This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| To the same effect was Agne v. Director of Lands,[58] where the Court declared that if land covered by free patent was already the private property of another and, therefore, not part of the disposable land of the public domain, the patentee did not acquire any right or title to the land. | |||||
|
2011-07-27 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Indeed, we have ruled that if the land covered by free patent was a private land, the Director of Lands has no jurisdiction over it. Such free patent and the subsequent certificate of title issued pursuant thereto are a nullity.[35] The aggrieved party may initiate an action for cancellation of such title. In the recent case of De Guzman v. Agbagala,[36] the Court reiterated: The settled rule is that a free patent issued over a private land is null and void, and produces no legal effects whatsoever. Private ownership of land - as when there is a prima facie proof of ownership like a duly registered possessory information or a clear showing of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession, by present or previous occupants - is not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same land, because the Public Land [L]aw applies only to lands of the public domain. The Director of Lands has no authority to grant free patent to lands that have ceased to be public in character and have passed to private ownership. Consequently, a certificate of title issued pursuant to a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issued in a judicial proceeding only if the land covered by it is really a part of the disposable land of the public domain.[37] | |||||
|
2009-10-12 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Another way of looking at it is that, while "title" gives the owner the right to demand or be issued a "certificate of title," the holder of a certificate of title does not necessarily possess valid title to the real property. The issuance of a certificate of title does not give the owner any better title than what he actually has in law.[50] Thus, a plaintiff's action for cancellation or nullification of a certificate of title may only be a necessary consequence of the defendant's lack of title to real property. Further, although the certificate of title may have been lost, burned, or destroyed and later on reconstituted, title subsists and remains unaffected unless it is transferred or conveyed to another or subjected to a lien or encumbrance.[51] | |||||
|
2007-03-12 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' reliance on Agne v. Director of Lands[33] is misplaced since the cancellation of title was predicated not on the ground of fraud but on want of jurisdiction. Even assuming that petitioners' actions are in the nature of a suit for quieting of title, which is imprescriptible, the actions still necessarily fail since petitioners failed to establish the existence of fraud. | |||||
|
2006-03-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Under the provision of Act No. 2874 pursuant to which the title of private respondents' predecessor in interest was issued, the President of the Philippines or his alter ego, the Director of Lands, has no authority to grant a free patent for land that has ceased to be a public land and has passed to private ownership, and a title so issued is null and void. The nullity arises not, from the fraud or deceit, but from the fact that the land is not under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands. The jurisdiction of the Director of Lands is limited only to public lands and does not cover lands privately owned. The purpose of the legislature in adopting the former Public Land Act, Act No. 2874, was and is to limit its application to lands of the public domain, and lands held in private ownership are not included therein and are not affected in any manner whatsoever thereby. Land held in freehold or fee title, or of private ownership, constitute no part of the public domain and cannot possibly come within the purview of said Act No. 2874, inasmuch as the "subject" of such freehold or private land is not embraced in any manner in the title of the Act and the same are excluded from the provisions of the text thereof. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)[18] | |||||
|
2004-10-18 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The jurisdiction of the Director of Lands is limited to public land and does not extend to land already privately owned. A free patent which purports to convey land to which the Government no longer has title at the time of its issuance does not vest any title in the patentee as against the registered owner.[20] | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| public land and has passed to private ownership, and a title so issued is null and void. The nullity arises, not from fraud or deceit, but from the fact that the land is not under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands. The jurisdiction of the Director of Lands is limited only to public lands and does not cover lands privately owned. The purpose of the Legislature in adopting the former Public Land Act, Act No. 2874, was and is to limit its application to lands of the public domain, and lands held in private ownership are not included therein and are not affected in any manner whatsoever thereby. Land held in freehold or free title, or of private ownership, constitutes no part of the public domain and cannot possibly come within the purview of said Act No.2874, inasmuch as the 'subject' of such freehold or private land is not embraced in any manner in the title of the Act and the same are excluded from the provisions or text thereof."[44] "Following the Susi doctrine (48 Phil. 424), therefore, private respondents are deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, not only a right to grant, but also a grant of the Government over the controversial land. By such grant, the property in | |||||
|
2001-08-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In actions for reconveyance of property predicated on the fact that the conveyance complained of was null and void ab initio, a claim of prescription of action would be unavailing.[13] "The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe."[14] Neither could laches be invoked in the case at bar. Laches is a doctrine in equity and our courts are basically courts of law and not courts of equity. Equity, which has been aptly described as "justice outside legality," should be applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law. Aequetas nunguam contravenit legis. The positive mandate of Art. 1410 of the New Civil Code conferring imprescriptibility to actions for declaration of the inexistence of a contract should pre-empt and prevail over all abstract arguments based only on equity. Certainly, laches cannot be set up to resist the enforcement of an imprescriptible legal right, and petitioners can validly vindicate their inheritance despite the lapse of time. | |||||