10.FELIPE SEVILLE, et. al. vs. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, et. al.

/ CALIXTRA YAP 351 SCRA 112, February 2, 2001 FACTS: On June 14, 1980, Calixtra Yap sold to LSBDA (Leyte Sub-Basin Development Authority) a lot consisting of 464,920 square meters located at Sto. Rosario, Isabel, Leyte. On June 1, 1982, LSBDA filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application with the Bureau of Lands covering said lot. Thereafter, an original Certificate of Title (OCT) was issued in the name of LSBDA. In 1989, LSBDA assigned all rights over the property to the National Development Company (NDC), and as a result, a new TCT was issued. The property was leased to Philippine Associated Smelting & Refining Corporation, Philphos & LEPANTO. In 1988, the estate of Joaquin Ortega, represented by their administrator Felipe Seville, filed a complaint for recovery of real property, rentals, & damages against the respondents. After trial, the Court declared, among others, the following: 1. The Deed of Sale by Calixtra Yap in favor of LSBDA is NULL & VOID ab initio; 2. The intestate estate of Joaquin Ortega is declared owner in fee simple of the 735,333 sq. m. & NDC is ordered to segregate same area & convey the same to the estate of J. Ortega.; 3. The Register of Deeds is ordered to issue 8 new titles; A motion for reconsideration was filed with the Court of Appeals where the latter REVERSED & SET ASIDE the RTCs judgment.Hence, this petition. In their Memorandum, petitioners submitted the following issues for the reconsideration of the Court: 1. Whether or not the sale of Calixtra Yap of the estate of the late Joaquin Ortega in favor of LSBDA was NULL & VOID; 2. Whether or not the issuance of a Miscellaneous Patent & an Original Certificate of Title in favor of LSBDA was valid; 3. Whether or not petitioners are guilty of laches; 4. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to the remedy of reconveyance & the damages awarded by the Trial Court. HELD:The petition has no merit. There was no showing that the land had been classified as alienable before the title was issued to LSBDA, hence, petitioners could not have become owners thereof through prescription. Petitioners challenge to LSBDA cannot be granted, because it is based on a wrong premise and amounts to a collateral attack, which is not allowed by law. Certificate not subject to collateral attack A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. It has been held that a certificate of title, once registered, should not thereafter be impugned, altered, modified, enlarged or diminished, except in a direct proceeding permitted by law. Otherwise, the reliance on registered titles would be lost. LSBDAs title was based on Miscellaneous Sales Patent issued by the Director of the Bureau of Lands. LSBDA acquired the property in a public auction conducted by the Bureau of Lands. Therefore, the same was valid. Moreover, the title became indefeasible & incontrovertible after the lapse of one year from the time of its registration and issuance. Sec. 32 of PD 1529 provides that upon expiration of said period of 1 year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title shall become incontrovertible. Petitioners also claim that the disputed property should be reconveyed to them. This cannot be allowed. The proper remedy is an action for reversion, which may be instituted only, pursuant to Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act, which states that, All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Seville vs. National Development Company G.R. No. 129401. February 2, 2001 PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. PANGANIBAN, J.: FACTS: By virtue of Presidential Decree No. 625, Leyte Sab-A Basin Development Authority (LSBDA) was created to integrate government and private sector efforts for a planned development and balanced growth of the Sab-a Basin in the [P]rovince of Leyte, empowered to acquire real property in the successful prosecution of its business. Letter of Instruction No. 962 authorized LSBDA to acquire privately-owned lands circumscribed in the Leyte Industrial Development Estate (LIDE) by way of negotiated sales with the landowner. On June 14, 1980, [Respondent] Calixtra Yap sold to LSBDA Lot No. 057 SWO 08-000047 consisting of 464,920 square meters, located at Barangay Sto. Rosario, Isabel, Leyte, covered under Tax Declarations Nos. 3181, 3579, 3425, 1292 and 4251 under the name of said vendor. On June 1, 1982, appellant LSBDA filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application with the Bureau of Lands covering said lot together with other lots acquired by LSBDA with an aggregate area of 442,7508 square meters. After due notice and investigation conducted by the Bureau of Lands, Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 9353 was issued in the name of [Respondent] LSBDA on the basis of which Original Certificate of Title No. P-28131 was transcribed in the Registration Book for the [P]rovince of Leyte on August 12, 1983 in the name of [Respondent] LSBDA. On December 14, 1989, LSBDA assigned all its rights over the subject property to its [Co-respondent] National Development Company (NDC) as a result of which a new Transfer of Certificate of Title was issued on March 2, 1990 by the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Northern Leyte in the name of NDC. The subject property was leased to [Respondents] Philippine Associated Smelting & Refining Corporation (PASAR), Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation (PHILPHOS) and Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., Inc. (LEPANTO). ISSUE:Whether or not the issuance of a Miscellaneous Sales Patent and an Original Certificate of Title in favor of LSBDA was valid? HELD:Where the subject land was public before a Miscellaneous Sales Patent was issued, a private party has no standing to ask for the reconveyance of the property to him the proper remedy is an action for reversion, which may be instituted only by the Office of the Solicitor General. Petitioners also claim that the disputed property should be reconveyed to them. This cannot be allowed. Considering that the land was public before the Miscellaneous Sales Patent was issued to LSBDA, petitioners have no standing to ask for the reconveyance of the property to them. The proper remedy is an action for reversion, which may be instituted only by the Office of the Solicitor General, pursuant to Section 101 of the Public Land Act, which reads as follows: SEC. 101. All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the [Republic] of the Philippine WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners