This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-06-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "Legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged act. Interest means a material interest in issue that is affected by the questioned act or instrument, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question involved."[29] Since the parcels they claim are properties of the public domain, only the government can bring an action to nullify the TCTs.[30] | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Even assuming that respondent Amelita Sola acquired title to the disputed property in bad faith, only the State can institute reversion proceedings under Sec. 101 of the Public Land Act.[28] Thus:Sec. 101. All actions for 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 Republic of the Philippines. In other words, a private individual may not bring an action for reversion or any action which would have the effect of canceling a free patent and the corresponding certificate of title issued on the basis thereof, such that the land covered thereby will again form part of the public domain. Only the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead may do so.[29] Since Amelita Sola's title originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee.[30] Clearly then, petitioner has no standing at all to question the validity of Amelita's title. It follows that he cannot "recover" the property because, to begin with, he has not shown that he is the rightful owner thereof. | |||||