Title
Republic vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Roxas City, Capiz
Case
G.R. No. 172931
Decision Date
Jun 18, 2009
RP failed to prove Lot No. 900 was forest land; RTC had jurisdiction as land was alienable and disposable at the time.
land classification
forest land
alienable and disposable

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172931)

Factual Background

On September 14, 1984, the RTC of Roxas City, Branch 18 rendered a decision in LRC No. N-785, granting an Application for Registration of Title dated June 20, 1977 filed by Rizal Recio “for himself and in behalf of” his brother Oscar Recio and sisters Teresita Recio and Paciencia Recio.

The RTC ordered the confirmation and registration of title to Lot No. 900 of the Pilar Cadastre, LRC Cadastral Record No. 50963, located in Marita, Municipality of Pilar, Province of Capiz, using the technical description (Exhibit “E”) and the approved plan (Exhibit “X”). The RTC specifically decreed that the title be issued in the names of the applicants, including the only heir of Oscar Recio, Harriet Villanueva Vda. de Recio, and that a decree could issue once the decision became final.

The RTC decision became final. Consequently, an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-2107 covering the land (described as an 11,189-square meter parcel) was issued to the Recios on April 17, 1985.

In 1997, several occupants of Lot No. 900—Joselito Alba, Virginia Bengora, Teodosia Alba, Celso Bullos, Elizabeth Barrosa, Noel Gallardo, Paquita Ducit, and Arturo Borleo—filed a protest before the DENR in Roxas City. They alleged that the land covered by OCT No. 0-2107 was within forest lands or timberlands and therefore could not be the subject of private appropriation.

The DENR, acting on the protest, conducted an investigation and ocular inspection through Lorna L. Jomento, Special Investigator II of the Lands Management Department (LMD), DENR Region VI. On January 19, 1998, Jomento issued a written report stating that Lot No. 900 fell within the forest lands of Project No. 20-A, established on January 17, 1986 under Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1777, based on Land Classification (LC) Map No. 3132. Jomento recommended that an action be instituted for the cancellation of OCT No. 0-2107.

DENR’s Petition for Annulment of Judgment and Issues Raised

On September 9, 2002, the Republic, represented by the DENR through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the RTC decision dated September 14, 1984. The Republic asserted that the RTC had no jurisdiction because the subject parcel formed part of the public forest.

The OSG relied on Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, maintaining that courts could adjudicate only alienable and disposable lands and could not adjudicate forest lands in favor of private individuals. Accordingly, the OSG claimed the RTC decision confirming title to Lot No. 900 was null and void.

The Recios opposed the petition and argued that the RTC had jurisdiction. They further contended that the Republic negligently filed the petition without examining the records of LRC No. N-785 and, despite the existence of a duly approved plan, the Republic proceeded on the assumption that Lot No. 900 was within LC Project No. 20-A. They claimed that their approved plan showed Lot No. 900 belonged to LC Project No. 20, which had been certified as alienable and disposable on September 28, 1960 per BFD Map LC-2401. They also invoked finality, pointing out that the RTC decision had become final and that OCT No. 0-2107 had been issued on April 17, 1985, which they argued rendered the case closed and barred by res judicata.

After proceedings at the Court of Appeals, including a resolution for pre-trial and the reception of evidence, the Court of Appeals issued a decision on May 25, 2006 dismissing the petition for lack of sufficient evidence.

Trial and Appellate Factual Assessment

The Court of Appeals held that the Republic failed to prove its allegation that Lot No. 900 formed part of the forest lands of the public domain. It ruled that the Republic’s evidence consisted of the testimonies of only two witnesses, Jomento’s written report (Exhibit A), and an ordinary photocopy of the sketch plan of Lot No. 900 (Exhibit E) with a verification (Exhibit E-1).

The Court of Appeals determined that the photocopy of the sketch plan and the verification on it had no probative value and were inadmissible under the best evidence rule, in view of the absence of a showing that the original sketch plan could not be produced. It invoked the principle that photocopies are unworthy of probative value as long as the original evidence can be obtained, absent a showing of loss, destruction, or inability to produce it.

The Court of Appeals further reasoned that the Republic’s evidence did not overcome a certification issued for the private respondents, dated November 8, 1976, by the Bureau of Forest Development. That certification stated that Lot No. 900 fell within the alienable and disposable land block of LC Project No. 20 of Pilar, Capiz, certified as such on September 28, 1960 per BFD Map LC-2401.

The Court of Appeals concluded that if Lot No. 900 truly lay within the forest lands reserved for fishpond purposes created under Project 20-A based on Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1777 and per LC Map No. 3132, the Republic should have presented the land classification map indicating that location. Because it did not, the Republic’s proof was insufficient.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Before the Supreme Court, the Republic maintained that the RTC acted without jurisdiction by confirming title to inalienable land. It reiterated that classification of public land was an executive function and was binding when established by government authorities. It argued that the investigation by Special Investigators and the resulting land classification determination should be given weight, invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties in the absence of evidence of bias.

It also argued that res judicata did not apply because the petition sought nullification of an RTC judgment allegedly allowing registration of inalienable land.

For their part, the Recios insisted that the 1984 RTC decision had become final and that the issuance of a decree and OCT after one year from the finality of the decision reinforced closure of the case. They argued that the decision had become binding between the Republic, the applicants, and the whole world.

Supreme Court’s Resolution on Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court, applying the framework for land registration proceedings under Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, examined whether the RTC had jurisdiction at the time of application and decision.

The Court did not agree that the land was inalienable forest land. It found that at the time the Recios filed their application for registration in 1977, and at the time the RTC decided in 1984, Lot No. 900 had been classified as alienable public land. This finding was grounded on the certification presented by the Recios dated November 8, 1976, which certified that Lot No. 900, with an area of 11,189 square meters and described as Lot No. 900 of the Pilar Cadastre, was within the alienable and disposable land block of LC Project No. 20 of Pilar, Capiz, certified on September 28, 1960 per BFD Map LC-2401.

In contrast, the Republic’s evidence consisted of Jomento’s report that Lot No. 900 was within forest lands reserved for fishpond development under Project 20-A established in 1986, based on LC Map No. 3132. The Supreme Court held that the classification controlling jurisdiction at the relevant time was the alienable classification shown by the Recios’ certification. Hence, the RTC had jurisdiction to adjudicate title to the land, and the challenged decision could not be treated as void on jurisdictional grounds.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Sufficiency of Evidence in Annulment

On the second issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the Republic failed to discharge its burden of proving the nullity of the judgment. It reiterated that in an annulment of judgment, the burden of proving the judgment’s nullity rests on the petitioner, who must establish—by clear and convincing evidence—that the judgment is fatally defective.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ factual assessment that the Republic did not sufficiently prove that Lot No. 900 was part of forest lands. It noted the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the Republic relied on testimony and a written report, but also used an inadmissible photocopy of the sketch plan and did not present the relevant land classification map to directly refute the certification presented by the Recios.

The Supreme Court further stressed the limits of its review. It held that its jurisdiction in cases from the Court of Appeals was limited to reviewing errors of law, while the latter’s findings of fact were conclusive unless shown to be unsupported by the record. It found no reason to deviate from the Court of Appeals’ factual findings.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court anchored its reasoning on two connected propositions: first, that the RTC’s jurisdiction in a registration case depends on the land’s classification at the time of application and decision, as contemplated by Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529; and second, that

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms