Reversion
Reversion
Reversion
ESGUERRA, J.:p
The land covered by the free patent and title in question was
originally applied for by Precila Soria, who on February 23, 1966,
transferred her rights to the land and its improvements to
defendant Isagani Du Timbol who filed his application therefor on
February 3, 1969, as a transferee from Precila Soria.
On December 12, 1969, free Patent No. V-466102 was issued by the
President of the Philippines for the land in question, and on July
20, 1970, after transmittal of the patent to the Register of Deeds of
General Santos City, Original Certificate of Title (O.C.T.) No. P-2508
was issued in the name of defendant Isagani Du Timbol.
A patent is void at law if the officer who issued the patent had no
authority to do so (Knight vs. Land Ass., 142 U.S. 161, 12 Sup. Ct.,
258, 35L ED. 974; emphasis supplied). If a person obtains a title
under the Public Land Act which includes, by mistake or oversight,
lands which cannot be registered under the Torrens System, or
when the Director of Lands did not have jurisdiction over the same
because it is a public forest, the grantee does not, by virtue of said
certificate of title alone, become the owner of the land illegally
included. (See Ledesma vs. Municipality of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 769)
[G.R. No. 80687. April 10, 1989.]
SYLLABUS
DECISION
CRUZ, J p:
DECISION
BARREDO, J p:
SYNOPSIS
SYLLABUS
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J p:
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J p:
SYLLABUS
DECISION
LABRADOR, J p:
[G.R. No. 200973. May 30, 2016.]
DECISION
MENDOZA, J p:
Subject of this petition for review on certiorari is the July 4,
2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No.
87267 and its March 6, 2012 Resolution, 2affirming the March
29, 2006 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 48,
Puerto Princesa, Palawan (RTC), which denied the Petition for
Cancellation of Free Patent, Original Certificate of Title and
Reversion filed by the Republic of the Philippines (Republic).
The Antecedents
Sometime in 1996, Amor Hachero (Hachero) filed his Free
Patent Application No. 045307-969 covering Lot No. 1514, CAD-
1150-D (subject land) before the Community Environment and
Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of Palawan. The subject land,
with an area of 3.1308 hectares or 31,308 square
meters (subject land), is located in Sagrada, Busuanga,
Palawan. 4
The said application for free patent was later approved by
the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Officer (PENRO) of Palawan based on the following findings:
1) That Hachero was a natural-born Filipino citizen of the
Philippines and, therefore, qualified to acquire public
land through free patent;
2) That the land applied for had been classified as alienable
and disposable and, therefore, subject to disposition
under the Public Land Law;
3) That an investigation conducted by the Land
Investigator/Inspector/Deputy Public Land Inspector
Sim A. Luto, found that the subject land had been
occupied and cultivated by Hachero himself and/or
through his predecessor-in-interest since June 12,
1945 or prior thereto;
4) That the notice for the acquisition of the land
by Hachero was published in accordance with law and
that no other person provided a better right to the land
applied for;
5) That there was no adverse claim involving the land still
pending determination before the CENRO; and
6) That the claim of Hachero was complete and there
was no record in the CENRO of any obstacle to the
issuance of the patent. 5
On October 15, 1998, Free Patent No. 045307-98-9384 was
issued to Hachero and the subject land was registered under
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. E-18011 onMay 7, 1999.
After an inspection and verification were conducted by the
CENRO in 2000, it was discovered that the subject land, covered
by OCT No. E-18011, was still classified as timberland and so
not susceptible of private ownership under the Free Patent
provision of the Public Land Act. 6
Consequently, on November 26, 2002, the Republic,
represented by the Regional Executive Director, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)-Region IV, Manila,
filed the Complaint for the Cancellation of Free Patent No.
045307-98-9384 and OCT No. E-18011 and for Reversion, which
was docketed as Civil Case No. 3726.
Despite personal receipt of the summons and the
complaint, however, Hachero did not file any responsive pleading
within the period required by law. Upon theRepublic's motion,
the RTC declared Hachero in default. Thereafter,
the Republic was allowed to present its evidence ex-parte. 7
The Republic presented its lone witness, Diosdado Ocampo,
former CENRO officer of Palawan, and formally offered the
following documents as its exhibits: a) Application for Free Patent
of Amor Hachero; b) Orders of Approval of the Application and
Issuance of Free Patent; c) Free Patent No. 045307-98-9384; d)
OCT No. E-18011 issued in the name of Amor Hachero; e)
Inspection Report, dated July 24, 2000; and f) Verification, dated
July 17, 2000, both issued by one Sim Luto. 8 CAIHTE
The Ruling of the RTC
On March 29, 2006, the RTC rendered its decision in favor
of Hachero. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court
hereby resolves to deny the instant action for
cancellation of Free Patent and Original Certificate of
Title and Reversion for lack of
merit. No pronouncement as to costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 9
The RTC explained that the free patent and title had already
been issued after Hachero was found to have complied with all
the requirements; that it was the Republicitself thru the DENR-
CENRO, Coron, which brought the subject land under the
operation of the Torrens System; that it could not understand the
complete turnabout made by the same office and its officials who
certified before that the subject land was alienable and
disposable and who approved Hachero's application; that
the Republic failed to show the document which stated that the
subject land was still timberland as indicated under Project No.
2A L.C. Map No. 839, released on December 9, 1929, despite the
fact that said document was already available at the CENRO
office at the time of the application for free patent; that the lands
adjacent to the subject land were already alienable and
disposable; that the free patent and the title itself were public
documents entitled to the presumption of regularity; and that the
verification and inspection report of one Sim Luto together with
the other CENRO officials presented by the Republic were
insufficient to defeat Hachero's patent and title. 10
The Ruling of the CA
On July 4, 2011, the CA affirmed the RTC decision, stating
that the verification presented by the Republic could not be given
probative value because L.C. Map No. 839, dated December 9,
1929, which served as basis for the verification, was not
presented before the RTC. According to the CA, the Inspection
Report, standing alone, was not sufficient to overcome the
burden imposed upon the Republic and could not serve as basis
of the reversion of the subject land. The CA doubted the
subsequent findings of the land investigator that the subject land
was still timberland because he was the same land investigator
who previously evaluated the subject land and certified that it
was alienable and disposable. 11
Not in conformity, the Republic filed the subject petition
anchored on the following:
GROUNDS
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL OF
PETITIONER'S ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF
FREE PATENT NO. 045307-98-9384 AND ORIGINAL
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (OCT) NO. E-18011 AND
REVERSION, CONSIDERING THAT:
I
THE DISCHARGE OF THE OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS BY THE INVESTIGATING
PERSONNEL OF THE DENR IN THIS CASE
HAS THE PRESUMPTION OF
REGULARITY, WHICH PRIVATE
RESPONDENT FAILED TO REBUT.
II
THE PREVIOUS FACTUAL
MISAPPRECIATION COMMITTED BY THE
DENR EMPLOYEES CANNOT AND
SHOULD NOT BIND THE GOVERNMENT,
ESPECIALLY WHEN, AS IN THIS CASE,
THE MISTAKE OR ERROR REFERS TO
IMMUTABLE MATTERS SUCH AS
ALIENABILITY OF A PORTION OF PUBLIC
DOMAIN. 12
In advocacy of its cause, the Republic basically argues that
per its investigation and verification conducted in July 2000, the
free patent issued to Hachero was defective and erroneous
considering that the land it covered fell within the timberland
zone. It contends that the said factual findings carry great weight
and should be accorded respect by the courts due to the special
knowledge and expertise of DENR personnel over matters within
their jurisdiction. Considering that the DENR personnel acted in
the discharge of their official functions, the Republic asserted
that they have in their favor the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their official duties. Moreover,Hachero failed to
rebut the DENR's investigation report and, for said reason, the
presumption in favor of the investigating personnel and their
report has become conclusive.
The Republic further contends that the title issued
to Hachero, which had been issued based on an erroneous DENR
finding that the land was alienable, can still be overturned by a
later report stating otherwise. Thus, the Inspection
Report, 13 dated July 24, 2000, and Verification
Report, 14 dated July 17, 2000, superseded the previous finding
that the subject land was alienable and disposable.
The Republic avers that the State is not estopped by the
mistakes of its officers and employees and that the previous
factual misappreciation committed by DENR employees cannot
bind the government. 15 DETACa
Hachero's counter-position
Hachero counters that the petition should be dismissed on
the ground that it has raised substantially factual matters. He
points out that the findings of fact of the RTC and the CA are
final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal if there
is no showing of grave abuse of discretion. He calls the attention
of the Court to the fact that the officials, who previously certified
to the alienability and disposability of the subject land but made
a complete turn around by declaring otherwise, could not have
made a mistake or error. He asserts that the main document a
vital piece of data denominated as Cadastral Map No. 839, which
became the basis for the reinspection/reinvestigation and
verification by CENRO, Coron, was released on December 9,
1929 and admittedly already in their records when the
application was approved for titling, and yet was not presented in
court as evidence. Finally, Hachero stresses that the government
cannot be allowed to deal dishonorably or capriciously with its
citizens and that titleholders maynot be made to bear the
unfavorable effect of the mistake or negligence of the State's
agents, in the absence of his complicity in a fraud or manifest
damage to third persons.16
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds merit in the petition.
General Rule and Exceptions when
factual findings of the trial court
are affirmed by the CA
It is generally settled in jurisprudence that the findings of
fact of the trial court specially when affirmed by the CA are final,
binding and conclusive and may not be re-examined by this
Court. There are, however, several exceptions to this rule, to wit:
1] When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises or conjectures;
2] When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd
or impossible;
3] When there is grave abuse of discretion;
4] When the judgment is based on misapprehension of
facts;
5] When the findings of facts are conflicting;
6] When in making its findings, the CA went beyond the
issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
7] When the findings of the CA are contrary to that of the
trial court;
8] When the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based;
9] When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
main and reply briefs are not disputed;
10] When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence
on record; and
11] When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant
facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion. 17
After combing through the records, the Court is of the
considered view that there is a need to review the findings of the
courts below due to the presence of some of the enumerated
exceptions mentioned above, which are 1) when the judgment is
based on misapprehension of facts; and 2) when the findings of
fact are contradicted by the evidence on record.
The Republic showed clear and convincing
proof that the subject land was inalienable
and non-disposable
Records reveal that on October 15, 1998, upon the approval
of Hachero's application by CENRO of Palawan, Free Patent No.
045307-98-9384 was issued and, on May 7, 1999, the property
was subsequently registered under OCT No. E-18011.
Thereafter, in an effort to find out fake or illegal titles, the
DENR created a task force to investigate and evaluate all issued
patents and titles. An investigation conducted by a representative
of the Regional Executive Director of the Regional Office No. IV
revealed that the subject land covered by OCT No. E-18011 was
still timberland and, therefore, could not be segregated from the
public domain as timberlands were classified as inalienable and
non-disposable public lands.
Accordingly, both Sim Luto, Land Management Officer III,
and Diosdado L. Ocampo, Community Environment and Natural
Resources Officer, prepared and signed the Inspection Report,
dated July 24, 2000, and Verification, dated July 17, 2000,
attesting to the fact the subject land fell within the timberland
zone under Project No. 2A, L.C. MapNo. 839, released on
December 9, 1929. For said reason, both recommended the
cancellation of OCT No. E-18011.
Aside from the Inspection Report and the Verification,
the Republic also adduced maps 18 prepared by the National
Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA), which
showed that the subject land was located within the periphery of
the land area classified as unclassified public forest and beyond
the alienable and disposable area. In other words, as the maps
clearly reveal, every inch of the subject land is inside the
unclassified public forest area. Evidently, these maps presented
by theRepublic, together with the Inspection Report and the
Verification, all clearly demonstrate that the subject land is not
yet subject to disposition. aDSIHc
Presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties
applies favorably to Republic
The Court would have wanted to study Hachero's position
on the matter, but he did not file an answer or responsive
pleading to the complaint filed by the Republicbefore the RTC. It
appears from the records, however, that he was duly served with
the summons together with a copy of the complaint. He,
apparently, opted to ignore it, in effect, waived his right to rebut
the allegations thereof at the first opportunity.
There being a controversion, the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duties applies favorably to
the Republic. This means that the DENR's inspection report and
the verification stating that the subject land is still inalienable
has become conclusive. The doctrine in Bustillo vs. People, 19
. . . In sum, the petitioners have in their favor the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties which the records failed to rebut. The
presumption of regularity of official acts may be
rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or
failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however,
prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the
presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive.
Every reasonable intendment will be made in support
of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an
officer's act being lawful or unlawful, construction
should be in favor of its lawfulness.
[Emphasis Supplied]
and in Farolan v. Solmac Marketing Corp., 20
In the same vein, the presumption, disputable
though it may be, that an official duty has been
regularly performed applies in favor of the
petitioners. Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter
esse acta. (All things are presumed to be correctly and
solemnly done.) It was private respondent's burden to
overcome this juris tantumpresumption. We are not
persuaded that it has been able to do so.
are both instructive.
Cancellation of title and reversion proper
where there exists a mistake or oversight in
granting free patent over inalienable land
The courts below ruled that the Inspection Report and the
Verification had no probative value because the land
classification map (L.C. Map No. 839) on which they were based
was not presented in the trial court. Likewise, the courts below
considered the subsequent findings of the land investigator —
that the land still belonged to the public domain — as doubtful
because the officials who previously evaluated and verified that
the subject land was alienable were the same officials who now
investigated and verified the same and found it inalienable.
The Court holds otherwise.
Reversion is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to
revert the land back to the government under the Regalian
doctrine. Considering that the land subject of the action
originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation
therefore is a matter between the grantor and the
grantee. 21 In Republic v. Guerrero, 22 the Court gave a more
general statement that "this remedy of reversion can only be
availed of in cases of fraudulent or unlawful inclusion of the land
in patents or certificates of title." 23Nonetheless, the Court
recognized in Republic v. Mangotara, 24 that there were
instances when it granted reversion for reasons other than fraud:
. . . . In Estate of the Late Jesus S.
Yujuico v. Republic (Yujuico case), reversion was
defined as an action which seeks to restore public land
fraudulently awarded and disposed of to private
individuals or corporations to the mass of public
domain. It bears to point out, though, that the Court
also allowed the resort by the Government to actions
for reversion to cancel titles that were void for reasons
other than fraud, i.e., violation by the grantee of a
patent of the conditions imposed by law; and lack of
jurisdiction of the Director of Lands to grant a patent
covering inalienable forest land or portion of a
river, even when such grant was made through
mere oversight. 25
[Emphasis Supplied]
In the case at bench, although the Republic's action for
cancellation of patent and title and for reversion was not based
on fraud or misrepresentation on the part ofHachero, his title
could still be cancelled and the subject land reverted back to the
State because the grant was made through mistake or oversight.
This could probably be the reason why, shortly after one (1) year
from the issuance of OCT No. E-18011 to Hachero, the DENR
personnel conducted another investigation and verification on
the subject land. It would appear that they suspected that a
mistake was made in their issuance of the patent as the subject
land had not been reclassified or released as alienable or
disposable land. It remained plotted within the timberland
classification zone. This time, they supported their findings with
maps prepared by the NAMRIA. The Republic also followed the
proper legal procedure for cancellation of patent and title and for
reversion. They filed a complaint in court and
notified Hachero through summons. They gaveHachero an
opportunity to be heard in court. For unknown reasons, however,
he disregarded the summons, allowed himself to be declared in
default, and forfeited his right to adduce evidence in his defense.
Prescription and estoppel
cannot lie against the State
Contrary to the observation of the courts below, there is
nothing incomprehensible or puzzling or suspicious about the
complete turnaround made by the DENR after its re-
investigation. The Court has carefully reviewed the records and
found nothing anomalous. ETHIDa
At any rate, it is a time-honored principle that the statute of
limitations or the lapse of time does not run against the State.
Jurisprudence also recognizes the State's immunity from
estoppel as a result of the mistakes or errors of its officials and
agents. These well-established principles apply in the case at
bench. The Court in Republic v. Roxas elucidated:
It is true that once a homestead patent granted in
accordance with the Public Land Act is registered
pursuant to Act 496, otherwise known as The Land
Registration Act, or Presidential Decree No. 1529,
otherwise known as The Property Registration Decree,
the certificate of title issued by virtue of said patent
has the force and effect of a Torrens title issued under
said registration laws. We expounded in Ybañez v.
Intermediate Appellate Court that:
The certificate of title serves as evidence of an
indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person
whose name appears therein. After the expiration of
the one (1) year period from the issuance of the decree
of registration upon which it is based, it becomes
incontrovertible. The settled rule is that a decree of
registration and the certificate of title issued pursuant
thereto may be attacked on the ground of actual fraud
within one (1) year from the date of its entry and such
an attack must be direct and not by a collateral
proceeding. The validity of the certificate of title in this
regard can be threshed out only in an action expressly
filed for the purpose.
It must be emphasized that a certificate of title
issued under an administrative proceeding pursuant
to a homestead patent, as in the instant case, is as
indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under a
judicial registration proceeding, provided the land
covered by said certificate is a disposable public land
within the contemplation of the Public Land
Law. TIADCc
There is no specific provision in the Public Land
Law (C.A. No. 141, as amended) or the Land
Registration Act (Act 496), now P.D. 1529, fixing the
one (1) year period within which the public land patent
is open to review on the ground of actual fraud as in
Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, now Section
32 of P.D. 1529, and clothing a public land patent
certificate of title with indefensibility. Nevertheless, the
pertinent pronouncements in the aforecited cases
clearly reveal that Section 38 of the Land Registration
Act, now Section 32 of P.D. 1529 was applied by
implication by this Court to the patent issued by the
Director of Lands duly approved by the Secretary of
Natural Resources, under the signature of the
President of the Philippines in accordance with law.
The date of issuance of the patent, therefore,
corresponds to the date of the issuance of the decree
in ordinary registration cases because the decree
finally awards the land applied for registration to the
party entitled to it, and the patent issued by the
Director of Lands equally and finally grants, awards,
and conveys the land applied for to the applicant. This,
to our mind, is in consonance with the intent and
spirit of the homestead laws, i.e., conservation of a
family home, and to encourage the settlement,
residence and cultivation and improvement of the
lands of the public domain. If the title to the land
grant in favor of the homesteader would be subjected
to inquiry, contest and decision after it has been given
by the Government thru the process of proceedings in
accordance with thePublic Land Law, there would
arise uncertainty, confusion and suspicion on the
government's system of distributing public agricultural
lands pursuant to the "Land for the Landless" policy of
the State. (Emphases ours, citations omitted.)
Yet, we emphasize that our statement in the
aforequoted case that a certificate of title issued
pursuant to a homestead patent becomes indefeasible
after one year, is subject to the proviso that "the land
covered by said certificate is a disposable public land
within the contemplation of the Public Land Law." As
we have ruled herein, the subject property is part of
the Matchwood Forest Reserve and is inalienable and
not subject to disposition. Being contrary to the Public
Land Law, Homestead Patent No. 111598 and OCT No.
P-5885 issued in respondent Roxas's name are void;
and the right of petitioner Republic to seek
cancellation of such void patent/title and reversion of
the subject property to the State is imprescriptible.
We have addressed the same questions on
indefensibility of title and prescription in Mangotara,
thus:
It is evident from the foregoing jurisprudence that
despite the lapse of one year from the entry of a decree
of registration/certificate of title, the State, through
the Solicitor General, may still institute an action for
reversion when said decree/certificate was acquired by
fraud or misrepresentation. Indefeasibility of a title
does not attach to titles secured by fraud and
misrepresentation. Well-settled is the doctrine that the
registration of a patent under the Torrens system does
not by itself vest title; it merely confirms the
registrant's already existing one. Verily, registration
under the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring
ownership.
But then again, the Court had several times in
the past recognized the right of the State to avail itself
of the remedy of reversion in other instances when the
title to the land is void for reasons other than having
been secured by fraud or misrepresentation. One such
case is Spouses Morandarte v. Court of Appeals,
where the Bureau of Lands (BOL), by mistake and
oversight, granted a patent to the spouses Morandarte
which included a portion of the Miputak River.
The Republic instituted an action for reversion 10
years after the issuance of an OCT in the name of the
spouses Morandarte. The Court ruled:
Be that as it may, the mistake or error of the
officials or agents of the BOL in this regard cannot
be invoked against the government with regard to
property of the public domain. It has been said
that the State cannot be estopped by the omission,
mistake or error of its officials or agents.
It is well-recognized that if a person obtains a
title under the Public Land Act which includes, by
oversight, lands which cannot be registered under the
Torrens system, or when the Director of Lands did not
have jurisdiction over the same because it is a public
domain, the grantee does not, by virtue of the said
certificate of title alone, become the owner of the land
or property illegally included. Otherwise stated,
property of the public domain is incapable of
registration and its inclusion in a title nullifies that
title.
Another example is the case of Republic of the
Phils. v. CFI of Lanao del Norte, Br. IV, in which the
homestead patent issued by the State became null and
void because of the grantee's violation of the
conditions for the grant. The Court ordered the
reversion even though the land subject of the patent
was already covered by an OCT and
theRepublic availed itself of the said remedy more than
11 years after the cause of action accrued, because:
There is merit in this appeal considering that the
statute of limitation does not lie against the State. Civil
Case No. 1382 of the lower court for reversion is a suit
brought by the petitioner Republic of the Philippines
as a sovereign state and, by the express provision of
Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, any
transfer or alienation of a homestead grant within five
(5) years from the issuance of the patent is null and
void and constitute a cause for reversion of the
homestead to the State. In Republic vs. Ruiz, 23
SCRA 348, We held that "the Court below
committed no error in ordering the reversion to
plaintiff of the land grant involved herein,
notwithstanding the fact that the original certificate of
title based on the patent had been cancelled and
another certificate issued in the names of the grantee
heirs. Thus, where a grantee is found not entitled to
hold and possess in fee simple the land, by reason of
his having violated Section 118 of the Public Land
Law, the Court may properly order its reconveyance to
the grantor, although the property has already been
brought under the operation of the Torrens System.
And, this right of the government to bring an
appropriate action for reconveyance is not barred by
the lapse of time: the Statute of Limitations does not
run against the State." (Italics supplied). The above
ruling was reiterated in Republic vs. Mina, 114 SCRA
945.
If the Republic is able to establish after trial and
hearing of Civil Case No. 6686 that the decrees and
OCTs in Doña Demetria's name are void for some
reason, then the trial court can still order the
reversion of the parcels of land covered by the same
because indefeasibility cannot attach to a void decree
or certificate of title. . . . (Citations omitted.) AIDSTE
Neither can respondent Roxas successfully
invoke the doctrine of estoppel against
petitioner Republic. While it is true that respondent
Roxas was granted Homestead Patent No. 111598 and
OCT No. P-5885 only after undergoing appropriate
administrative proceedings, the Government is not
now estopped from questioning the validity of said
homestead patent and certificate of title. It is, after all,
hornbook law that the principle of estoppel does not
operate against the Government for the act of its
agents. And while there may be circumstances when
equitable estoppel was applied against public
authorities, i.e., when the Government did not
undertake any act to contest the title for an
unreasonable length of time and the lot was already
alienated to innocent buyers for value, such are not
present in this case. More importantly, we cannot use
the equitable principle of estoppel to defeat the law.
Under the Public Land Act and Presidential
Proclamation No. 678 dated February 5, 1941, the
subject property is part of the Matchwood Forest
Reserve which is inalienable and not subject to
disposition. 26
[Emphases Supplied; citations omitted]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The July 4, 2011
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87267 and
its March 6, 2012 Resolution are REVERSED andSET ASIDE.
Free Patent No. 045307-98-9384 and OCT No. E-18011 in the
name of Amor Hachero are hereby
declared NULL and VOID and CANCELLED.
The subject land is ordered reverted to the public domain as
part of the inalienable timberland.
SO ORDERED.
||| (Republic v. Hachero, G.R. No. 200973, [May 30, 2016])
[G.R. No. 186603. April 5, 2017.]
DECISION
JARDELEZA, J p: