This case has been cited 9 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." | |||||
|
2008-07-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Caro v. Sucaldito,[7] the Court held that an applicant for a free patent cannot be considered a party-in-interest with personality to file an action for reconveyance. Citing Spouses Tankiko v. Cezar,[8] the Court stated:[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: | |||||
|
2007-12-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Under Section 2,[15] Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, or one "who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit."[16] A real party-in-interest is one with "a present substantial interest" which means such interest of a party in the subject matter of the action as will entitle him, under the substantive law, to recover if the evidence is sufficient, or that he has the legal title to demand.[17] | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Although respondent has the personality to ask for the annulment of title, however, reconveyance is not proper in the case at bar and it was error for the Court of Appeals to order petitioner to reconvey the lot to respondent. The essence of an action for reconveyance is that the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible but what is sought instead is the transfer of the property which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name, to its rightful owner or to one with a better right. 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.[35] The ruling nullifying the award of NHA in favor of Maranan has the effect of nullifying the deed of sale executed between her and petitioner and consequently, the issuance of the certificate of title in her name must be canceled. However, this will lead to the reversion of the title back in the name petitioner and not to respondent who has not yet acquired title over the property prior to the issuance of Maranan's title. Thus, having affirmed the disqualification of Maranan as a lot awardee and consequently canceling her title over the lot in question, the Court of Appeals should have instead ordered petitioner to award the lot to respondent and to proceed with the execution of proper instruments to transfer said property in the name of petitioner in accordance with its rules and regulations.[36] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Under the Regalian doctrine or jura regalia, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony.[19] Under this doctrine, lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[20] In instances where a parcel of land considered to be inalienable land of the public domain is found under private ownership, the Government is allowed by law to file an action for reversion,[21] which is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert the land 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.[22] | |||||
|
2006-07-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence states that if the suit is not brought in the name of, or against, the real party in interest, a Motion to Dismiss may be filed on the ground that the Complaint states no cause of action.[43] Section 1(g), Rule 16 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure allows the filing of a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the Complaint states no cause of action. Thus, in Aguila, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[44] we pronounced:A real party in interest is one who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, or who is entitled to the avails of the suit. This ruling is now embodied in Rule 3, Section 2 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Any decision rendered against a person who is not a real party in interest in the case cannot be executed. Hence, a complaint filed against such a person should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.[45] | |||||
|
2006-04-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In actions where the ultimate relief sought is the reversion of the land to the government, it is the latter which has the legal personality to file the suit. The rationale is that since the land subject of the action originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee.[31] By parity of reasoning, in actions to revoke an award in favor of a grantee which would result in the reversion of the possessory right over the land to the government and not the disposition thereof to any private person or entity, the proper party is the government who gave the grantee the right to occupy the land. | |||||
|
2006-04-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, or one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. Real interest means present and substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate consequential interest.[32] Thus, mere applicants of sales patents over a public land or lessees hoping to be given the right to purchase the same were held not proper parties to institute a case for cancellation of the grantee's award or title.[33] | |||||
|
2006-02-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| [66] Caro v. Sucaldito, G.R. No. 157536, 16 May 2005, 458 SCRA 595; Leyson v. Bontuyan, G.R. No. 156357, 18 February 2005, 452 SCRA 94; Heirs of Maximo Sanjorjo v. Heirs of Manuel Y. Quijano, supra note 49. | |||||