This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-11-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Respondents having no real interest in the subject lot under their Second Amended Complaint, they have no legal personality to file the action for reversion of public land.[39] It is not merely a rule of procedure but a requirement of law that reversion be instituted in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Section 101 of the Public Land Act is categorical:Section 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 Commonwealth [now Republic] of the Philippines. In fine, the RTC acted without jurisdiction when it entertained the Second Amended Complaint of respondents even when the latter was not a real party-in-interest. The February 23, 2000 Decision rendered by the RTC was an utter nullity, without legal effect or binding force whatsoever, even upon defendant Cebu City which does not appear on record to have appealed from it.[40] | |||||