Photo from Unsplash | Brett Jordan
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
An action for reversion seeks to restore public land fraudulently awarded and disposed to private individuals or corporations to the mass of public domain.||| It is filed by the government through the Office of the Solicitor General. (Estate of Yujuico v. Republic, G.R. No. 168661, October 26, 2007)
An action for reversion seeks to restore public land fraudulently awarded and disposed of to private individuals or corporations to the mass of public domain. This remedy is provided under Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141 (Public Land Act) which became effective on December 1, 1936. Said law recognized the power of the state to recover lands of public domain.
Section 124 of CA No. 141 reads:
SEC. 124. Any acquisition, conveyance, alienation, transfer, or other contract made or executed in violation of any of the provisions of Sections one hundred and eighteen, one hundred and twenty, one hundred and twenty one, one hundred and twenty-two, and one hundred twenty-three of this Act shall be unlawful and null and void from its execution and shall produce the effect of annulling and cancelling the grant, title, patent, or permit originally issued, recognized or confirmed, actually or presumptively, and cause the reversion of the property and its improvements to the State. (Emphasis supplied.)
Pursuant to Section 124 of the Public Land Act, reversion suits are proper in the following instances, to wit:
- Alienations of land acquired under free patent or homestead provisions in violation of Section 118, CA No. 141;
- Conveyances made by non-Christians in violation of Section 120, CA No. 141; and
- Alienations of lands acquired under CA No. 141in favor of persons not qualified under Sections 121, 122, and 123 of CA No. 141.
From the foregoing, an action for reversion to cancel titles derived from homestead patents or free patents based on transfers and conveyances in violation of CA No. 141 is filed by the OSG pursuant to its authority under the Administrative Code with the RTC. It is clear therefore that reversion suits were originally utilized to annul titles or patents administratively issued by the Director of the Land Management Bureau or the Secretary of the DENR.
(Estate of Yujuico v. Republic, G.R. No. 168661, [October 26, 2007], 563 PHIL 92-131)
The general rule is that reversion of lands to the state is not automatic, and the Office of the Solicitor General is the proper party to file an action for reversion.
In Villacorta v. Ulanday, defendant-appellee Vicente Ulanday admitted that his purchase of a parcel of land covered by a homestead patent was made within the five-year prohibitory period, but argued that since the sale was in violation of law, the property should automatically revert to the state. This court held that reversion was not automatic, and government must file an appropriate action so that the land may be reverted to the state.
Ortega v. Tan involved the sale and mortgage of a parcel of land covered by a free patent. The series of transactions for the sale and mortgage of the property had been initiated within the five-year prohibitory period but was finalized after the prohibitory period. This court held that the sale and mortgage violated Section 118 of the Public Land Act and that reversion was proper. This court also clarified that:
[Reversion] is not automatic. The government has to take action to cancel the patent and the certificate of title in order that the land involved may be reverted to it. Correspondingly, any new transaction would be subject to whatever steps the government may take for the reversion to it. (Citation omitted)
Alvarico v. Sola involved a miscellaneous sales application over a parcel of land by Fermina Lopez. Subsequently, Lopez executed a deed of self-adjudication and transfer of rights in favor of Amelita Sola. The Bureau of Lands approved the transfer of rights, and title was issued in Sola’s name. Castorio Alvarico then filed an action for reconveyance, claiming that the parcel of land was donated to him. He also alleged that Sola acquired the property in bad faith. This court held that Alvarico’s allegation of bad faith was not supported by evidence and that in any case, “only the State can institute reversion proceedings under Sec[tion] 101 of the Public Land Act.” This court restated Section 101 of the Public Land Act:
[A] private individual may not bring an action for reversion or any action which would have the effect of canceling a free patent and the corresponding certificate of title issued on the basis thereof, such that the land covered thereby will again form part of the public domain. Only the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead may do so. Since [the] title originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee. (Citations omitted)
The rule in Alvarico was cited in Cawis, et al. v. Hon. Cerilles, et al. In Cawis, the validity of a sales patent and original certificate of title over a parcel of land in Baguio was questioned. This court denied the Petition and ruled that the Complaint was actually a reversion suit, which can be filed only by the Office of the Solicitor General or a person acting in its stead.
It was also discussed in Cawis that:
The objective of an action for reversion of public land is the cancellation of the certificate of title and the resulting reversion of the land covered by the title to the State. This is why an action for reversion is oftentimes designated as an annulment suit or a cancellation suit.
We clarify that the remedy of reversion is not the same as the remedy of declaration of nullity of free patents and certificate of title. In reversion, the “allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land[,]” while in an action for the declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title, the allegations would include “plaintiffs ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of [the] free patent and certificate of title[.]
Since an action for reversion presupposes that the property in dispute is owned by the state, it is proper that the action be filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, being the real party-in-interest.
There is, however, an exception to the rule that reversion is not automatic. Section 29 of the Public Land Act provides:
SECTION 29. After the cultivation of the land has begun, the purchaser, with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, may convey or encumber his rights to any person, corporation, or association legally qualified under this Act to purchase agricultural public lands, provided such conveyance or encumbrance does not affect any right or interest of the Government in the land: And provided, further, That the transferee is not delinquent in the payment of any installment due and payable. Any sale and encumbrance made without the previous approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce shall be null and void and shall produce the effect of annulling the acquisition and reverting the property and all rights to the State, and all payments on the purchase price theretofore made to the Government shall be forfeited. After the sale has been approved, the vendor shall not lose his right to acquire agricultural public lands under the provisions of this Act, provided he has the necessary qualifications. (Emphasis supplied)
(Eliseo Maltos and Rosita P. Maltos, vs. Heirs of Eusebio Borromeo, G.R. No. 172720. September 14, 2015)
Read also: If there are two titles covering the same property, which title shall prevail?
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.