Case Title 

: HEIRS OF MARCIANO NAGAÑO, petitioners, vs. instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, Plaintiffs-appellants [private respondents] filed a complaint for the
COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES PONCIANO MALLARI and in the proper courts, in the name of the [Republic] of the declaration of nullity of Original Certificate of Title No. P-8265
GLORIA BINUYA, SPOUSES ELENA MALLARI and MELENCIO Philippines. issued in the name of the heirs of Marciano Nagao and covering
Cad. Lot. No. 3275.Plaintiff-appellants alleged that the issuance of
TULABAN, and REGINA MALLARI, respondents.Case Nature :
3. Actions;  Motions to Dismiss;  Land Registration;  Free the said title was on account of the fraud, deceit, and
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of misrepresentation committed by defendant Macario Valerio. An
Appeals. Patents;  Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141);Prescription;  Quieting information for perjury was even filed on November 2, 1983 against
of Title;  A Free Patent issued over private land is null and void, defendant Valerio, who unlawfully attested that Lot No. 3275 was
Syllabi Class : Actions|Motions to Dismiss|Land Registration|Free and produces no legal effects whatsoever; An action for quieting of not occupied or being claimed by other persons. Plaintiff-appellants
Patents|Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141)|Parties|Prescription| title is imprescriptible.- alleged that part of the subject property was owned by their
Quieting of Title  predecessors-in-interest Rufino Mallari and Fermina Jamlig and
In light of the above, and at this time, prescription is unavailing that they were in possession of the said land since 1920. They
Syllabi: against private respondents’ action. It is settled that a Free Patent recently discovered that their entire Lot No. 3275 was registered by
defendant Valerio under Free Patent No. (III-2) 001953 and OCT
issued over private land is null and void, and produces no legal
1. Actions;  Motions to Dismiss;  Land Registration;  Free No. P-8265 in the name of the heirs of Marciano Nagao. They
effects whatsoever. Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum. allegedly demanded from defendant Valerio to execute the
Patents;  Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141);Where on the basis of Moreover, private respondents’ claim of open, public, peaceful, necessary document in order that the 2,250 square meters owned
the allegations in a complaint for declaration of nullity of an original continuous and adverse possession of the 2,250 square meter by them be segregated from the property titled in the name of the
certificate of title issued pursuant to a Free Patent, the lot in portion since 1920, and its illegal inclusion in the Free Patent of defendants-appellees [petitioners herein]. Defendants-appellees,
question is apparently beyond the jurisdiction of the Director of the petitioners and in their original certificate of title, gave private however, refused to accede their demands.
Bureau of Lands and could not be the subject of a Free Patent, respondents a cause of action for quieting of title which is
dismissal of a party’s complaint is premature and trial on the merits imprescriptible. The complaint of private respondents may thus A motion to dismiss was filed by defendants-appellees on the
should be conducted to thresh out evidentiary matters.- likewise be considered an action for quieting of title. following grounds, viz.:

The rule is settled that a motion to dismiss a complaint Division: FIRST DIVISION 1. The court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action;
hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged therein. Under
Section 48, a subject lot is, for all legal intents and purposes, Docket Number: G.R. No. 123231 2. Plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendants, since
segregated from the public domain, because the beneficiary is suit for annulment of title which actually is a reversion proceedings
“conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions Counsel: Valerio de Guzman & Dionido Law Offices, Raul N. should be instituted by the Solicitor;
essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a Bansale
certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.” 3. Plaintiffs cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations,
Consequently, merely on the basis of the allegations in the Ponente: DAVIDE, JR. the lawsuit having been instituted more than one year, or in fact
complaint, the lot in question is apparently beyond the jurisdiction almost fifteen years after the issuance of the title.[4]
Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED
of the Director of the Bureau of Lands and could not be the subject
for lack of merit and the challenged judgment of the Court of In its Order of 21 September 1992, [5] the trial court granted
of a Free Patent. Hence, dismissal of private respondents’
Appeals is AFFIRMED, but for the reasons stated above. petitioners motion to dismiss on the ground that:
complaint was premature and trial on the merits should have been
conducted to thresh out evidentiary matters. DAVIDE, JR., J.: [The] action to annul the subject certificate of title, which is the
2. Actions;  Motions to Dismiss;  Land Registration;  Free plaintiffs principal cause of action, should be instituted by the
In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Solicitor General. (Lopez v. Padilla, 45 SCRA 44; Maximo v. CFI of
Patents;  Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141);Parties; An action for
petitioners seek the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals Capis (sic), 182 SCRA 420; and Sumali v. Judge of CFI Cotabato,
reversion has to be instituted by the Solicitor General pursuant to in CA-G.R. CV No. 40017[1] which set aside the Order of the 96 Phil. 946, cited by the defendants).
Section 101 of C.A. No. 141.- Regional Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, Branch 35 in Civil
Case No. 836[2] dismissing private respondents complaint[3] which Private respondents appealed the order of dismissal to
It would have been entirely different if the action were clearly for sought the declaration of nullity of the Original Certificate of Title respondent court raising this lone assignment of error:
reversion, in which case, it would have to be instituted by the (OCT) issued pursuant to a Free Patent in the name of petitioners.
Solicitor General pursuant to Section 101 of C.A. No. 141, which
The factual antecedents, as succinctly summarized by the THE COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE AND/OR ALL
provides: SEC. 101. All actions for the reversion to the Government Court of Appeals, are as follows: THE CAUSES OF ACTION OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS. [6]
of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be
 In its decision[7] of 20 September 1995, the Court of Appeals PRIVATE RESPONDENTS CAUSE OF ACTION IS BARRED BY that petitioners be ordered to pay actual, moral and other damages,
set aside the challenged order of the trial court and reinstated THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LAWSUIT HAVING BEEN attorneys fees and litigation expenses.
private respondents complaint. Applying Agne v. Director of Lands, INSTITUTED MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR IN FACT ALMOST
[8]
respondent court distinguished private respondents action from a FIFTEEN YEARS, AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE TITLE. It is then clear from the allegations in the complaint that
review of the decree of title on the ground of fraud, and held that private respondents claim ownership of the 2,250 square meter
the rule on the incontrovertibility of a certificate of title upon the portion for having possessed it in the concept of an owner, openly,
The Court of appeals correctly set aside the challenged order peacefully, publicly, continuously and adversely since 1920. This
expiration of one year after the entry of the decree did not apply as of the trial court, but not necessarily for the correct reasons. The claim is an assertion that the lot is private land, or that even
the action for cancellation of the patent and certificate of title issued trial court sustained the second ground of petitioners motion to assuming it was part of the public domain, private respondents had
pursuant thereto was instituted on the ground that they were null dismiss, namely, that private respondents had no cause of action already acquired imperfect title thereto under Section 48(b) of C.A.
and void as the Bureau of Lands had no jurisdiction to issue them, since the suit for annulment of title amounted to a reversion No. 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, as amended by
the land having been withdrawn from the public domain prior to the proceeding which only the Office of the Solicitor general could R.A. No. 1942. This section provides:
award of the patent and grant of certificate of title to another initiate.The propriety of that ruling was the primary issue before the
person. Court of Appeals, as the trial court did not deem it necessary to rule
Petitioners motion to reconsider[9] having been denied by the on the other grounds, viz., (a) lack of jurisdiction over the nature of SECTION 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines,
Court of Appeals in its Resolution of 20 December 1995, the action; and (2) that private respondents cause of action was occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such
[10]
 petitioners filed the petition at bar alleging that: barred by the statute of limitations since the action was filed more lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been
than one year after issuance of the title. perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of
I the province where the land is located for confirmation of their
The rule is settled that a motion to dismiss a complaint claims and issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land
hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged therein. [11] In their Registration Act, to wit:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN complaint,[12] private respondents specifically alleged that: (a) they
REVERSING THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL, CONSIDERING THE are the heirs of Rufino Mallari and Fermina Jamlig who are part
FACT THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS DO NOT HAVE THE xxx
owners of a parcel of land known as Cad. 324-D, Lot 3275, situated
LEGAL PERSONALITY TO CONTEST THE FINAL AWARD MADE at Mambangan, San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija; (b) the portion
BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, AND CIVIL COURTS ARE belonging to private respondents, with an area of 2,250 square (b) Those who by themselves or through their
DEVOID OF JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO REVIEW OR meters, was covered by tax declarations in their names, occupied predecessors in interest have been in open,
CONTROL SUCH FINAL JUDGMENT. and possessed by their predecessors-in-interest since 1920 and continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
continuously thereafter until the present; (c) their possession has and occupation of agricultural lands of the public
II been peaceful, public, continuous, adverse and in the concept of an domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
owner; (d) on or about 18 February 1974, defendant Macario ownership, for at least thirty years immediately
Valerio, in order to deprive private respondents of their rights over preceding the filing of the application for
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF ACTION IN confirmation of title except when prevented by
THIS CASE IS FOR THE AWARD IN THEIR FAVOR OF 2,250 and ownership of the portion of the lot, committed perjury, for which
he is now criminally charged in court, by causing the entire Lot war or force majeure. These shall be
SQUARE METERS PORTION OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND conclusively presumed to have performed all the
COVERED BY OCT NO. P-8265 AND CIVIL COURTS HAVE NO 3275 to be registered under Free Patent No. (III-2) 001953 and the
issuance of original certificate of Title No. P-8265, both in the name conditions essential to a Government grant and
JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURE OF THE ACTION SINCE IT shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the
IS THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, NOT THE CIVIL COURTS, WHO of Marciano Nagao, represented by Macario Valerio; (e) on account
of the fraud, deceit and misrepresentation committed by Macario provisions of this chapter.[13]
IS VESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO DECIDE [TO] WHOM TO
AWARD DISPOSABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Valerio, the grant of the patent and issuance of the title were null
and void and the indefeasibility of a title issued pursuant thereto Under Section 48, a subject lot is, for all legal intents and
one year after did not apply; (f) upon discovery, only recently, of the purposes, segregated from the public domain, because the
III issuance of the title in the name of the Heirs of Marciano Nagao, beneficiary is conclusively presumed to have performed all the
private respondents demanded from Macario Valerio the execution conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAVE NO CAUSE OF ACTION of the necessary documents segregating the 2,250 square meter a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, SINCE [A] SUIT FOR portion and transferring the property to them, however Macario
ANNULMENT OF TITLE WHICH ACTUALLY IS A REVERSION refused without justifiable cause or reason; and (g) as a Consequently, merely on the basis of the allegations in the
PROCEEDINGS [sic], SHOULD BE INSTITUTED BY THE consequence of Macarios refusal, they suffered moral damages complaint, the lot in question is apparently beyond the jurisdiction of
SOLICITOR GENERAL. and were compelled to incur expenses and secure the services of the Director of the Bureau of Lands and could not be the subject of
counsel. Private respondents then prayed, inter alia, that Original a Free Patent. Hence, dismissal of private respondents complaint
Certificate of Title No. P-8265 be declared null and void, or that the was premature and trial on the merits should have been conducted
IV
2,250 square meter portion be segregated and the Register of to thresh out evidentiary matters.
Deeds ordered to issue a title over said portion in their names, and
 [5]
It would have been entirely different if the action were clearly  Supra note 2.
for reversion, in which case, it would have to be instituted by the [6]
Solicitor General pursuant to Section 101 of C.A. No. 141, which  Rollo, 53; CA OR, 37.
provides: [7]
 Supra note 1.
[8]
SEC. 101. All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands  181 SCRA 793 [1990].
of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by [9]
 Rollo, 56-69; CA OR, 46-59.
the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper
courts, in the name of the [Republic] of the Philippines. [10]
 Id., 71; Id., attached.
[11]
 1 FLORENCE D. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
In light of the above, and at this time, prescription is unavailing
242 (6th Rev. ed. 1997).
against private respondents action. It is settled that a Free Patent
issued over private land is null and void,[14] and produces no legal [12]
 Supra note 3.
effects whatsoever. Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum.
[13]
[15]
 Moreover, private respondents claim of open, public, peaceful,  In accordance with Section 4 of P.D. No. 1073, promulgated on
continuous and adverse possession of the 2,250 square meter 25 January 1977, this paragraph was amended to apply
portion since 1920, and its illegal inclusion in the Free Patent of only to alienable and disposable lands of the public
petitioners and in their original certificate of title, gave private domain which have been in the open, continuous,
respondents a cause of action for quieting of title which is exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the
imprescriptible.[16] The complaint of private respondents may thus applicant himself or thru his predecessors-in-interest,
likewise be considered an action for quieting of title. under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since
12 June 1945.
The grounds then relied upon in petitioners motion to dismiss
[14]
are not indubitable and cannot be impressed with merit. We are  Vital v. Anore, 90 Phil. 855, 858 [1952]; Agne v. Director of
not, however, foreclosing the presentation of evidence during trial Lands, supra note 8, at 807-808 [1990];
on the merits that the land in question is not private property and Mendoza v.Navarette, 214 SCRA 337, 349 [1992].
that private respondents are not entitled to the benefits of Section [15]
 Agne v. Director of Lands, supra  note 8, at 808.
48 of C.A. No. 141.
[16]
 Mendoza v. Navarette, supra note 14, at 353-354, citing
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit
Canagay Layno v. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 718, 724-
and the challenged judgment of the Court of Appeals is
725 [1984].
AFFIRMED, but for the reasons stated above.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Vitug, and Kapunan, JJ.,  concur.

[1]
 Rollo, 52-55; Original Record (OR) CA-G.R. CV No. 40017 (CA
OR), 36-39. Per Associate Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr.,
with Associate Justices Ramon U. Mabutas, Jr. and Jose
C. De la Rama, concurring.
[2]
 Id., 49; Id., 24 (RTC Civil Case No. 836. Per Judge Teofilo B.
Talavera, Jr.).
[3]
 Rollo, 29-32.
[4]
 Rollo, 52-53; CA OR, 36-37.