This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-07-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| [O]nly the State can file a suit for reconveyance of a public land. Therefore, not being the owners of the land but mere applicants for sales patents thereon, respondents have no personality to file the suit. Neither will they be directly affected by the judgment in such suit.[9] In point is De la Peña v. Court of Appeals,[10] which likewise involved an action for reconveyance and annulment of title on the ground that the free patent and title over a parcel of land were allegedly obtained through fraud. Like the present case, the petitioner in De la Peña claimed that private respondent fraudulently stated in his application for free patent that "the land applied for is not claimed or occupied by any other person." The Court ruled that petitioner had no standing to file the case since reconveyance is a remedy granted only to the owner of the property alleged to be erroneously titled in another's name. In such instances, it is the State which is the proper party to file suit, thus:Persons who have not obtained title to public lands could not question the titles legally issued by the State. In such cases, the real party-in-interest is the Republic of the Philippines to whom the property would revert if it is ever established, after appropriate proceedings, that the free patent issued to the grantee is indeed vulnerable to annulment on the ground that the grantee failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the law. Not being an applicant, much less a grantee, petitioner cannot ask for reconveyance.[11] Further, Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 provides that actions for reversion of public lands fraudulently awarded must be instituted by the Solicitor General in the name of the Republic of the Philippines: | |||||
|
2005-05-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In De la Peña v. Court of Appeals,[35] the Court, in dismissing the petitioner's imputation of fraud in securing a free patent and title over a parcel of land, declared that reconveyance is a remedy granted only to the owner of the property alleged to be erroneously titled in another's name.[36] The Court further expounded:Persons who have not obtained title to public lands could not question the titles legally issued by the State [Reyes v. Rodriguez, 62 Phil. 771, 776 (1936)]. In such cases, the real party-in-interest is the Republic of the Philippines to whom the property would revert if it is ever established, after appropriate proceedings, that the free patent issued to the grantee is indeed vulnerable to annulment on the ground that the grantee failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the law. Not being an applicant, much less a grantee, petitioner cannot ask for reconveyance.[37] | |||||
|
2005-03-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioners argue that the action for reconveyance filed by respondents against them is not proper, the latter not being the owners of the property in question.[41] Invoking the 25 January 1978 deed of sale despite Feliza's admission adverted to above that such sale was fictitious, petitioners assert that they are the owners of the subject property. They claim that the best proof of ownership of a piece of land is the certificate of title, and the TCT being in their name, they are the rightful owners thereof.[42] They further argue that based on the case of Dela Peña vs. Court of Appeals[43] among others, reconveyance is a remedy granted only to the owner of the property alleged to be wrongfully titled in another's name.[44] | |||||