LEE HONG KOK vs Final Digest

LEE HONG KOK vs. DAVID Nature: This

is an appeal by certiorari  for  for the reversal of the decision of the CA in affirming the decision of the lower court in dismissing the complaint to have the Torrens Title of Aniano David be declared null and void. Facts:

Aniano David acquired lawful title to a parcel of land pursuant to his miscellaneous sales application. An order of award and for issuance of a sales patent was made by the Director Director of Lands on June 1! 1"#! covering Lot $"$ containing an area of $$% square meters! which is a portion of Lot $%& of the 'aga Cadastre. (n the basis of the order of award of the Director Director of Lands! the )ndersecretary of Agriculture Agriculture and 'atural *esources issued +iscellaneous ,ales -atent 'o. /1$0" pursuant to which an (CT  was issued by the *egiste r of Deeds of 'aga City to Aniano David. ,ince the filing of the sales application of Aniano David and during all the proceedings in connection with said application! up to the actual issuance of the sales patent in his favor! the plaintiffs/appellants did not put up any opposition or adverse claim to Lot $"$. The opposit opposition ion was fatal fatal because because after after the registr registrati ation on and issuance issuance of the certificate and duplicate certificate certificate of title based on a public land land patent! patent! the land covered covered thereby thereby automat automatical ically ly comes comes under under the operation of *A "% sub2ect to all the safeguards provided therein. )nder ,ection ,ection & of *A "%! any question concerning the validity of the certificate certificate of title based on fraud should be raised within 1 year from the date of the issuance of the patent otherwise the certificate of title becomes indefeasible after the lapse of 1 year. The plaintiff/appellants further contended that the Lot is a private property for it was formed thru the process of accretion. Issue: 3('

the patent certificate obtained by Aniano David is void4

Held: '(

The Lot in question is not a private property as the Director of Lands and the ,ecretary of Agriculture and 'atural *esources have always sustained its public character for having been formed by reclamation and not accretion. Therefore the only remedy available to the appellants is an action for reconveyance on the ground of fraud. 5owever! Aniano David has not committ committed ed any fraud in applyin applyingg for the purchas purchasee of the Lot because because everything was done in the open. The notices regarding the auction sale of the land were published! the actual sale and award thereof to Aniano David

 were not clandestine but open and public official acts of an officer of the 6overnment. The application was merely a renewal of his deceased wife7s application who had occupied the land since 1"&. 8mperium refers to the government authority possessed by the state which is appropriately embraced in the concept of sovereignty while dominium refers to the state9s capacity to own or acquire property. The use of dominium is appropriate with reference to lands held by the state in its proprietary character. 8n such capacity! it may provide for the e:ploitation and use of lands and other natural resources! resources! including their disposition! disposition! e:cept as limited by the Constitution. The manifestation of the concept of jura  jura regalia! regalia! which was adopted by the present Constitution! was embodied in the univers universal al feudal feudal theory that all lands were held held from the Crown! Crown! the ownership however is vested in the state rather than the head thereof. As to the unapprop unappropria riated ted public public lands lands constitu constituting ting the public public domain! the sole power of legislation legislation is vested in Congress. There being no evidence whatever that the property in question was ever acquired by the applicants or their ancestors either by composition title from the ,panish 6overnment or by possessory information title or by any other means for the acquisition of public lands! the property must be held to be public domain ;5eirs of Datu Pendatun v. Director of Lands<. Lands<. =or it is well/settled >that no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant! e:press or implied! from the government. Therefore it is indispensable that there be a showing of a title from the state or any other mode of acquisition recogni?ed by law otherwise the property is and remains part of the public domain. The proceedings under the Land *egistration Law and under the provisions of Chapter 8 of the -ublic Land Law are the same in that both are against the whole world! both ta@e the nature of 2udicial proceedings! and for both the decree of registration issued is conclusive and final. A holder of a land acquired under a free patent is more favorably favorably situated than that of an owner of registered property. 'ot only does a free patent have a force and effect of a Torrens Title! but in addition the person to whom it is granted has li@ewise in his favor the right to repurchase within a period of five years ;Cabacug v. Lao<. Lao<. (nly the 6overnment! represented by the Director of Lands! or the ,ecreta ,ecretary ry of Agriculture and 'atural *esources! can bring an action to cancel a void certificate of title issued pursuant to a void patent. The legality legali ty of the grant is a question between between the grantee and the government.  -rivate parties li@e the plaintiffs cannot claim that the patent and title issued for the land involved are void since they are not the registered owners thereof nor had they been declared as owners in the cadastral proceedings proceedings of 'aga Cadastre after claiming it as their private property.