This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Reversion is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert the land back to the government under the Regalian doctrine. Considering that the land subject of the action originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee.[134] In Estate of the Late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic[135] (Yujuico case), reversion was defined as an action which seeks to restore public land fraudulently awarded and disposed of to private individuals or corporations to the mass of public domain. It bears to point out, though, that the Court also allowed the resort by the Government to actions for reversion to cancel titles that were void for reasons other than fraud, i.e., violation by the grantee of a patent of the conditions imposed by law;[136] and lack of jurisdiction of the Director of Lands to grant a patent covering inalienable forest land[137] or portion of a river, even when such grant was made through mere oversight.[138] In Republic v. Guerrero,[139] the Court gave a more general statement that the remedy of reversion can be availed of "only in cases of fraudulent or unlawful inclusion of the land in patents or certificates of title." | |||||
|
2008-02-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Second. Petitioner's contention that respondent's action for reversion is barred by prescription for having been filed nearly two decades after the issuance of Bugayong's sales patent is likewise without merit. Prescription does not lie against the State for reversion of property which is part of the public forest or of a forest reservation registered in favor of any party. Public land registered under the Land Registration Act may be recovered by the State at any time (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 223 (1996)).[48] Contrary to the argument of LBP, since the title is void, it could not have become incontrovertible. Even prescription may not be used as a defense against the Republic. On this aspect, the Court in Reyes v. Court of Appeals,[49] citing Republic v. Court of Appeals,[50] held:Petitioners' contention that the government is now estopped from questioning the validity of OCT No. 727 issued to them, considering that it took the government 45 years to assail the same, is erroneous. We have ruled in a host of cases that prescription does not run against the government. In point is the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals, wherein we declared: | |||||
|
2005-11-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's contention that respondent municipality is estopped from questioning the decree of registration issued in his favor in view of the inordinate delay by the respondent municipality in asserting its claim of ownership is likewise erroneous. The fundamental principle is that prescription does not run against the government. We held in Republic v. Court of Appeals[13] that:And in so far as the timeliness of the action of the Government is concerned, it is basic that prescription does not run against the State.... The case law has also been: | |||||