Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    RP vs. CA Josefina Morato (DIGESTED)

    Uploaded by

    Kobe Bullmastiff
    Evidence Case Digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    RP vs. CA Josefina Morato (DIGESTED)

    Uploaded by

    Kobe Bullmastiff
    50 views2 pages
    Evidence Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Evidence Case Digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views2 pages

    RP vs. CA Josefina Morato (DIGESTED)

    Uploaded by

    Kobe Bullmastiff
    Evidence Case Digest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    100709 November 14, 1997


    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs.
    COURT OF APPEALS, JOSEFINA L. MORATO, SPOUSES NENITA CO and ANTONIO
    QUILATAN AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON PROVINCE, respondents.
    Facts:

    Morato filed a Free Patent Application on a parcel of land and the patent was
    approved and the Register of Deeds with OCT. Both the free patent and the title
    specifically mandate that the land shall not be alienated nor encumbered within five
    years from the date of the issuance of the patent. District Land Officer in Lucena City
    conducted an investigation and it was established that the subject land is a portion
    of the Calauag Bay and not suitable to vegetation. Morato mortgaged the property
    to respondents Quilatan and Advincula. Petitioner filed an amended complaint
    against respondents and the Register of Deeds of Quezon for the cancellation of title
    and reversion of a parcel of land to the public domain, subject of a free patent in
    favor of respondent Morato, on the grounds that the land is a foreshore land and was
    mortgaged and leased within the five-year prohibitory period. After trial, the lower
    court rendered a decision dismissing petitioner's complaint. In finding for private
    respondents, the lower court ruled that there was no violation of the 5-year period
    ban against alienating or encumbering the land, because the land was merely
    leased and not alienated. It also found that the mortgage to Quilatan covered only
    the improvement and not the land itself. the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
    of the trial court.

    Issues:

    WON the lease and/or mortgage of a portion of a realty acquired through free
    patent constitute sufficient ground for the nullification of such land grant.

    WON property revert to the State once it is invaded by the sea and thus
    becomes foreshore land.

    Held:
    Respondent Morato cannot fully use or enjoy the land during the duration of
    the lease contract. This restriction on the enjoyment of her property sufficiently meets
    the definition of an encumbrance under Section 118 of the Public Land Act, because
    such contract "impairs the use of the property" by the grantee. In a contract of lease
    which is consensual, bilateral, onerous and commutative, the owner temporarily
    grants the use of his or her property to another who undertakes to pay rent
    therefor. During the term of the lease, the grantee of the patent cannot enjoy the
    beneficial use of the land leased. As already observed, the Public Land Act does not
    permit a grantee of a free patent from encumbering any portion of such land. Such
    encumbrance is a ground for the nullification of the award. Even if only part of the
    property has been sold or alienated within the prohibited period of five years from the
    issuance of the patent, such alienation is a sufficient cause for the reversion of the
    whole estate to the State. As a condition for the grant of a free patent to an
    applicant, the law requires that the land should not be encumbered, sold or
    alienated within five years from the issuance of the patent. The sale or the alienation
    of part of the homestead violates that condition.
    The application for a free patent was made in 1972. From the undisputed
    factual findings of the Court of Appeals, however, the land has since become
    foreshore. Accordingly, it can no longer be subject of a free patent under the Public
    Land Act. When the sea moved towards the estate and the tide invaded it, the
    invaded property became foreshore land and passed to the realm of the public
    domain. The subject land in this case, being foreshore land, should therefore be
    returned to the public domain.

    You might also like