VOL.

56, MARCH 29, 1974 499

Republic vs. Animus
*
No. L-37682. March 29, 1974.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by the

DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO
SAMSON ANIMAS, in his capacity as Judge of CFI South
Cotabato, Branch I, General Santos City, ISAGANI DU
TIMBOL and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF GENERAL
SANTOS CITY, respondents.

Public land Act; Forests; Free patents; Land Registration Act;

Defense of indefeasibility of title issued pursuant to a free patent
does not lie against the State.·The defense of indefeasibility of a
certificate of title issued pursuant to a free patent does not lie
against the State in an action for reversion of the land covered
thereby when such land is a part of a public forest or of a forest
reservation. As a general rule, timber or forest lands are not
alienable or disposable under either the Constitution of 1935 or the
Constitution of 1973. Although the Director of Lands has
jurisdiction over public lands classified as agricultural under the
Constitution, or alienable or disposable under the Public Land Act,
and is charged with the administration of all laws relative thereto,
mineral land and timber lands are beyond his jurisdiction. It is the
Bureau of Forestry that has jurisdiction and authority over the
demarcation, protection, management, reproduction, occupancy and
use of all public forests and forest reservations and over the
granting of licenses for the taking of products therefrom, including
stone and earth (Section 1816 of the Revised Administrative Code).
That the area in question is a forest or timber land is clearly
established by the certification made by the Bureau of Forest
Development that it is within the portion of the area which was
reverted to the category of forest land, approved by the President on
March 7, 1958. When the defendant Isagani Du Timbol filed his
application for free patent over the land in question on June 3,
1969, the area in question was not a disposable or alienable public
land but a public forest.
 Same; Same; Same; Titles issued over non-alienable public
lands void ab initio.·Titles issued to private parties by the Bureau
of Lands when the land covered thereby is not disposable public
land but forest land are void ab initio. x x x A patent is void at law if
the officer who issued the patent had no authority to do so. If a
person obtains a title under the Public Land Act which includes, by
mistake

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

500

500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Animas

or oversight, lands which cannot be registered under the Torrens

System, or when the Director of Lands did not have jurisdiction
over the same because it is a public forest, the grantee does not, by
virtue of said certificate of title alone, become the owner of the land
illegally included.
Same; Same; Same; Misrepresentations in obtaining free patent.
·The misrepresentations of the applicant that he had been
occupying and cultivating the land and residing thereon are
sufficient grounds to nullify the grant of the patent and title under
Section 91 of the Public Land Law.
Same; Same; Same; Effect of failure of applicant to comply with
conditions of land grant.·A certificate of title that is void may be
ordered cancelled. A title will be considered void if it is produced
through fraud, as when a person applies for registration of the land
under his name although the property belongs to another. In the
case of disposable public lands, failure on the part of the grantee to
comply with the conditions imposed by law is a ground for holding
such title void.
Same; Same; Same; Award of title may be reopened on ground
of fraud even after lapse of one-year period.·The lapse of the one
year period within which a decree of title may be reopened for fraud
would not prevent the cancellation thereof, for to hold that a title
may become indefeasible by registration, even if such title had been
secured through fraud or in violation of the law, would be the height
of absurdity. Registration should not be a shield of fraud in securing
title.
Same; Same; Same.·Considering that it is the State that is
seeking the cancellation of the title of respondent, said title has not
become indefeasible for prescription cannot be invoked against the
State. A title founded on fraud may be cancelled, notwithstanding
the lapse of one year from the issuance thereof, through a petition
filed in court by the Solicitor General.
Same; Same; Same; Prescription; Prescription does not run
against the State.·Public land fraudulently included in patents or
certificates of title may be recovered or reverted to the State in
accordance with Section 101 of the Public Land Act. Prescription
does not lie against the State in such cases for the Statute of
Limitations does not run against the State. The right of reversion or
reconveyance to the State is not barred by prescription.

501

VOL. 56, MARCH 29, 1974 501

Republic vs. Animas

PETITION for review from an order of the Court of First

Instance of Cotabato, Br. I, General Santos City.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant
Solicitor General Santiago M. Kapunan and Solicitor
Patrido M. Patajo for petitioner.
Quitain Law Office for private respondent.

ESGUERRA, J.:

Petition to review the order of the Court of First Instance of

South Cotabato, Branch I, General Santos City, dated June
22, 1973, dismissing the complaint in its Civil Case No.
1253, entitled „Republic of the Philippines, Plaintiff, vs.
Isagani Du Timbol and the Register of Deeds of General
Santos City, Defendants‰, instituted by the plaintiff to
declare null and void Free Patent No. V-466102 and
Original Certificate of Title (O.C.T.) No. P-2508 based
thereon issued in the name of defendant Isagani Du
Timbol; to order the aforesaid defendant to surrender the
ownerÊs duplicate of O.C.T. No. P-2508 and the defendant
Register of Deeds to cancel the same; to decree the
reversion of the land in question to the mass of public
domain, and granting such further relief as may be just
and equitable in the premises.
The land covered by the free patent and title in question
was originally applied for by Precila Soria, who on
February 23, 1966, transferred her rights to the land and
its improvements to defendant Isagani Du Timbol who filed
his application therefor on February 3, 1969, as a
transferee from Precila Soria.
On December 12, 1969, free Patent No. V-466102 was
issued by the President of the Philippines for the land in
question, and on July 20, 1970, after transmittal of the
patent to the Register of Deeds of General Santos City,
Original Certificate of Title (O.C.T.) No. P-2508 was issued
in the name of defendant Isagani Du Timbol.

502

502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Animas

On August 5, 1971, the Republic of the Philippines, at the

instance of the Bureau of Forestry, filed a complaint in the
Court of First Instance of Cotabato, Branch I, General
Santos City (Civil Case No. 1253), to declare free patent
No. V-466102 and Original Certificate of Title No. P-2508
in the name of defendant Isagani Du Timbol null and void
ab initio and to order the reversion of the land in question
to the mass of public domain. The action is based on the
ground that the land covered thereby is a forest or timber
land which is not disposable under the Public Land Act;
that in a reclassification of the public lands in the vicinity
where the land in question is situated made by the Bureau
of Forestry on March 7, 1958, the said land was plotted on
Bureau of Forestry map L.C. 700 to be inside the area
which was reverted to the category of public forest,
whereas the application for free patent by Isagani Du
Timbol was filed on June 3, 1969, or more than eleven
years thereafter; that the said patent and title were
obtained fraudulently as private respondent Isagani Du
Timbol never occupied and cultivated the land applied for.
Invoking the case of Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals (G.R.
No. L-28591, 30 SCRA 207-301), holding that a certificate
of title fraudulently secured is not null and void ab initio,
unless the fraud consisted in misrepresenting that the land
covered by the application is part of the public domain
when it is not, the respondent court dismissed the
complaint on the ground that said Certificate of Title based
on the patent had became indefeasible in view of the lapse
of the one-year period prescribed under Section 38 of the
Land Registration Act for review of a decree of title on the
ground of fraud. From this order of June 22, 1973,
dismissing the complaint, plaintiff Republic of the
Philippines has appealed to this Court for review.
After careful deliberation, this Court grants the petition
on the ground that the area covered by the patent and title
is not disposable public land, it being a part of the forest
zone and, hence, the patent and title thereto are null and
void.
The defense of indefeasibility of a certificate of title
issued pursuant to a free patent does not lie against the
state in an action for reversion of the land covered thereby
when such land

503

VOL. 56, MARCH 29, 1974 503

Republic vs. Animas

is a part of a public forest or of a forest reservation. As a

general rule, timber or forest lands are not alienable or
disposable under either the Constitution of 1935 or the
Constitution of 1973. Although the Director of Lands has
jurisdiction over public lands classified as agricultural
under the constitution, or alienable or disposable under the
Public Land Act, and is charged with the administration of
all laws relative thereto, mineral and timber lands are
beyond his jurisdiction. It is the Bureau of Forestry that
has jurisdiction and authority over the demarcation,
protection, management, reproduction, occupancy and use
of all public forests and forest reservations and over the
granting of licenses for the taking of products therefrom,
including stone and earth (Section 1816 of the Revised
Administrative Code). That the area in question is a forest
or timber land is clearly established by the certification
made by the Bureau of Forest Development that it is
within the portion of the area which was reverted to the
category of forest land, approved by the President on
March 7, 1958. When the defendant Isagani Du Timbol
filed his application for free patent over the land in
question on June 3, 1969, the area in question was not a
disposable or alienable public land but a public forest.
Titles issued to private parties by the Bureau of Lands
when the land covered thereby is not disposable public land
but forest land are void ab initio. In Gatchalian vs. Pavilen,
et al., L-17619, Oct. 31, 1962, 6 SCRA p. 508, 512, this
Court said:

„And if it be true that the Bureau of Lands had no jurisdiction to

issue a patent because the land involved was still inalienable forest
land when granted, then it may be plausibly contended that the
patent title would be ab initio void, subject to attack at any time by
any party adversely affected.‰ (Gatchalian vs. Pavilen, et al., L-
17619, Oct. 31, 1962, supra, citing Civil Code Arts. 1409 and 1421;
Vaño vs. Insular GovÊt, 41 Phil. 161; Aderable vs. Director of
Forestry, L-13663, March 25, 1960).‰

A patent is void at law if the officer who issued the patent

had no authority to do so (Knight vs. Land Ass., 142 U.S.
161, 12 Sup. Ct., 258, 35L ED. 974; italics supplied). If a
person obtains a title under the Public Land Act which
includes, by mistake or oversight, lands which cannot be
registered under the Torrens System, or when the Director
of Lands did not

504

504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Animas

have jurisdiction over the same because it is a public forest,

the grantee does not, by virtue of said certificate of title
alone, become the owner of the land illegally included. (See
Ledesma vs. Municipality of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 769)
The case of Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-
28591, Oct. 31, 1969, 30 SCRA 297, relied upon by
respondent Court in dismissing this case, is not controlling.
In that case no forest land was involved but agricultural
public land which was first covered by a patent issued to
one party and later registered under the Torrens System by
the other party. The litigation was between private parties
where the party who registered it under Act No. 496 sought
the nullity of the title of the patentee under the Public
Land Act. In the case at bar the party seeking the nullity of
the title and reversion of the land is the state itself which is
specifically authorized under Section 101 of the Public
Land Act to initiate such proceedings as an attribute of
sovereignty, a remedy not available to a private individual.
The complaint alleges in its paragraph 8 that applicant
Isagani Du Timbol was never in possession of the property
prior to his filing the application, contrary to the provisions
of law that the applicant must have been in possession or
cultivation thereof for at least 30 years; that the applicant,
after diligent search by the Acting Chief of the Survey-
Party, Francisco R. Alcones, in South Cotabato, could not
be contacted because he is a resident of Davao City; that
there are no existing signs of improvements found in the
area in question as it is not under cultivation but covered
with grasses, bushes and small trees; that it is being used
as ranch for grazing cows by the heirs of Hermogenes
Chilsot; that no monuments were placed on the area
surveyed which goes to show that there was no actual
survey thereof; that the property in question is inside the
ranch of the heirs of Hermogenes Chilsot under Pasture
Lease Agreement No. 1244 and, therefore, inside the forest
zone; and that said ranch has a fence around it to show
that other persons could not enter and cultivate the same,
and that the signature of then Acting District Land Officer
Elias de Castro of South Cotabato has been forged to
facilitate the issuance of patent in favor of Isagani Du
Timbol.
The above alleged circumstances are indicative of fraud
in

505

VOL. 56, MARCH 29, 1974 505

Republic vs. Animas

the filing of the application and obtaining title to the land,

and if proven would override respondent JudgeÊs order
dismissing the case without hearing. The
misrepresentations of the applicant that he had been
occupying and cultivating the land and residing thereon
are sufficient grounds to nullify the grant of the patent and
title under Section 91 of the Public Land Law which
provides as follows:

„That statements made in the application shall be considered as

essential conditions or parts of any concession, title or permit issued
on the basis of such application, and any false statement thereon or
omission of facts, changing, or modifying the consideration of the
facts set forth in such statement, and any subsequent modification,
alteration, or change of the material facts set forth in the
application shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the
concession, title or permit granted. x x x‰

A certificate of title that is void may be ordered cancelled. A

title will be considered void if it is procured through fraud,
as when a person applies for registration of the land under
his name although the property belongs to another. In the
case of disposable public lands, failure on the part of the
grantee to comply with the conditions imposed by law is a
ground for holding such title void (Director of Lands vs.
Court of Appeals, et al., G. R. No. L-17696, May 19, 1966,
17 SCRA, 71, 79-80; italics supplied). The lapse of the one
year period within which a decree of title may be reopened
for fraud would not prevent the cancellation thereof, for to
hold that a title may become indefeasible by registration,
even if such title had been secured through fraud or in
violation of the law, would be the height of absurdity.
Registration should not be a shield of fraud in securing
title. (J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Macalindog, L-15398,
December 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 938, page 38).
Considering that it is the state is seeking the
cancellation of the title of respondent Isagani Du Timbol,
said title has not become indefeasible for prescription
cannot be invoked against the state. A title founded on
fraud may be cancelled, notwithstanding the lapse of one
year from the issuance thereof, through a petition filed in
court by the Solicitor General, (Sumail vs. Court of First
Instance of Cotabato, 51 O.G. p. 2414 Phil. L-8278, 96 Phil.
946; Eugenio, et al., vs.

506

506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Animas

Perdido, et al., G. R. No. L-7083, May 19, 1955; De los

Santos vs. Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap, G.R. No.
L-6088, Feb. 24, 1954, 94 Phil. 405).
Public land fraudulently included in patents or
certificates of title may be recovered or reverted to the state
in accordance with Section 101 of the Public Land Act
(Director of Lands vs. Jugado, et al., G. R. No. L-14707,
May 23, 1961). Prescription does not lie against the state in
such cases for the Statute of Limitations does not run
against the state (Article 1108, paragraph 4 of the New
Civil Code). The right of reversion or reconveyance to the
state is not barred by prescription (Republic of the
Philippines vs. Ramona Ruiz, et al., G. R. No. L-23712,
April 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 348; People vs. Ramos, G. R. No.
L-15484, Jan. 31, 1963, 47 SCRA 12; Government of the
Philippines vs. Monte de Piedad 35 Phil. 728; 751-753).
Even granting that the title of private respondent
Isagani Du Timbol can no longer be reopened under the
Land Registration Act, the land covered thereby may be
reconveyed to the state in an action for reconveyance under
Section 101 of Commonwealth Act 141 (Public Land Act),
for the remedy of reconveyance is adequately covered by
the prayer of the complaint for the grant of such other
relief as may be just and equitable in the premises.
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the order of the
respondent court, dated June 22, 1973, dismissing the
complaint, and that of September 29, 1973, denying the
motion for its reconsideration, both issued in Civil Case No.
1253 of the respondent court, are hereby annulled and set
aside. The respondent court shall proceed to hear said Civil
Case and render judgment thereon accordingly.
Costs against respondent Isagani Du Timbol.

Makalintal, C. J., Castro, Makasiar and Muñoz

Palma, J., concur.
Teehankee, J., files a brief concurrence.

507

VOL. 56, MARCH 29, 1974 507

Republic vs. Animas

TEEHANKEE, J.:

I concur in the judgment setting aside respondent courtÊs

orders which erroneously dismissed petitionerÊs complaint
on the ground of purported indefeasibility of private
respondentÊs torrens certificate of title under section 38 of
Act 496 and ordering the remand of the case for trial and
disposition on the merits. PetitionerÊs complaint is not
barred by the cited Act since it duly alleges that
respondentÊs torrens title was issued pursuant to a free
patent covering forest or timber land which is not
disposable under the Public Land Act and if these factual
allegations are duly established at the trial, petitioner
would be entitled to a judgment that the patent and title of
respondent, being part of the forest zone, are null and void.
Orders annulled and set aside.

Notes.·It is not only the right but the duty of the

Director of Lands to conduct an investigation of the facts
that led to the issuance of a free patent for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the said facts were true, or whether
they continue to exist and are maintained and preserved in
good faith. In such investigation the existence of bad faith,
fraud, concealment or fraudulent and illegal modification of
essential facts may be inquired into. And, if the facts
disclosed in the course of the investigation so warrant, the
Director of Lands may file the corresponding action for the
reversion of the properties to the State. (Cebedo vs.
Director of Lands, 2 SCRA 29).
Not only is the Director of Lands not authorized to issue
a free patent over that part of the public domain classified
as forest land; he is not also authorized to grant to another
a free patent for land that had ceased to be a public land
and had passed to private ownership. (De la Conde vs.
Magtira, 18 SCRA 402; Garcia vs. Director of Lands, 80
Phil. 474; Lacaste vs. Director of Lands, 63 Phil. 654;
Lizada vs. Omanan, 59 Phil. 547). A patent granted over a
parcel of land which at the time of the grant was no longer
part of the public domain is a nullity. (Vital vs. Onore, 90
Phil. 855; Lucas vs. Durain, L-7856. Sept. 23, 1957).

508

508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Animas

A judgment in a land registration proceeding that a tract of

land is public land, does not bar other persons from filing a
subsequent land registration proceeding for the judicial
confirmation of their title to the same land, under section
48 of the Public Land Law (C.A. 141) on the basis of a
„composicion‰ title and continuous and adverse possession
thereof for more than thirty years. (Mindanao vs. Director
 of Lands, 20 SCRA 641).
Since it is the Director of Lands who processes and
approves applications for a grant of public land and who
orders the issuance of the corresponding patents in his
capacity as administrator of the disposable lands of the
public domain, the action for annulment of a certificate of
title issued pursuant to an award of public land should be
initiated by him or at least with his prior authority and
consent. (Kayaban vs. Republic, 52 SCRA 360).
Although a parcel of land is one over which a private
party has an imperfect title such person and the Director of
Lands may consider the same as still forming part of the
public domain and subject to the issuance of a patent
thereby obviating the necessity of judicial confirmation
under Act 496. (Ibid.; Antonio vs. Barroga, 23 SCRA 360).

LEGAL RESEARCH SERVICE

See SCRA Quick Index-Digest, volume one, page 942 on

Forests.
See also SCRA Quick Index-Digest, volume two, page
1248 on Land Registration; page 1748 on Prescription; and
page 1792 on Public Lands.
Peña, Narciso, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds,
1974 Edition.
Ponce, F. D. R., The Philippine Torrens System, 1964
Edition.
Bautista, C. A., The Public Land Act, Annotated, 1957
Edition.

509

VOL. 56, MARCH 29, 1974 509

Bello vs. Court of Appeals

Noblejas, A. H., Law on National Resources, 1974 Edition.

····o0o····

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.