Fruit of the suit

No person shall be deprived of his/her property without due process of law. This is the constitutional principle that Benito tried to invoke in this case.

This case involves a 24,961-square meter parcel of land in a resort town of southern Luzon which Benito purchased from the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (DAR) way back in 1987 and already titled in his name (TCT No. T-52612). About 23 years after acquiring said land, Benito received an order from the Regional Trial Court of the province directing the cancellation of his title. It turned out that said land was part of a hacienda that was subject of a decision rendered 22 years before he acquired the subject property. Said decision reverted to public dominion about two hectares of the hacienda acquired and developed by a well-known real estate developer because it is part of the territorial waters and lands of the public domain. The execution of said judgment took that long because of the tactics and technical maneuvers of the said real estate developer.

So, Benito filed before the RTC a Motion to Exclude his title, arguing mainly that his TCT was not derived from the TCT of the developer and hence could not be cancelled. But the RTC denied his motion because he failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove his claim. This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

Thus, Benito filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court (SC), contending that the CA committed reversible errors when it failed to consider that he was never a party to the reversion case. He contended that the Republic should have instituted a separate and direct case against him, otherwise he would be denied due process of law. He also claimed that his was an innocent purchase for value of alienable and disposable land since the DAR sold said land to him.

The SC, however, still denied Benito’s petition. Quoting the pronouncement of the CA, the SC said that a reversion case seeks to nullify a void title which does not enjoy indefeasibility under the Torrens system. A void title may still be reverted back to the State, notwithstanding the fact that the original certificate of title based on a patent had been cancelled and another certificate of title has been issued to the grantee. In this case the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, determined that Benito’s subject land came from the vast tract of land acquired by the real estate developer in the excess area of the hacienda. Since he was the grantee and successor of a portion of the hacienda’s excess land, then he is bound by the reversion case that has become final and being executed already. Execution of judgment is the final fruit and end of the suit. It is the life of the law. A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party. Once a judgment has become final, the winning party must not be deprived of the fruits of the verdict.

Indisputably the DENR is a government agency that specializes in the technical conduct of surveys to determine the proper boundaries of the land. In this case the DENR deemed it fit to create a Technical Working Committee composed of survey teams tasked to conduct a meticulous and technical investigation to determine the excess areas of the hacienda, which they successfully did in its report to the RTC. Indeed, as the agency specialized in the conduct of land surveys, the DENR is in the best position to determine which methods are the most effective and efficient ways to determine the true boundaries of the hacienda and its surrounding excess areas.

The error or mistake of the DAR in selling the subject land to Benito cannot be invoked against the Government, given the fact that the reversion case in favor of the Republic due to the illegal registration of territorial waters and lands of the public domain in favor of the real estate developer and/or the hacienda, which increased the original area by more than two hectares, did not vest any right of private ownership because registration of lands under the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring ownership and does not by itself vest title; it merely confirms the registrant’s already existing one. (Belizario vs. Department of Environment and Natural Resources etc., G.R. 231001, March 24, 2021).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]