Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Baguio City
SECOND DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by the Register of Deeds,
Petitioner,
- versus HEIRS OF DIEGO LIM, namely,
PRUDENCIA D. LIM,
ANGELINA D. LIM,
SIXTA D. LIM BAJA,
ERNESTO D. LIM,
MIGUEL D. LIM,
JOSEFA D. LIM,
CASIMIRO D. LIM,
BUENAVENTURA D. LIM, and
ENGRACIA D. LIM UY,
(the last five being deceased, but
represented by Prudencia D. Lim),
HEIRS OF JEORGE*JOSEFAT,**
EPIFANIO ROMAMBAN,
SANTIAGO PARONG,
ANTONIO P. CACHO,
JESSMAG, INC.,
ROSITA LAGUERTA,
EMILIO JOSE,
HEIRS OF NESTOR P. TRINIDAD,
ANTONIO DIAZ,
ANTONIO CHUA,
GUILLERMO J. JOSE,
DANIEL MA. JOSE,
LOURDES JOSE,
JUNA MA. JOSE,
WILFREDO V. GARCIA,
JESUS BILBAO,
JOSE CONCEPCION, JR.,

*
**

Or Jorge.
Or Josafat.

G.R. No. 195611

Decision

.2

FRANCISCO ACHACOSO,
DENNIS B. PABLIZo,***
ROMEO A. CRUZ,
JOSE DE LA ROSA,
VICTORIOSO DIAZ CARPIO,
ROSARIO CARPIO SANTOS,
MARIETA CARPIO BACAY,
MARIETA PALMA,
SPOUSES ROLANDO and
OFELIA HUANG,
PELAGIO M. ACHACOSO, and
MELBA M. MANDOCDOC,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 195611

Present:
BRION, Acting Chairperson,
PERALTA ****
'
DEL CASTILLO,
MENDOZA, and
LEONEN,JJ.

'--

x----------------------------------------------~--

DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petitio~ for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to set aside the September 27,
2010 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals .(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 85329
affirming the April 18, 2005 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba,
Zambales, Branch 70 in Civil Case No. RTC-666-I, as well as the CA's February
11, 2011 Resolution4 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. 5

Factual Antecedents
Lot 42 consisting of 17,181,376 square
1,718.1376 hectares, is situated in Iba, Zambales.

meters~

more or less - or

On _December 8, 1924, the Director of Lands filed with the then Court of
First Instance of Zambales (CFI) a petition for cadastral hearing to settle and
adjudicate Lot 42, pursuant to Section 1855 of the Revised Administrative Cod~~
Or Tablizo.
.
Per Raffle dated March 21, 2016.
1
Rollo, pp. I0-36.
Id. at 37-56; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices
Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo.
Id. at 96-108; penned by Judge Clodualdo M. Monta.
Id. at 66-69.
Id. at 57-65.
6
Sec. 1855. Institution qf Registration Proceedings. - When the lands have been surv~ed and plotted, the
Director of Lands, represented by the Solicitor-General, shall institute registration proceedings, by petition
against the holders, claimants, possessors or occupants of such lands or any part thereof, stating in substance
that the public interest requires that the title to sue~ lands be settled and adjudicated.
The petition shall contain a description of the lands and shall be accompanied by a plan thereof, and
may contain such other data as may serve to furnish full notice to the occupants of the lands and to all
persons who may claim anyright or interest therein.

Decision

G.R. No. 195611

Present:
FRANCISCO ACHACOSO,
***
DENNIS B. PABLIZO,
BRION,Acting Chairperson,
ROMEO A. CRUZ,
PERALTA,****
JOSE DE LA ROSA,
DEL CASTILLO,
VICTORIOSO DIAZ CARPIO,
MENDOZA, and
ROSARIO CARPIO SANTOS,
LEONEN, JJ.
MARIETA CARPIO BACAY,
MARIETA PALMA,
SPOUSES ROLANDO and
OFELIA HUANG,
PELAGIO M. ACHACOSO, and
Promulgated:
MELBA M. MANDOCDOC,
________________
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1seeks to set aside the September 27,
2010 Decision2of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 85329 affirming
the April 18, 2005 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales,
Branch 70 in Civil Case No. RTC-666-I, as well as the CAs February 11, 2011
Resolution4 denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.5
Factual Antecedents
Lot 42 consisting of 17,181,376 square meters, more or less or
1,718.1376 hectares, is situated in Iba, Zambales.
On December 8, 1924, the Director of Lands filed with the then Court of
First Instance of Zambales (CFI) a petition for cadastral hearing to settle and
adjudicate Lot 42, pursuant to Section 1855 of the Revised Administrative Code.6
***
****
1
2
3
4
5
6

Or Tablizo.
Per Raffle dated March 21, 2016.
Rollo, pp. 10-36.
Id. at 37-56; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices
Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo.
Id. at 96-108; penned by Judge Clodualdo M. Monta.
Id. at 66-69.
Id. at 57-65.
Sec. 1855.Institution of Registration Proceedings. When the lands have been surveyed and plotted, the
Director of Lands, represented by the Solicitor-General, shall institute registration proceedings, by petition
against the holders, claimants, possessors or occupants of such lands or any part thereof, stating in substance
that the public interest requires that the title to such lands be settled and adjudicated.
The petition shall contain a description of the lands and shall be accompanied by a plan thereof, and
may contain such other data as may serve to furnish full notice to the occupants of the lands and to all
persons who may claim any right or interest therein.

Decision

G.R. No. 195611

The case was docketed as Cadastral Case No. 121. The Director of Lands claimed
that Lot 42 was part of the public domain. Herein respondents Epifanio
Romamban (Romamban) and Santiago Parong (Parong) opposed the petition,
claiming ownership of Lot 42-E, which is a portion of Lot 42. Romamban
claimed that he owned by acquisitive prescription, 29 hectares of Lot 42-E; on the
other hand, Parong claimed eight hectares of Lot 42-E, which he allegedly
purchased from Romamban.
Apart from Romamban and Parongs claims over Lot 42-E, it appears that
Diego Lim (Lim) and Jorge Josefat (Josefat) had their own: in October 1968, Lim
sent a letter to the CFI informing the latter that he was a claimant over a portion of
Lot 42-E, having occupied the same and filed previously a free patent application
therefor. Josefat likewise had a pending homestead application over 20 hectares
of Lot 42-E.
On November 20, 1969, the CFI of Zambales, Branch 11 rendered
judgment in Cadastral Case No. 121 adjudicating in favor of Romamban and
Parong, Lot 42-E.7 The herein petitioner Republic of the Philippines took issue
before the CA via an appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 11483.
Meanwhile, in 1970, Romamban was able to secure in his name Original
Certificate of Title No. (OCT) 0-6511, covering the 29 hectares of land awarded to
him. Parong was likewise able to obtain in his name Transfer Certificates of Title
Nos. (TCT) T-20204, T-20205, and T-20206 over his 8-hectare award. Later on,
Romamban and Parong sold or transferred portions of their respective awards and,
as a result, several derivative titles were issued in favor of Romamban, Parong,
and the other respondents herein, namely Jessmag, Inc., Emilio Jose, Nestor P.
Trinidad, Antonio Diaz, Wilfredo V. Garcia, Francisco Achacoso, Jesus Bilbao,
Victorioso Diaz Carpio, Jose Concepcion, Jr., Marieta Palma, Marieta Carpio
Bacay, Spouses Rolando and Ofelia Huang, Pelagio M. Achacoso, Jose De La
Rosa, Dennis B. Pablizo, Romeo A. Cruz, Antonio P. Cacho, Rosario Carpio
Santos, Rosita Laguerta, Antonio Chua, Guillermo J. Jose, Daniel Ma. Jose,
Lourdes Jose, Juna Ma. Jose, and Melba M. Mandocdoc.
On January 12, 1989,8 the CA issued a Decision9 in CA-G.R. CV No.
11483, ruling in favor of the Republic, thus
We find [the Republics] averment to be impressed with merit. The
instant case is a cadastral proceeding under the Public Land Laws. The burden of
proving that the land is a registrable private land rests upon [Romamban and
7
8
9

See September 10, 1991 Order in Civil Case No. RTC-666-1, records, vol. II, pp. 327-330 at 327-328.
See Entry of Judgment, rollo, p. 78.
Id at 71-77; penned by Associate Justice Hector C. Full and concurred in by Associate Justices Nathaniel M.
Pao, Jr. and Asaali S. Isnani.

Decision

G.R. No. 195611

Parong] in view of the basic presumption that lands of whatever classification

belong to the State. x xx. Subject Lot No. 42-E is, therefore, presumed to be
public land. To overcome the presumption, it is incumbent upon [Romamban
and Parong] to show by clear and convincing evidence that they have been in
uninterrupted possession of the same in the concept of an owner for a period of at
least thirty (30) years. x xx. However, as has been earlier discussed, since
[Romamban and Parong] have already lost their standing in court,10 the evidence
adduced by them in the trial court cannot be admitted to support their claim. This
court is thus constrained to rule that the presumption that Lot No. 42-E is a public
land has not been overcome. Withal, claimant Diego Lims Application for Free
Patent (Exh.1) and Claimant Jorge Josefats Homestead Application (Exh.
9) which are pending with the Bureau of Lands are competent evidence that
subject Lot No. 42-E is indeed part of the public domain. x xx. Necessarily,
therefore, the lower court committed reversible error when it awarded subject Lot
No. 42-E to [Romamban and Parong].
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of the court a quo
dated November 20, 1969 is hereby REVERSED and its Order dated April 14,
1970 SET ASIDE. It is hereby further declared that subject Lot No. 42-E is
deemed and considered part and parcel of the public domain without prejudice to
the right of claimant Diego Lim and claimant Jorge Josefat to pursue their
respective applications for free patent and homestead patent, respectively. With
costs.
SO ORDERED.11

The above Decision became final and executory on February 3, 1989.12

Civil Case No. 666-I
On January 3, 1990, Lim and Josefat filed a Complaint13 for accion
publiciana and cancellation of deeds of absolute sale and titles against
Romamban, Parong, and their co-respondents herein. The case was docketed as
Civil Case No. 666-I and assigned to Branch 70 of the RTC, Iba, Zambales. Lim
and Josefat asserted that they were the actual occupants of Lot 42-E, and have
filed with the government applications to acquire the same; that Romamban and
Parong surreptitiously subdivided Lot 42-E and sold the lots to their corespondents; that these co-respondents purchased or obtained these lots and
occupied them knowing that CA-G.R. CV No. 11483 was still pending; and that
by virtue of the resultant Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 11483, Lim and Josefat are
therefore entitled to the subject land. Thus, they prayed that Romamban, Parong,
and the other respondents be ordered to vacate Lot 42-E and pay damages and that
the deeds of sale and titles issued in their favor be nullified and cancelled.

10
11
12
13

An order of general default was issued against Romamban and Parong.

Rollo, pp. 76-77.
Id. at 78.
Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-7.

Decision

G.R. No. 195611

Romamban, Parong, and the other defendants in Civil Case No. 666-I filed
their respective answers and motions to dismiss, arguing among others that they
have obtained Torrens titles over the property; that they are innocent purchasers in
good faith thereof; and that Lim and Josefats rights are inchoate, as they are mere
applicants and not grantees of the property. In a September 10, 1991 Order,14 the
RTC denied the motions to dismiss but declared that Lim and Josefat lacked
personality to seek cancellation of the issued titles.
On April 28, 1992, petitioner filed a Motion for Intervention, attaching
thereto a Complaint in Intervention,15 arguing that Romambans OCT 0-6511 and
all the other derivative titles of the defendants in Civil Case No. 666-I were null
and void since, by virtue of the final and executory January 12, 1989 Decision of
the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 11483, Lot 42-E did not cease to be inalienable public
land.
Petitioners motion for intervention was granted and its complaint in
intervention was admitted. However, in a February 19, 1998 Order of the trial
court, the said complaint in intervention was later dismissed for failure to
prosecute.16
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision17 dated April 18, 2005 in Civil
Case No. RTC 666-1 declaring as follows:
The main issue in this case is whether or not [sic] the plaintiffs can still
recover the [sic] possession of the lots from the defendants in this case which is
also for the nullification of their titles. The issues of possession and ownership
are inextricably intertwined with each other and should be resolved together.
It is worthy to note that despite the decision of the Court of Appeals
setting aside the decision of the then Court of First Instance at Iba, Zambales
which awarded Lot 42-E of the Iba Cadastre to Epifanio Romamban and
Santiago Y. Parong, no action was filed by the government for the reversion of
such lot to the public domain. It is a hornbook doctrine that it is only the State
through the Solicitor General that can file an action for reversion x xx which up
to the present time is [sic] not yet initiated by the government office concerned.
Although the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General had
intervened in this proceeding, it did not pursue its case against the present
possessors the defendants, as in fact its complaint in intervention was dismissed
on February 19, 1998 x xx for failure x xx to appear in the hearing of this case
and for lack of interest to prosecute. Under the factual milieu of this case, the
plaintiffs have therefore no legal personality to file the action to revert Lot 42-E
of the Iba Cadastre to the public domain which legally pertains to the State
through the Office of the Solicitor General.
14
15
16
17

Records, Vol. II, pp. 327-330.

Id. at 383-390.
Id. at 702; rollo, p. 20.
Rollo, pp. 96-108.

Decision

G.R. No. 195611

While the present action is not directly one for reversion but for recovery
of possession (accion publiciana), still this Court finds plaintiffs18 evidence
insufficient to overturn the defendants19 evidence as to proof of ownership and
possession. Witness and plaintiff Prudencia Lim has not even shown any tax
declaration either in her name or that of her deceased brother, Diego Lim and so
were not paying taxes on the property. The non-existence of a tax declaration of
the subject land in the names of the plaintiffs is also confirmed by witnesses
Rodrigo A. Aramay and Arturo Buenaventura. The defendants however have
certificates of title in their names transferred from the previous owners. The titles
of the defendants until now, have not been invalidated. Such titles as a proof of
ownership should therefore be given superior weight and the defendants as the
holders thereof should be considered as the owners of the property in controversy
until their titles are nullified or modified in an appropriate ordinary action x x x.
The defendants were buyers in good faith and they relied on the titles of the
vendors, Epifanio Romamban and Santiago Y. Parong which do not show any
encumbrance or annotation of an adverse claim or the pendency of an appeal.
The decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Director of Lands vs.
Epifanio Romamban and Santiago Y. Parong (CA-G.R. CV No. 11483
promulgated on January 12, 1989) which declared Lot 42-E, IbaCadastre to be
part and parcel of the public domain, was not annotated in the titles of Epifanio
Romamban and Santiago Y. Parong, who were the vendors of the lots now
owned and possessed by the defendants. It is a settled doctrinal rule that one who
deals with property under the Torrens system need not go beyond the same, but
only has to rely on the title x xx. As a consequence of such indubitable proof of
ownership, the defendants being the actual possessors, have the right to be
respected in their possession (Art. 539, Civil Code of the Philippines).
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1) Declaring the defendants and their respective transferees to be the
absolute owners and lawful possessors of the lots described in their respective
certificates of title;
2) Dismissing the plaintiffs complaint for lack of legal basis;
3) Dismissing the defendants counterclaim for lack of factual basis
there being no evidence submitted by them during the trial; and
4) Dismissing the cross-claims of some of the defendants for being now
moot and academic in view of this decision.
SO ORDERED.20

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Petitioner filed an appeal before the CA, which was docketed as CA-G.R.
CV No. 85329. The Lim and Josefat heirs likewise appealed. In seeking reversal
of the RTCs April 18, 2005 Decision, petitioner essentially argued that the final
18
19
20

Heirs of Diego Lim and Heirs of JeorgeJosefat.

Romamban and Parong and their co-respondents.
Id. at 104-108.

Decision

G.R. No. 195611

and executory January 12, 1989 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 11483 is
conclusive as to the nature and classification of Lot 42-E, which is that it is land
belonging to the State which may not be disposed or alienated in favor of the
respondents; that such a finding constitutes res judicata and respondents are bound
thereby; and that since the issue of ownership has thus been settled in favor of the
State, the RTC may not rule otherwise and declare the property as private land.
On September 27, 2010, the CA rendered the assailed Decision affirming
the RTCs April 18, 2005 Decision, pronouncing thus:
The appeal is unmeritorious.
The main issue to be resolved in the case at bar is whether the lower
court erred in dismissing the complaint for accion publiciana with cancellation of
deeds of absolute sale and transfer certificates of title.
We rule in the negative.
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the parcel of land subject of the
instant controversy had been subdivided into smaller lots, and then later on, sold
to various entities and third parties by Epifanio Romamban and Santiago Parong.
As argued by herein defendants-appellees,21 to whom the subdivided property
had been separately sold, there was no circumstance or presence of anything
appearing on the face of the certificates of title of the afore-named vendors which
excites or arouses suspicion which should then prompt the former to look beyond
the said certificates and investigate the title.
The real purpose of the Torrens system of registration is to quiet title to
land and to put a stop to any question of legality of the title except claims which
have been recorded in the certificate of title at the time of registration or which
may arise subsequent thereto. Every registered owner and every subsequent
purchaser for value in good faith holds the title to the property free from all
encumbrances except those noted in the certificate. Hence, a purchaser is not
required to explore further what the Torrens title on its face indicates in quest
for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right
thereto.
Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate
of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property the court cannot disregard
such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such
an outright cancellation would be to impair public confidence in the certificate of
title, for everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system
would have to inquire in every instance whether the title has been regularly or
irregularly issued. This is contrary to the evident purpose of the law. x xx. Even
if a decree in a registration proceeding is infected with nullity, still an innocent
purchaser for value relying on a Torrens title issued in pursuance thereof is
protected.
In Republic of the Philippines vs. Democrito T. Mendoza, et al. citing
21

Romamban, Parong and their co-respondents.

Decision

G.R. No. 195611

Republic vs. Agunoy, Sr. et al., the Supreme Court emphatically explained that
contested areas and titles which had already passed on to third parties who
acquired the same in good faith and for value must be respected and protected, to
wit:
Finally, it should be borne in mind that the contested
areas and titles thereto had already passed on to third parties who
acquired the same from the Mendozas in good faith and for
value. When the Mendozas sales patents were registered, they
were brought under the operation of Presidential Decree No.
[1529], otherwise known as the Land Registration Decree.
According to Section 103 of the Land Registration
Decree, whenever public [land] is by the Government alienated,
granted, or conveyed to any person, the same shall be brought
under the operation of the said Decree and shall be deemed to
[sic] registered lands to all intents and purposes under the
Decree. x xx.
In Republic v. Agunoy, Sr., et al., We refused to revert
the land in question to the public domain despite the fact
that the free patent thereto was secured by fraud since the
same land already passed on to purchasers in good faith and
for value
There can be no debate at all on petitioners submission
that no amount of legal technicality may serve as a solid
foundation for the enjoyment of the fruits of fraud. It is thus
understandable why petitioner chants the dogma of frauset jus
nunquam cohabitant.
Significantly, however, in the cases cited by petitioner
Republic, as well as in those other cases where the doctrine of
fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant was applied against a patent and
the title procured thru fraud or misrepresentation, we note that
the land covered thereby is either a part of the forest zone which
is definitely non-disposable, as in Animas, or that said patent
and title are still in the name of the person who committed the
fraud or misrepresentation, as in Acot, Animas, Republic vs. CA
and Del Mundo and Director of Lands vs. Abanilla, et al. and, in
either instance, there were yet no innocent third parties standing
in the way.
The foregoing pronouncement which declares that, even if the original
grantee of a patent and title has obtained the same through fraud, reversion will
no longer prosper if such will affect the titles of innocent purchasers for value,
was reiterated in Rabaja Ranch Development Corp. vs. AFP Retirement and
Separation Benefits System, and We quote the pertinent provisions, thus:
In Estate of the Late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic, citing
Republic v. Court of Appeals, this Court stressed the fact that it
was never proven that private respondent St. Jude was a party to
the fraud that led to the increase in the area of the property after it
was subdivided. In the same case, citing Republic v. Umali, we

Decision

G.R. No. 195611

held that, in a reversion case, even if the original grantee of a

patent and title has obtained the same through fraud, reversion
will no longer prosper as the land had become private land and
the fraudulent acquisition cannot affect the titles of innocent
purchasers for value.
This conclusion rests very firmly on Section 32 of
P.D. No. 1529, which states:
SEC. 32.Review of decree of registration; Innocent
purchaser for value. The decree of registration shall not be
reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other
disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any
proceeding in any court for reversing judgment, subject,
however, to the right of any person, including the government
and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or
interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title
obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First
Instance a petition for reopening and review of the decree of
registration not later than one year from and after the date of the
entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such
petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser
for value has acquired the land or an interest therein whose rights
may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase innocent purchaser
for value or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall
be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other
encumbrancer for value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the
decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall
become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree
of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for
damages against the applicant or any other person responsible
for the fraud.
Settled is the rule that no valid TCT can issue from a
void TCT, unless an innocent purchaser for value had
intervened. An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the
property of another, without notice that some other person has a
right to or interest in the property, for which a full and fair price
is paid by the buyer at the time of the purchase or before receipt
of any notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the
property. The protection given to innocent purchasers for
value is necessary to uphold a certificate of titles efficacy and
conclusiveness, which the Torrens system ensures.
Thus, notwithstanding a final judgment declaring that the property in
question forms part of the public domain, a reversion of the said property to the
public domain will no longer be allowed at this stage in view of the protection
given to innocent purchasers for value which is necessary to uphold a certificate
of titles efficacy and conclusiveness.
Moreover, herein plaintiffs-appellants have no legal standing to bring this
instant action. Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court requires that every action

Decision

10

G.R. No. 195611

must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. The
real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Interest, within the meaning of the rule, means material interest, an
interest in the issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere
interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Cases construing
the real party-in-interest provision can be more easily understood if it is borne in
mind that the true meaning of real party-in-interest may be summarized as
follows: An action shall be prosecuted in the name of the party who, by the
substantive law, has the right sought to be enforced. To qualify a person to be a
real party in interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted, he must appear
to be the present real owner of the right sought to be enforced.
In the instant case, herein plaintiffs-appellants had in fact admitted that
the application for free patent filed by Diego Lim and Jorge Josefat had not been
acted upon when a controversy involving the parcel of land subject of the instant
case arose. The mere filing of an application for a free patent does not vest
ownership upon the applicant.
It is a well-settled rule that the approval of a sales application merely
authorized the applicant to take possession of the land so that he could comply
with the requirements prescribed by law before a final patent could be issued in
his favor. Meanwhile, the government still remained the owner thereof, as in fact
the application could still be canceled and the land awarded to another applicant
should it be shown that the legal requirements had not been complied with.
What divests the government of title to the land is the issuance of the sales patent
and its subsequent registration with the Register of Deeds. It is the registration
and issuance of the certificate of title that segregate public lands from the mass of
public domain and convert it into private property. Hence, the lower court did
not err in dismissing the complaint below for accion publiciana with cancellation
of deeds of absolute sale and transfer certificates of title.
As to the allegation that the decision of the trial court is not valid for its
failure to issue the mandatory pre-trial order, We find the same to be devoid of
merit. The appellants, in having voluntarily participated in the proceedings
below in spite of the alleged absence of a pre-trial order, are now precluded to
[sic] challenge the decision through this appeal applying the equitable principle
of estoppel.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is denied.
Accordingly, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales dated
April 18, 2005 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.22 (Emphases in the original)

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,23 which the CA denied in its

subsequent February 11, 2011 Resolution. Hence, the present Petition.

22
23

Id. at 47-55.
Id. at 57-65.

Decision

11

G.R. No. 195611

Issues
In a June 9, 2014 Resolution,24 this Court resolved to give due course to the
Petition, which contains the following assignment of errors:
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF
LAW WHEN IT:
(A) CONSIDERED RESPONDENTS CACHO ET
AL. ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION GIVEN
TO INNOCENT PURCHASERS FOR VALUE.
(B) DISREGARDED
THE
FINAL
AND
EXECUTORY DECISION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS [IN] CA-G.R. CV NO. 11483, WHICH
DECLARED THE SUBJECT LOTS PART OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN.25
Petitioners Arguments
In its Petition and Consolidated Reply26 seeking reversal of the assailed CA
Decision and the dismissal of Civil Case No. 666-I, petitioner argues that with the
promulgation of the CAs January 12, 1989 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 11483
and its consequent finality, Lot 42-E should be considered public land which could
not have been validly acquired by the respondents; that respondents are bound by
said CA judgment, and any title obtained by them is necessarily null and void; and
that the CA erred in declaring respondents Antonio P. Cacho, et al., as innocent
purchasers for value, and in stating that petitioner had lost the right to seek
reversion.
Respondents Arguments
In their Comment,27 the Lim and Josefat heirs adopt the position of the
petitioner and pray for the reversal of the assailed CA Decision, arguing that with
the pronouncement in CA-G.R. CV No. 11483 that Lot 42-E formed part of the
public domain, their co-respondents could not own the portions covered by their
respective titles; that the registration of these portions in their name cannot operate
to convey title; that Romamban and Parong acted in bad faith in registering Lot
42-E in spite of the pendency of CA-G.R. CV No. 11483; and that they possess
the required legal standing as real parties in interest to participate in these
24
25
26
27

Id. at 254-255.
Id. at 22.
Id. at 240-249.
Id. at 191-203.

Decision

12

G.R. No. 195611

proceedings, as their rights as claimants were recognized by the pronouncement in

CA-G.R. CV No. 11483.
In their respective Comments,28 the other respondents reiterate the
soundness of the CAs dispositions, and contend that they are innocent purchasers
for value; that they are unaware of any defect in their respective titles or that of
their predecessors; that they may not be bound by the January 12, 1989 Decision
in CA-G.R. CV No. 11483 since they were not parties in said case; and that their
titles have become indefeasible pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1529.
Our Ruling
The Court denies the Petition.
In resolving the instant case, the procedural issues must first be tackled
before the substantive ones.29 Though the CA was correct in ruling against
petitioner, it erred in addressing the substantive issues before tackling the essential
procedural question involved that is, whether petitioner could appeal the RTCs
Decision in Civil Case No. 666-I despite the fact that its attempt at intervention
was rebuffed.
With the consequent denial of its intervention and dismissal of its
complaint-in-intervention in Civil Case No. 666-I, petitioner should have appealed
such denial. [A]n order denying a motion for intervention is appealable. Where
the lower courts denial of a motion for intervention amounts to a final order, an
appeal is the proper remedy x x x.30 Having failed to take and prosecute such
appeal, petitioner acquired no right to participate in the proceedings in Civil Case
No. 666-I, even question the judgment of the RTC consequently rendered in said
case. A prospective intervenors right to appeal applies only to the denial of his
intervention. Not being a party to the case, a person whose intervention the court
denied has no standing to question the decision of the court [, but] only the trial
court's orders denying his intervention x x x, not the decision itself.31
Since petitioner had no right to appeal the RTCs April 18, 2005 Decision,
it was not entitled to a resolution of the substantive issues it raised particularly
who, by law, is properly entitled to Lot 42-E. Be that as it may, petitioner is not
left without a remedy. It can still file a reversion case against Romamban and
Parong with respect to the portions of Lot 42-E still registered in their names.
28
29
30
31

Id. at 183-189, 207-209, 217-229.

Land Bank of the Philippines v. Atlanta Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 193796, July 2, 2014, 729 SCRA 12, 27.
Foster-Gallego v. Spouses Galang, 479 Phil. 148, 161 (2004), citing Saw v. Court of Appeals, 273 Phil. 108
(1991).
Id. at 162.

Decision

G.R. No. 195611

13

32

After all, petitioner's right to reversi.on cannot be barred by prescription. As to

the other portions which have already been transferred to the other respondents
who are innocent purchasers for value, the government may file an action for
damages against Romamban and Parong or any other person responsible for the
fraud.
.
With respect to the Lim and Josefat h~irs, they are precluded from seeking
a reversal of the herein assailed judgment. As mere respondents in the present
Petition, this Court cannot grant the affirmative relief they seek as they did not
themselves file a petition questioning the appellate court's decision. "It is a
fundamental principle that a party who does not appeal, or file a petitio for
certiorari, is not entitled to any affirmative relief .An appellee who is not an
appellant may assign errors in his brief where his puipose is to maintain the
judgment, but he cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or claim
affirmative relief unless he has also appealed."33 "As a general rule, a party who
has not appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other
than the ones granted in the appeal~d decision. The reason for this rule is that
since parties did not appeal from the decision or resolution, they are presumed to
34
be satisfied with the adjudication."
These pronouncements are especially
significant considering that the CA ruled that the Lim and Josefat heirs have no
legal standing to .maintain and prosecute Civil Case No. 666-I; indeed, their
Comment should have been stricken off the record as a necessary consequence of
the appellate court's pronouncement, which they failed to question and is now
binding as to them.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The September 27, 2010

Decision and February 11, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-9.R.

CV No. 85329 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

32
33

34

Republic v. Mina, G.R. No. L-60685, June 29, 1982, citing Republic v. Animas, 56 SCRA 499.
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. v. Spouses Tanjangco, 578 Phil. 712, 723 (2008), citing Alauya, Jr. v.
Commission on Elections, 443 Phil. 893, 907 (2003) and Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 385 Phil. 956, 976-977 (2000).

Salazary. Philippine Duplicators, Inc. and/or Fontanilla, 539 Phil. 346, 355 (2006), citing Filjlex Industrial
& Manufacturing Corp. v. National labor Relations Commission, 349 Phil. 913, 924-925 (1998).

14

Decision

G.R. No. 195611

WE CONCUR:

(A/UM)fi~

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson

ND OZA

.PERALTA

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Qll@Q~
. ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson

/fot#C

Decision

G.R.
, No. 195611

15

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case 'wa8 assigned to the
'
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. ~.SERENO

ChiefJustice

, /lllt#f