Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 520 views

    Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. vs. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Maricar Corina Canaya
    1) Respondent Roxas applied for and was granted a homestead patent and certificate of title for a property. However, the property was later found to be within a Matchwood Forest Reserve and therefore inalienable. 2) While there was no evidence of fraud by Roxas, the patent and certificate of title were issued unlawfully since the property was not alienable and disposable agricultural land. 3) The court ruled that the homestead patent and certificate of title should be cancelled and the property reverted to the state, even without evidence of fraud, because of the unlawful grant of the patent over inalienable forest land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. vs. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Maricar Corina Canaya
    520 views2 pages
    1) Respondent Roxas applied for and was granted a homestead patent and certificate of title for a property. However, the property was later found to be within a Matchwood Forest Reserve and therefore inalienable. 2) While there was no evidence of fraud by Roxas, the patent and certificate of title were issued unlawfully since the property was not alienable and disposable agricultural land. 3) The court ruled that the homestead patent and certificate of title should be cancelled and the property reverted to the state, even without evidence of fraud, because of the unlawful grant of the patent over inalienable forest land.

    Original Description:

    o

    Original Title

    Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. vs. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc.,

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Respondent Roxas applied for and was granted a homestead patent and certificate of title for a property. However, the property was later found to be within a Matchwood Forest Reserve and therefore inalienable. 2) While there was no evidence of fraud by Roxas, the patent and certificate of title were issued unlawfully since the property was not alienable and disposable agricultural land. 3) The court ruled that the homestead patent and certificate of title should be cancelled and the property reverted to the state, even without evidence of fraud, because of the unlawful grant of the patent over inalienable forest land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    520 views2 pages

    Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. vs. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Maricar Corina Canaya
    1) Respondent Roxas applied for and was granted a homestead patent and certificate of title for a property. However, the property was later found to be within a Matchwood Forest Reserve and therefore inalienable. 2) While there was no evidence of fraud by Roxas, the patent and certificate of title were issued unlawfully since the property was not alienable and disposable agricultural land. 3) The court ruled that the homestead patent and certificate of title should be cancelled and the property reverted to the state, even without evidence of fraud, because of the unlawful grant of the patent over inalienable forest land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. vs. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc.

    ,
    754 SCRA 556, G.R. No. 209843 March 25, 2015
    Facts:
    President Manuel L. Quezon (Quezon) issued Proclamation No. 678,5 converting 928
    hectares forest land in San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro as Matchwood Forest Reserve. It was
    placed under the administration and control of the Bureau of Forestry
    respondent Roxas filed with the Bureau of Lands a Homestead Application, covering a
    parcel of land he initially identified as Lot No. 4 at Paspasin, San Teodoro, Oriental
    Mindoro. Following the report and recommendation of Land Inspectors, the Director of
    Lands, issued an Order amending respondent Roxass Homestead Application.
    It has been found upon investigation that the land actually occupied by the applicant is Lot
    No. 1 and not Lot No. 4 of the same subdivision as applied for, and it appearing in the
    records of this Office that the land actually occupied is free from claims and conflicts, the
    application is hereby amended to cover Lot No. 1, and as thus amended, shall continue to be
    given due course.
    respondent Roxas executed a Notice of Intention to Make Final Proof, which was posted.
    Respondent Roxas personally testified to finally prove his residence and cultivation of the
    subject property.
    Assistant District Forester Luis G. Dacanay of Bureau of Forestry, informed the District
    Land Officer of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, that "the subject-area designated as Lot No. 1,
    Gss-569, has been verified to be within the alienable and disposable land, thus the said land
    is no longer within the administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry, so that, its
    disposition in accordance with the Public Land Law does not adversely affect forestry
    interest anymore."13
    The Director of Lands issued Homestead Patent No. 11159814 to respondent Roxas on July
    19, 1965, on the basis of which, respondent ROD issued OCT No. P-5885 in respondent
    Roxass name on even date,15 with the following technical description of the subject
    property:

    Issue: Whether CA erred in not finding that Roxas procured homestead patent through
    fraud and/or misrepresentation.

    Ruling:

    In the instant case, respondent Roxas applied for and was granted Homestead Patent No.
    111598 for the subject property, pursuant to which, he acquired OCT No. P-5885 in his
    name. The problem, however, is that the subject property is not alienable and disposable
    agricultural land to begin with.
    In sum, the subject property is within the Matchwood Forest Reserve and, therefore, inalienable and
    not subject to disposition. Respondent Roxas could not have validly acquired a homestead patent
    and certificate of title for the same.
    Although there is no evidence of fraud by respondent Roxas, there is still reason to cancel OCT No.
    P-5885 and revert the subject property to the State.
    We do not find evidence indicating that respondent Roxas committed fraud when he applied for
    homestead patent over the subject property. It does not appear that he knowingly and intentionally
    misrepresented in his application that the subject property was alienable and disposable agricultural
    land. Nonetheless, we recognized in Republic of the Phils. v. Mangotara that there are instances
    when we granted reversion for reasonsother than fraud:
    58

    Reversion is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert the land back to the government
    under the Regalian doctrine. Considering that the land subject of the action originated from a grant
    by the government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee. In Estate of the
    Late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic (Yujuico case), reversion was defined as an action which seeks to
    restore public land fraudulently awarded and disposed of to private individuals or corporations to the
    mass of public domain. It bears to point out, though, that the Court also allowed the resort by the
    Government to actions for reversion to cancel titles that were void for reasons other than fraud, i.e.,
    violation by the grantee of a patent of the conditions imposed by law; and lack of jurisdiction of the
    Director of Lands to grant a patent covering inalienable forest land or portion of a river, even when
    such grant was made through mere oversight. In Republic v. Guerrero, the Court gave a more
    general statement that the remedy of reversion can be availed of "only in cases of fraudulent or
    unlawful inclusion of the land in patents or certificates of title." (Emphasis ours, citations omitted.)
    parently, in the case at bar, a mistake or oversight was committed on the part of respondent Roxas,
    as well as the Government, resulting in the grant of a homestead patent over inalienable forest land.
    Hence, it can be said that the subject property was unlawfully covered by Homestead Patent No.
    111598 and OCT No. P-5885 in respondent Roxass name, whichentitles petitioner Republic to the
    cancellation of said patent and certificate of title and the reversion of the subject property to the
    public domain.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy