silao

[G.R. No. 146030. December 3, 2002.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF FELIPE ALEJAGA SR., represented by ROQUETAALEJAGA, FELIPE ALEJAGA JR., MARIA DULLA ALEJAGA, FELIPE ALEJAGA III, ROQUETAALEJAGA, JENNIFER ALEJAGA, EVERETTE CAPUNDAN, AND LYNETTE ALEJAGA; THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ROXAS CITY, respondents.

FACTS:

Subject matter of this case is a parcel of land with an area of .3899 hectares, more or less. On December 28, 1978, Felipe Alejaga Sr. predecessor-in-interest of herein respondents, filed a Free Patent Application covering the subject property. On March 14, 1979, Free Patent No. (VI-2) was approved and issued. The corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. P-15 was issued on the same date. On April 18, 1990, petitioner Republic, alleging that respondents had obtained the free patent and the Certificate of Title through fraud and misrepresentation, instituted an action for annulment/ cancellation of patent and title and reversion of the subject lot to the mass of public domain. The trial court favorably ruled for the petitioner. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC ruling that the action for reversion should have been brought within one (1) year from the registration of the patent with the Registry of Deeds. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not considering that petitioner has proven the allegations to the Complaint.

RULING:

The court began the resolution with the well-settled rule that the party alleging fraud or mistake in a transaction bears the burden of proof. The circumstances evidencing fraud are as varied as the people who perpetrate it in each case. It may assume different shapes and forms; it may be committed in as many different ways. Thus, the law requires that it be established by clear and convincing evidence. In the case before us, we find that petitioner has adduced a preponderance of evidence before the trial court, showing manifest fraud in procuring the patent. The Court agrees with the RTC that in obtaining a free patent over the lot under scrutiny, petitioner had resorted to misrepresentation or fraud, signs of which were ignored by the Court of Appeals.

As to the issue, the Supreme Court upheld the petitioner's claim that the issuance of the patent and title was tainted with fraud. Petitioner had adduced a preponderance of evidence before the trial court, showing manifest fraud in procuring the patent. The Court reiterated the familiar doctrine that a free patent obtained through fraud or misrepresentation is void. Thus, the invalidity of the patent is sufficient basis for nullifying the Certificate of Title issued in consequence thereof.

The Court held that the indefeasibility of a Certificate of Title cannot be invoked by the respondents, whose forebear obtained the title by means of fraud. True, the Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible a year after the issuance of the latter. However, this indefeasibility of title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation. Under the Public Land Act, the State — even after the lapse of one year — may still bring an action for the reversion to the public domain of land that has been fraudulently granted to private individuals. Thus, the Court held that prescription and laches will not bar actions filed by the State to recover its own property acquired through fraud by private individuals.

[G.R. No. 147649. December 17, 2002.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANK LOBRIGAS, MARLITO LOBRIGAS(At Large) and TEODORICO MANTE (Acquitted), accused.

FACTS:

Felix Taylaran died two days after he was mauled. Thereafter, the trial court convicted appellant of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, based on the following circumstantial evidence: First, the victim, appellant, and others were together having a drinking spree on the day the mauling happened. Second, the victim declared to witness Guden immediately after the incident that appellant and two others mauled him. This was considered as part of the res gestae. Third, the victim also told his daughter immediately after the incident that appellant was one of the persons who mauled him. Fourth, Dr. Miranda concluded in his autopsy report that the victim died due to massive hemorrhage in his thoracic cavity caused by severe beating of his breast. Lastly, appellant evaded arrest and subsequently escaped from detention.

ISSUE:

Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of flight are sufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

In order to warrant a conviction, direct evidence is not always required. Conviction can be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence if the established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion proving that the appellant is the author of the crime to the exclusion of all others. The rules on evidence and jurisprudence sustain the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence when the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

As to the accused-appellant’s contention that the statements made by the victim to Castor Guden and Rosa Solarte cannot be considered dying declarations for they were made not under the consciousness of an impending death, andeither can they be deemed part of the res gestae because the victim was drunk and mad at Teodoro Mante for taking away his knife, the court ruled that A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply, hence, the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.

Finally, as to whether or not the evidence of flight are sufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the court ruled that In criminal law, flight means an act of evading the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. The unexplained flight of the accused person may, as a general rule, be taken as evidence having tendency to establish his guilt.

G.R. No. 172931               June 18, 2009

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), Petitioner, 
vs.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 18, ROXAS CITY, CAPIZ, RIZAL RECIO, TERESITA RECIO, PACIENCIA RECIO, and HEIR OF OSCAR RECIO, HARRIET VILLANUEVA vda. DE RECIO, and the REGISTER OF DEEDS, ROXAS CITY, CAPIZ, Respondents

FACTS:

On September 14, 1984, said RTC rendered a decision in Land Registration Case (LRC) No. N-785 granting the Application for Registration of Title⁴ 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.

In 1997, a number of occupants of Lot No. 900, namely Joselito Alba, Virginia Bengora, Teodosia Alba, Celso Bullos, Elizabeth Barrosa, Noel Gallardo, Paquita Ducit and Arturo Borleo filed a protest before the DENR, Roxas City against the issuance of OCT No. 0-2107 on the ground that the land covered therein is within forest lands or timberlands, hence it cannot be the subject of private appropriation.

Acting on the protest, Lorna L. Jomento, Special Investigator II of the Lands Management Department (LMD), DENR, Region VI, Iloilo City conducted an ocular inspection and investigation on the status of Lot No. 900.

On September 9, 2002, RP, 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 Decision dated September 14, 1984 on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction to adjudicate title over the subject parcel of land which forms part of the public forest. The OSG argued that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it adjudicated the subject land which is forest land and, accordingly, its decision is null and void.

On May 25, 2006, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of sufficient evidence.

ISSUES:

(1) Did the RTC act without jurisdiction in allowing the registration of the subject land?

(2) Did petitioner fail to discharge the burden of establishing the inalienable character of the land?

RULING:

On the first issue, the court ruled that at the time of application for registration of the subject land by the Recios in 1977, the land was classified as alienable public land. The Recios presented a Certification³¹ dated November 8, 1976 from the then Bureau of Forest Development certifying that the subject land containing an area of 11,189 square meters and described as Lot No. 900, Pilar Cadastre is found to be 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. It is clear that at the time the Recios filed their application for registration of title in 1977 and at the time the RTC rendered its decision in 1984, the land was an alienable land. Hence, the RTC had jurisdiction to adjudicate title to the land

            On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that petitioner failed to discharge the burden of establishing the inalienable character of the land. In an action to annul a judgment, the burden of proving the judgment’s nullity rests upon the petitioner. The petitioner has to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the judgment being challenged is fatally defective. The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner failed to sufficiently prove its allegation that Lot No. 900 forms part of the forest lands of the public domain since its evidence consists only of the testimonies of two witnesses, a written report of Jomento, and a photocopy of the sketch plan of Lot No. 900. It ruled that a mere photocopy is without probative value and inadmissible in evidence and petitioner should have presented a land classification map indicating where Lot No. 900 lies to refute the Certification dated November 8, 1976 of the then Bureau of Forest Development.