This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| All told, the Court finds that the RTC-Branch 4 committed reversible error in dismissing the Complaint for Cancellation of Titles and Reversion of the Republic in Civil Case No. 6686. Resultantly, the Court orders the reinstatement of said Complaint. Yet, the Court also deems it opportune to recall the following statements in Saad-Agro Industries, Inc. v. Republic[163]: It has been held that a complaint for reversion involves a serious controversy, involving a question of fraud and misrepresentation committed against the government and it is aimed at the return of the disputed portion of the public domain. It seeks to cancel the original certificate of registration, and nullify the original certificate of title, including the transfer certificate of title of the successors-in-interest because the same were all procured through fraud and misrepresentation. Thus, the State, as the party alleging the fraud and misrepresentation that attended the application of the free patent, bears that burden of proof. Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should never be presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence not even being adequate. It is but judicious to require the Government, in an action for reversion, to show the details attending the issuance of title over the alleged inalienable land and explain why such issuance has deprived the State of the claimed property. (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2009-12-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Since a complaint for reversion can upset the stability of registered titles through the cancellation of the original title and the others that emanate from it, the State bears a heavy burden of proving the ground for its action.[11] Here, the Republic fails to discharge such burden. For one, it failed to present the original or a certified true copy of LC Map 47 but only its electronic reproduction,[12] which has no probative value.[13] | |||||