland status superseded the prior approval and that statute of limitations and estoppel do not bar the State from seeking reversion of inalienable public land.
Hachero’s counterarguments at the Supreme Court level
Hachero argued the petition raised predominantly factual issues, invoking finality of RTC and CA factual findings and the rule against reexamining such findings absent grave abuse of discretion. He stressed that the L.C. Map No. 839—allegedly the basis for DENR’s reinspection—was not presented in court and that the same officials who earlier certified alienability could not reasonably have erred. He also invoked principles against capricious government dealings and noted the absence of fraud by him.
Legal standard for reviewing factual findings and identification of exceptions
The Court reiterated the general rule that trial court findings affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive, but enumerated established exceptions permitting review: findings based on speculation; manifestly mistaken or impossible inferences; grave abuse of discretion; judgments founded on misapprehension of facts; conflicting findings of fact; findings beyond the issues; conclusions without citation of evidentiary basis; undisputed facts omitted by the lower courts; findings premised on supposed absence of evidence contradicted by record; and other analogous circumstances. The Court concluded that the present case warranted review under exceptions of misapprehension of facts and findings contradicted by the record.
Supreme Court’s factual assessment and evidentiary conclusions
Upon examining the record, the Court found clear and convincing proof that the subject land remained timberland. The Inspection Report and Verification (July 2000) attested that the parcel fell within timberland under Project No. 2A, L.C. Map No. 839 (Dec. 9, 1929). The Republic also submitted NAMRIA maps demonstrating the parcel lay within unclassified public forest and outside the alienable and disposable area. The Court considered that Hachero, having been duly served, failed to file any responsive pleading and thus waived the opportunity to rebut the DENR evidence; therefore the presumption of regularity in DENR officials’ performance applied unrebuffed.
Presumption of regularity, burden of proof, and effect of default
The Court applied the doctrine that official acts are presumed regular (omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta) and that this presumptive regularity prevails unless overcome by clear
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 200973)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 785 Phil. 784, Second Division; G.R. No. 200973; Decision rendered May 30, 2016; opinion penned by Justice Mendoza.
- Subject of the petition is the Court of Appeals' July 4, 2011 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 87267 and its March 6, 2012 Resolution, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court, Branch 48, Puerto Princesa, Palawan (RTC) March 29, 2006 Decision denying the Republic's Petition for Cancellation of Free Patent, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) and Reversion.
- Petition sought review on certiorari by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Regional Executive Director, DENR Region IV, Manila, against respondents Amor Hachero and the Register of Deeds of Palawan.
Relevant Facts and Antecedents
- In or about 1996, Amor Hachero filed Free Patent Application No. 045307-969 covering Lot No. 1514, CAD-1150-D, a parcel of land of 3.1308 hectares (31,308 square meters) located in Sagrada, Busuanga, Palawan.
- The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) of Palawan approved the application and made the following findings in support of approval:
- Hachero was a natural-born Filipino and qualified to acquire public land through free patent;
- The land had been classified as alienable and disposable and was subject to disposition under the Public Land Law;
- An investigation by Land Investigator/Inspector/Deputy Public Land Inspector Sim A. Luto found that the land had been occupied and cultivated by Hachero or his predecessor-in-interest since June 12, 1945 or earlier;
- Notice for acquisition was published in accordance with law and no other person showed better right;
- No adverse claim involving the land was pending before the CENRO;
- Hachero's claim was complete and no obstacle to issuance of the patent was recorded in CENRO.
- Free Patent No. 045307-98-9384 was issued on October 15, 1998; the subject land was registered under OCT No. E-18011 on May 7, 1999.
- A CENRO inspection and verification in 2000 revealed that the subject land was still classified as timberland and thus not susceptible of private ownership under the Free Patent provision of the Public Land Act.
DENR Investigation, Inspection and Documentary Basis
- After issuance of the patent and title, the DENR created a task force to investigate issued patents and titles for possible defects.
- In July 2000, an investigation by representatives of the Regional Executive Director, Regional Office No. IV, produced:
- Verification dated July 17, 2000, prepared and signed by Sim Luto (Land Management Officer III);
- Inspection Report dated July 24, 2000, prepared and signed by Sim Luto and Diosdado L. Ocampo (Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer);
- Both documents attested that the subject land fell within the timberland zone under Project No. 2A, L.C. Map No. 839, released on December 9, 1929, and recommended cancellation of OCT No. E-18011.
- The Republic also presented maps prepared by the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) showing the subject land within the periphery of unclassified public forest and beyond the alienable and disposable area; the maps indicated the entire subject land within unclassified public forest.
Republic’s Complaint, RTC Proceedings and Evidence
- On November 26, 2002, the Republic, represented by the Regional Executive Director of DENR Region IV, filed a Complaint for Cancellation of Free Patent No. 045307-98-9384 and OCT No. E-18011 and for Reversion, docketed as Civil Case No. 3726.
- Hachero received personal service of summons and complaint but did not file any responsive pleading within the period required by law; the RTC declared Hachero in default.
- The Republic was permitted to present evidence ex parte; the Republic presented its lone witness, Diosdado Ocampo, and formally offered these exhibits:
- Application for Free Patent of Amor Hachero;
- Orders of Approval of the Application and Issuance of Free Patent;
- Free Patent No. 045307-98-9384;
- OCT No. E-18011 issued in the name of Amor Hachero;
- Inspection Report dated July 24, 2000;
- Verification dated July 17, 2000 (both prepared by Sim Luto).
RTC Decision (March 29, 2006) — Disposition and Reasoning
- Dispositive ruling: The RTC denied the action for cancellation of free patent, original certificate of title and reversion for lack of merit; no pronouncement as to costs.
- RTC reasoning included:
- The free patent and title were already issued after Hachero was found to have complied with requirements;
- The Republic, through DENR-CENRO Coron, had initiated and completed the titling process and could not be seen to make a contradictory turnabout;
- The RTC expressed inability to understand the complete turnaround by the same office and officials who previously certified the land as alienable and disposable and who approved the application;
- The Republic failed to show the specific document (L.C. Map No. 839, released December 9, 1929) purportedly showing the land as timberland, despite the alleged availability of that document at the CENRO office at the time of application;
- Lands adjacent to the subject land were already alienable and disposable;
- The free patent and title were public documents entitled to the presumption of regularity; and
- The inspection and verification by Sim Luto and other CENRO officials were insufficient to defeat Hachero's patent and title.
Court of Appeals Decision (July 4, 2011) — Reasoning
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision and found the Republic's verification lacked probative value because L.C. Map No. 839 (dated December 9, 1929), the alleged basis of the verification, was not presented before the RTC.
- The CA held the Inspection Report, standing alone, was insufficient to overcome the Republic's burden and could not serve as basis for reversion.
- The CA expressed doubt about the subsequent findings of the land investigator that the land was timberland because the same land investigator had earlier evaluated and certified that the land was alienable and disposable.
Grounds and Arguments in the Petition to the Supreme Court
- The Republic's stated grounds for relief included:
- (I) The discharge of official functions by the investigating personnel of the DENR in this case has the presu