Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 155450 Facts: This is a petition for review of the May 21, 2001 and Sept. 25, 2001 decision of the CA. On !ne 2, 1"#0, the CF$ of Ca%ayan iss!ed &ecree 'o. #(1"#( in favor of spo!ses Antonio Cara% and )ictoria T!rin%an, predecessors*in*interest of private respondents +eirs of Antonio Cara% and )ictoria T!rin%an, coverin% a parce of and identi-ed as ot 'o. 2/2, Cad. 151, containin% an area of ,0/,# s!are 3eters, sit!ated in T!%!e%arao, Ca%ayan. The 4e%ister of &eeds iss!ed Ori%ina Ori%ina Certi-cate of Tite 'o. 115(5 OCT 'o. 115(56 in the na3es of spo!ses spo!ses Cara%. On May 1", 1""/, 7ienvenida Ta%!ia3 )da. &e &aya% and others -ed with the 4e%iona O8ce 'o. 2 of the &9'4, T!%!e%arao, T!%!e%arao, Ca%ayan a etter*petition re!estin% the &9'4 to initiate the -in% of an action for the ann!3ent of &ecree 'o. #(1"2( on the %ro!nd that the tria co!rt did not have the !risdiction to ad!dicate a portion of the s!;ect property wich was ae%edy sti ca ssi-ed as ti3;er and at the ti3 e of the iss!ance of &ecree 'o. #(1"2(. The 4e%iona 9
etitioner 7ienvenida Ta%!ia3 )da. &e &aya% and others have possessed and occ!pied ;y the3seves and thr! their predecessors*in*interest a portion of ot 2/2 Cd 151 since ti3e i33e3oria. Th!s, the investi%atin% tea3 cai3ed that a portion of the said ot was ony reeased and aiena;e and disposa;e on Fe;. 22, 1"(2. $n a 3e3orand!3 dated Sept. ", 1"", the e%a &ivision of the and Mana%e3ent 7!rea! reco33ended to the &irector of ands that an action for the canceation of OCT 'o. 115(5, as we as its derivative tites, ;e -ed with the proper co!rt. The &irector of ands approved approved the reco33endation. On !ne 10, 1""(, or ( years after the iss!ance of &ecree 'o. #(1"2(, petitioner -ed with the CA a co3paint for ann!3ent of !d%3ent, canceation and decaration of n!ity of tites on the %ro!nd that in 1"#0 the tria co!rt had no !risdiction to ad!dicate a portion of the s!;ect property, which portion consist of 2,/0,000 s!are 3eters disp!ted portion6. The disp!ted portion was ae%edy sti cassi-ed as ti3;er and at the ti3e of iss!ance of &ecree 'o. #(1"2( and therefore, was not aiena;e and disposa;e !nti Fe;r!ary 22, 1"(2 when the disp!ted portion was cassi-ed as aiena;e and disposa;e. The CA dis3issed the co3paint for ac? of !risdiction over the s!;ect 3atter of the case. $ss!e: @hether the then Co!rt of First $nstance of Ca%ayan had !risdiction to ad!dicate a tract of ti3;er and in favor of respondent spo!ses Antonio Cara% and )ictoria T!rin%an. 4!in%: >etitioner ar%!es that the power to decassify or cassify ands of p!;ic do3ain os ony the 9etitioner has not ae%ed that the overnor*enera had decared the disp!ted portion of the s!;ect property ti3;er or 3inera and p!rs!ant to Section , of Act 'o. 2(/. $t is tr!e that Section ( of Act 'o. 2(/ pens to disposition ony those ands which have ;een decared aiena;e or disposa;e. +owever, Section ( provides that ands which are aready private ands, as we as ands on which a private cai3 3ay ;e 3ade !nder any aw, are not covered ;y the cassi-cation cassi-cation re!ire3ent re!ire3ent in Section Section ( for p!rposes p!rposes of disposition. This eetitioner has not ae%ed that the disp!ted portion had not ;eco3e private property prior to the enact3ent of Act 'o. 2(/. 'either has petitioner ae%ed that the disp!ted portion was not and on
which a private ri%ht 3a ;e cai3ed !nder any e
