G.R. No.

L-30389 December 27, 1972

PEDRO LEE HONG HOK, SIMEON LEE HONG HOK, ROSITA LEE HONG HOK and LEONCIO
LEE HONG HOK, petitioners,
vs.
ANIANO DAVID, THE HON. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Augusto A. Pardalis for petitioners.

Luis General, Jr. for respondent Aniano David.

Office of the Solicitor General for other respondents.

FERNANDO, J.:p

Petitioners 1 in this appeal by certiorari would have us reverse a decision of respondent Court of Appeals
affirming a lower court judgment dismissing their complaint to have the Torrens Title 2 of respondent
Aniano David declared null and void. What makes the task for petitioners quite difficult is that their factual
support for their pretension to ownership of such disputed lot through accretion was rejected by
respondent Court of Appeals. Without such underpinning, they must perforce rely on a legal theory,
which, to put it mildly, is distinguished by unorthodoxy and is therefore far from persuasive. A grant by the
government through the appropriate public officials 3 exercising the competence duly vested in them by
law is not to be set at naught on the premise, unexpressed but implied, that land not otherwise passing
into private ownership may not be disposed of by the state. Such an assumption is at war with settled
principles of constitutional law. It cannot receive our assent. We affirm.

The decision of respondent Court of Appeals following that of the lower court makes clear that there
is no legal justification for nullifying the right of respondent Aniano David to the disputed lot arising
from the grant made in his favor by respondent officials. As noted in the decision under review, he
"acquired lawful title thereby pursuant to his miscellaneous sales application in accordance with
which an order of award and for issuance of a sales patent was made by the Director of Lands on
June 18, 1958, covering Lot 2892 containing an area of 226 square meters, which is a portion of Lot
2863 of the Naga Cadastre. On the basis of the order of award of the Director of Lands the
Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued on August 26, 1959, Miscellaneous
Sales Patent No. V-1209 pursuant to which OCT No. 510 was issued by the Register of Deeds of
Naga City to defendant-appellee Aniano David on October 21, 1959. According to the Stipulation of
Facts, since 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 thereto. This is fatal to them
because after the registration and issuance of the certificate and duplicate certificate of title based
on a public land patent, the land covered thereby automatically comes under the operation of
Republic Act 496 subject to all the safeguards provided therein.... Under Section 38 of Act 496 any
question concerning the validity of the certificate of title based on fraud should be raised within one
year from the date of the issuance of the patent. Thereafter the certificate of title based thereon
becomes indefeasible.... In this case the land in question is not a private property as the Director of
Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources have always sustained the public
character thereof for having been formed by reclamation.... The only remedy therefore, available to
the appellants is an action for reconveyance on the ground of fraud. In this case we do not see any
fraud committed by defendant-appellant Aniano David in applying for the purchase of the land
involved through his Miscellaneous Sales Application No. MSA-V-26747, entered in the records of
the Bureau of Lands [Miscellaneous Sales] Entry No. V-9033, 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
Government. The application was merely a renewal of his deceased wife's application, and the said
deceased occupied the land since 1938." 4

On such finding of facts, the attempt of petitioners to elicit a different conclusion is likely to be
attended with frustration. The first error assigned predicated an accretion having taken place,
notwithstanding its rejection by respondent Court of Appeals, would seek to disregard what was
accepted by respondent Court as to how the disputed lot came into being, namely by reclamation. It
does not therefore call for any further consideration. Neither of the other two errors imputed to
respondent Court, as to its holding that authoritative doctrines preclude a party other than the
government to dispute the validity of a grant and the recognition of the indefeasible character of a
public land patent after one year, is possessed of merit. Consequently, as set forth at the outset,
there is no justification for reversal.

1. More specifically, the shaft of criticism was let loose by petitioner aimed at this legal proposition
set forth in the exhaustive opinion of then Justice Salvador Esguerra of the Court of Appeals, now a
member of this Court: "There is, furthermore, a fatal defect of parties to this action. Only the
Government, represented by the Director of Lands, or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, can bring an action to cancel a void certificate of title issued pursuant to a void patent
(Lucas vs. Durian, 102 Phil. 1157; Director of Lands vs. Heirs of Ciriaco Carlo, G.R. No. L-12485,
July 31, 1959). This was not done by said officers but by private parties like the plaintiffs, who 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 of Naga
Cadastre after claiming it as their private property. The cases cited by appellants are not in point as
they refer to private registered lands or public lands over which vested rights have been acquired but
notwithstanding such fact the Land Department subsequently granted patents to public land
applicants." 5 Petitioner ought to have known better. The above excerpt is invulnerable to attack. It is a
restatement of a principle that dates back to Maninang v. Consolacion, 6a 1908 decision. As was there
categorically stated: "The fact that the grant was made by the government is undisputed. Whether the
grant was in conformity with the law or not is a question which the government may raise, but until it is
raised by the government and set aside, the defendant can not question it. The legality of the grant is a
question between the grantee and the government." 7 The above citation was repeated ipsissimis
verbis in Salazar v. Court of Appeals. 8 Bereft as petitioners were of the right of ownership in accordance
with the findings of the Court of Appeals, they cannot, in the language of Reyes v. Rodriguez, 9 "question
the [title] legally issued." 10 The second assignment of error is thus disposed of.

2. As there are overtones indicative of skepticism, if not of outright rejection, of the well-known
distinction in public law between the government authority possessed by the state which is
appropriately embraced in the concept of sovereignty, and its capacity to own or acquire property, it
is not inappropriate to pursue the matter further. The former comes under the heading
of imperium and the latter of dominium. The use of this term is appropriate with reference to lands
held by the state in its proprietary character. In such capacity, it may provide for the exploitation and
use of lands and other natural resources, including their disposition, except as limited by the
Constitution. Dean Pound did speak of the confusion that existed during the medieval era between
such two concepts, but did note the existence of res publicae as a corollary to dominium." 11 As far as
the Philippines was concerned, there was a recognition by Justice Holmes in Cario v. Insular
Government, 12 a case of Philippine origin, that "Spain in its earlier decrees embodied the universal feudal
theory that all lands were held from the Crown...." 13 That was a manifestation of the concept of jura
regalia, 14 which was adopted by the present Constitution, ownership however being vested in the state
as such rather than the head thereof. What was stated by Holmes served to confirm a much more
extensive discussion of the matter in the leading case of Valenton v. Murciano, 15 decided in 1904. One of
the royal decrees cited was incorporated in the Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias 16 in these words:
"We having acquired full sovereignty over the Indies and all lands, territories, and possessions not
heretofore ceded away by our royal predecessors, or by us, or in our name, still pertaining to the royal
crown and patrimony, it is our will that all lands which are held without proper and true deeds of grant be
restored to us according as they belong to us, in order that after reserving before all what to us or to our
viceroys audiences, and governors may seem necessary for public squares, ways, pastures, and
commons in those places which are peopled, taking into consideration not only their present condition,
but also their future and their probable increase, and after distributing to the natives what may be
necessary for tillage and pasturage, confirming them in what they now have and giving them more if
necessary, all the rest of said lands may remain free and unencumbered for us to dispose of as we may
wish." 17

It could therefore be affirmed in Montano v. Insular Government" 18 that "as to the unappropriated
public lands constituting the public domain the sole power of legislation is vested in Congress, ..." 19 They
continue to possess that character until severed therefrom by state grant. 20 Where, as in this case, it was
found by the Court of Appeals that the disputed lot was the result of reclamation, its being correctly
categorized as public land is undeniable. 21 What was held in Heirs of Datu Pendatun v. Director of
Lands 22 finds application. Thus: "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 Spanish
Government 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." 23 For it is well-settled "that no public land can be
acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the government." 24 It is
indispensable then that there be a showing of a title from the state or any other mode of acquisition
recognized by law. 25 The most recent restatement of the doctrine, found in an opinion of Justice J.B.L.
Reyes, follows: 26 "The applicant, having failed to establish his right or title over the northern portion of Lot
No. 463 involved in the present controversy, and there being no showing that the same has been
acquired by any private person from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, the property is and
remains part of the public domain." 27 To repeat, the second assignment of error is devoid of merit.

3. The last error assigned would take issue with this portion of the opinion of Justice Esguerra:
"According to the Stipulation of Facts, since 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 thereto. This is fatal to them
because after the registration and issuance of the certificate and duplicate certificate of title based
on a public land patent, the land covered thereby automatically comes under the operation of
Republic Act 496 subject to all the safeguards provided therein ... Under Section 38 of Act 496 any
question concerning the validity of the certificate of title based on fraud should be raised within one
year from the date of the issuance of the patent. Thereafter the certificate of title based thereon
becomes indefeasible ..." 28 Petitioners cannot reconcile themselves to the view that respondent David's
title is impressed with the quality of indefeasibility. In thus manifesting such an attitude, they railed to
accord deference to controlling precedents. As far back as 1919, in Aquino v. Director of
Lands, 29 Justice Malcolm, speaking for the Court, stated: "The proceedings under the Land Registration
Law and under the provisions of Chapter VI of the Public Land Law are the same in that both are against
the whole world, both take the nature of judicial proceedings, and for both the decree of registration
issued is conclusive and final." 30 Such a view has been followed since then. 31 The latest case in point
is Cabacug v. Lao. 32 There is this revealing excerpt appearing in that decision: "It is said, and with
reason, that a holder of a land acquired under a free patent is more favorably situated than that of an
owner of registered property. Not 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 likewise in his favor the right to repurchase within a period
of five years." 33 It is quite apparent, therefore, that petitioners' stand is legally indefensible.

WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals of January 31, 1969 and its resolution
of March 14, 1969 are affirmed. With costs against petitioners-appellants.
Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Teehankee Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and
Esguerra, JJ., concur.

FACTS:

Aniano David acquired lawful title pursuant to his miscellaneous sales application in accordance with
which an order of award and for issuance of a sales patent (*similar to public auction) was made by the
Director of Lands on June 18, 1958, covering Lot 2892.

On the basis of the order of award of the Director of Lands the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources issued on August 26, 1959, Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. V-1209 pursuant to which OCT
No. 510 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Naga City on October 21, 1959.

Land in question is not a private property as the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources have always sustained the public character for having been formed by reclamation (as
opposed to peittioners contention that it is accretion)

The only remedy: action for reconveyance on the ground of fraud - But there was no fraud in this case

ISSUES:

1. W/N Lee Hong Kok can question the grant. - NO

2. W/N David has original acquisition of title. - YES

HELD: Court of Appeals Affirmed. (no legal justification for nullifying the right of David to the disputed lot
arising from the grant made in his favor by respondent officials)
Only the Government, represented by the Director of Lands, or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, can bring an action to cancel a void certificate of title issued pursuant to a void patent. The
legality of the grant is a question between the grantee and the government. Private parties like 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 of Naga
Cadastre after claiming it as their private property.

Well-settled Rule : no public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or
implied, from the government
 Cabacug v. Lao: holder of a land acquired under a free patent is more favorably situated than that of an
owner of registered property. Not 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 likewise in his favor the right to repurchase within a period
of 5 years.

Imperium v. Dominium

1. Imperium - government authority possessed by the state which is appropriately embraced in the concept
of sovereignty

2. Dominium - capacity to own or acquire property. The use of this term is appropriate with reference to
lands held by the state in its proprietary character. In such capacity, it may provide for the exploitation
and use of lands and other natural resources, including their disposition, except as limited by the
Constitution.