Republic V Benigno

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753 3/6/19, 4)15 PM
G.R. No. 205492. March 11, 2015.*
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

SPOUSES DANTE and LOLITA BENIGNO, respondents.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Dismissal of Actions; The

power conferred upon the Court of Appeals (CA) to dismiss an
appeal for failure to file an appellantÊs brief is discretionary.·It is
true, as we have held in numerous cases · particularly Beatingo v.
Gasis, 642 SCRA 539 (2011) · that the power conferred upon the
CA to dismiss an appeal for failure to file an appellantÊs brief is
discretionary. We likewise agree with the CAÊs application of Section
1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules. Indeed, petitioner took its liberties in the
prosecu-
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
136
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Benigno
tion of its appeal, filing at least three motions for extension of

time before finally turning in its appellantÊs brief, and taking the
demeanor consistent with expecting that each motion for extension
of time would be granted.
Administrative Law; „[A]s a matter of doctrine, illegal acts of
government agents do not bind the State,‰ and „the Government is
never estopped from questioning the acts of its officials, more so if
they are erroneous, let alone irregular.‰·While petitioner, through
the Office of the Solicitor General, was admittedly ornery in the
prosecution of its case, it is nonetheless true that „[a]s a matter of
doctrine, illegal acts of government agents do not bind the State,‰
and „the Government is never estopped from questioning the acts of
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b1c659014e93110ab003600fb002c009e/p/ASP166/?username=Guest Page 1 of 18
its officials, more so if they are erroneous, let alone irregular.‰ This
principle applies in land registration cases. Certainly, the State will
not be allowed to abdicate its authority over lands of the public
domain just because its agents and officers have been negligent in
the performance of their duties. Under the Regalian doctrine, „all
lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the State is the
source of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with
the conservation of such patrimony.‰
Civil Law; Land Registration; Property Registration Decree;
Applicants for registration of title under Presidential Decree (PD)
No. 1529 must prove: „(1) that the subject land forms part of the
disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; and (2) that
they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of
ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier. Section 14(1) of the law
requires that the property sought to be registered is already alienable
and disposable at the time the application for registration is filed.‰·
Applicants for registration of title under PD 1529 must prove: „(1)
that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable
lands of the public domain; and (2) that they have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or
earlier. Section 14(1) of the law requires that the property sought to
be registered is already alienable and disposable at the time the
application for registration is filed.‰ And, in order to prove that the
land subject of the application is alienable and disposable public
land, „the general rule remains: all applications for original
registration under the Property
137
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 137

Registration Decree must include both (1) a CENRO or

PENRO certification and (2) a certified true copy of the original
classification made by the DENR Secretary.‰
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Void Judgments; It
is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a void
judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored. x x x Accordingly,
a void judgment is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any
right nor of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all
claims emanating from it have no legal effect.·The trial court had
no basis in fact and law to grant respondentsÊ application for
registration as there was no proof of alienability adduced. As such,

it „has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose.
In contemplation of law, it is nonexistent. Such judgment or order
may be resisted in any action or proceeding whenever it is involved.
It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a void
judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored. x x x Accordingly,
a void judgment is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any
right nor of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all
claims emanating from it have no legal effect.‰
Civil Law; Public Lands; Regalian Doctrine; The well-
entrenched rule is that all lands not appearing to be clearly of
private dominion presumably belong to the State.·„The well-
entrenched rule is that all lands not appearing to be clearly of
private dominion presumably belong to the State. The onus to
overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the
land subject of an application for registration is alienable and
disposable rests with the applicant.‰ „[P]ublic lands remain part of
the inalienable land of the public domain unless the State is shown
to have reclassified or alienated them to private persons.‰ „Unless
public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to a
private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public
domain. Indeed, occupation thereof in the concept of owner, no
matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a
title.‰
PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner.
138

Espina and Yumul-Espina for respondents.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to set aside

the January 22, 2013 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 97995, which denied the herein
petitionerÊs Omnibus Motion3 seeking reconsideration of
the CAÊs October 9, 2012 Resolution4 denying petitionerÊs
Motion for Extension5 of time to file its AppellantÊs Brief.
Factual Antecedents
On November 2, 1995, spouses Dante and Lolita

Benigno (respondents, collectively) filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna (Calamba RTC) an
Application for Registration6 of title under Presidential
Decree No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree (PD
1529) to a 293-square-meter lot in Barangay Batong
Malake, Los Baños, Laguna. The case was docketed as LRC
Case No. 105-95-C and assigned to Branch 35 of the
Calamba RTC.
After trial, the Calamba RTC issued a December 9, 2005
Decision7 granting respondentsÊ application for
registration, decreeing thus:
WHEREFORE, this Court affirms the Order of general default

against the whole world heretofore entered in this case, and
judgment is hereby rendered confirming the title of the applicants
spouses Dante Benigno
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 7-26.

2 Id., at pp. 27-29; penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes Carpio
and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and
Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla.
3 CA Rollo, pp. 71-80.
4 Id., at pp. 64-66.
5 Id., at pp. 60-62.
6 Rollo, pp. 30-34.
7 Id., at pp. 71-74; penned by Judge Romeo C. de Leon.
139
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 139

and Lolita Z. Benigno covered by Tax Declaration No. 0284 and

designated as Lot 6489, Cad. Lot No. 450 situated in Brgy. Batong
Malake, of the Municipality of Los Baños, Laguna and ordering the
registration of said title in the name of the said applicants spouses
Dante Benigno and Lolita Z. Benigno.
Once this decision has become final, let an order issued [sic]
directing the Land Registration Authority to issue the

corresponding decree of registration.
SO ORDERED.8
Petitioner filed its notice of appeal9 on January 10, 2006.

In an April 10, 2006 Order,10 the trial court approved the
notice of appeal and directed that the entire records of the
case be forwarded to the CA.
The appeal was docketed as C.A.-G.R. CV No. 97995.
On March 9, 2010, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Appeal and Issue a Final Decree of Registration,11
claiming among others that petitioner has abandoned its
appeal. It also filed a Motion to Resolve12 seeking among
others the denial of petitionerÊs appeal on the ground of
abandonment. But in a July 2, 2010 Order,13 the Calamba
RTC denied both motions, stating that it was respondentsÊ
failure to submit certain required documents · the
Affidavit of Publication14 and Certificate of Posting15 · as
earlier directed by the court
_______________
8 Id., at p. 74.
9 CA Rollo, p. 24.
10 Id., at p. 27.
11 Rollo, pp. 78-80.
12 Id., at pp. 82-83.
13 Id., at pp. 84-85.
14 Exhibit „E,‰ id., at p. 92.
15 Exhibit „G,‰ as corrected. Id., at p. 94. In its March 26, 2010 Order,
the trial court mistakenly referred to the Certificate of Posting as Exhibit
„F,‰ when it should be Exhibit „G,‰ as marked during the proceedings.
140

in a March 26, 2010 Order16 which caused the non-

transmittal of the records of the case to the CA, thus
delaying the appeal proceedings. On July 26, 2010,
respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration17 of the said
Order.
Without awaiting the resolution of its July 26, 2010

Motion for Reconsideration of the July 2, 2010 Order,
respondents filed on September 21, 2011 its Compliance18
and submitted the documents required by the trial court.
In a September 26, 2011 Order19 of the trial court, the
branch clerk of court was directed to immediately mark the
documents and thereafter forward the records of the case to
the CA. Thus, on December 21, 2011, the acting branch
clerk of court of the Calamba RTC forwarded the entire
records of LRC Case No. 105-95-C to the Calamba Office of
the Clerk of Court for transmittal to the CA.
On December 21, 2011, the entire records of LRC Case
No. 105-95-C was received by the CA.20
On February 21, 2012, respondents filed a Motion for
Early Resolution21 of the appeal, seeking dismissal thereof
on the ground of alleged inaction and failure to prosecute
on the part of the petitioner.
Respondents then filed with the CA a Manifestation and
Motion to Suspend Proceedings22 dated May 8, 2012.
Respondents contended that since its Motion for
Reconsideration of the Calamba RTCÊs July 2, 2010 Order
and Motion for Early Resolution of the appeal remained
unresolved, the filing of an appellantÊs brief by the
petitioner would be premature; thus, the appeal
proceedings should be suspended until the said motions are
resolved.
_______________
16 Id., at p. 81.
17 Id., at pp. 86-87.
18 Id., at pp. 88-94.
19 Id., at p. 96.
20 Id., at p. 97.
21 Id., at pp. 109-114.
22 Id., at pp. 104-106.
141
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 141

In an April 26, 2012 Notice,23 the CA directed petitioner

to file its appellantÊs brief within 45 days from receipt of
the notice.
On June 22, 2012, petitioner filed a Motion for

Extension24 of time to file its brief. It sought an extension
of 60 days from June 21, 2012, or until August 20, 2012,
within which to file the same.
In a Resolution25 dated June 26, 2012, the CA required
petitioner to comment on respondentsÊ Manifestation and
Motion to Suspend Proceedings. It likewise granted
petitionerÊs Motion for Extension.
On July 16, 2012, petitioner filed an Opposition26 to
respondentÊs Manifestation and Motion to Suspend
Proceedings, with a prayer that the said manifestation and
motion be denied for lack of merit.
On August 13, 2012, the CA issued a Resolution27
stating that with the filing of petitionerÊs Opposition,
respondentsÊ Manifestation and Motion to Suspend
Proceedings are deemed submitted for resolution.
On August 17, 2012, petitioner filed a second Motion for
Extension28 of time to file its appellantÊs brief, praying for
an extension of 30 days from August 20, 2012, or until
September 19, 2012, within which to file its brief.
However, petitioner did not file its brief within the
period stated in its second motion for extension. Thus, on
October 9, 2012, the CA issued another Resolution29
denying petitionerÊs
_______________
23 CA Rollo, p. 35.
24 Id., at pp. 48-50.
25 Id., at p. 51.
26 Id., at pp. 52-58.
27 Id., at p. 59.
28 Id., at pp. 60-62.
29 Id., at pp. 64-66; penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes Carpio
and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and
Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla.
142

second motion for extension and dismissing its appeal

pursuant to Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure (Rules). It held:
For resolution is oppositor-appellantÊs motion for extension of

time to file the appellantÊs brief, which prays that it be granted an
additional period of thirty (30) days or until September 19, 2012 to
file the aforesaid brief.
The records, however, will show the We have already granted
oppositor-appellantÊs previous motion for extension of time to file its
brief. In our Resolution dated June 26, 2012, We granted oppositor-
appellant an additional period of sixty (60) days or until August 20,
2012 within which to file its brief. However, oppositor-appellant
failed to file its appellantÊs brief on or before August 20, 2012.
Hence, the instant motion.
Oppositor-appellant should be reminded that the right to appeal
is a mere statutory privilege, and should be exercised only in the
manner prescribed by law. The statutory nature of the right to
appeal requires the one who avails of it to strictly comply with the
statutes or rules that are considered indispensable interdictions
against needless delays and for an orderly discharge of judicial
business. Since oppositor-appellant has not been able to file its brief
within the proper period, We deem it appropriate to dismiss its
appeal, pursuant to Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, viz.:
„SECTION 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal.·An appeal
may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on
that of the appellee, on the following grounds:
xxxx
(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required
number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time
provided by these Rules;
x x x x‰
143
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 143

It should also be noted that the appealed Decision was rendered

on December 9, 2005 and the court a quoÊs Order letting the entire
records of the instant case be forwarded to this Court was issued on
April 10, 2006. Thus, We believe that it is high time for the
applicants-appellees, as the prevailing party in the court a quoÊs
Decision, to enjoy the fruits of their victory.
WHEREFORE, appellantÊs motion for extension of time to file its
brief, dated August 16, 2012, is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the
instant appeal is DISMISSED, pursuant to Section 1(e), Rule 50 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Considering the foregoing, applicants-appellees Manifestation

and Motion to Suspend Proceedings, due to Our alleged inaction on
its Motion for Early Resolution, is hereby declared MOOT.
SO ORDERED.30
On October 18, 2012, petitioner filed a third Motion for

Extension,31 praying for another 20 days from October 19,
2012, or until November 8, 2012, within which to file its
appellantÊs brief.
On November 5, 2012, petitioner filed its AppellantÊs
Brief.32 It likewise filed an Omnibus Motion33 seeking a
reconsideration of the CAÊs October 9, 2012 Resolution and,
consequently, the admission of its appellantÊs brief.
Apologizing profusely for the fiasco, it begged for the
appellate courtÊs leniency, claiming that it cannot be faulted
for the delay in the proceedings on appeal; that in fact, the
delay was caused by the failure to transmit the records of
LRC Case No. 105-95-C to the CA, for which the
respondents and Calamba City Office of the Clerk of Court
should be faulted; that in the interest of
_______________
30 Id., at pp. 64-65.

31 Id., at pp. 67-69.
32 Id., at pp. 81-108.
33 Id., at pp. 71-80.
144

substantial justice, the CA should instead adopt a

relaxed interpretation of Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules
in order to afford the State an opportunity to present its
case fully.
Respondents filed their Comment34 arguing that only
petitioner should be faulted for its failure to prosecute the
appeal; that from its repeated motions for extension, it can
be seen that petitioner lacked diligence in pursuing its
appeal; and that consequently, the CA committed no error
in issuing its October 9, 2012 Resolution.
Assailed Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On January 22, 2013, the CA issued the assailed

Resolution, pronouncing thus:
A careful reading of oppositor-appellantÊs motion, however,

reveals that it does not raise any matter of substance that would
justify the reconsideration being sought. We, therefore, find no
compelling reason to disturb Our findings and conclusion in Our
aforementioned Resolution.
WHEREFORE, the Omnibus Motion is DENIED. Our
Resolution dated October 9, 2012 stands.
SO ORDERED.35
Thus, the instant Petition was filed.
Issue
In an April 23, 2014 Resolution,36 this Court resolved to

give due course to the Petition, which raises the following
sole issue:
_______________
34 Id., at pp. 119-126.

35 Rollo, p. 28.
36 Id., at pp. 254-255.
145
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 145

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED ON A

QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT ORDERED THE DISMISSAL
OF THE APPEAL ALTHOUGH THE DELAY IN THE FILING
OF THE APPELLANTÊS BRIEF WAS CAUSED BY THE
TRIAL COURT AND THE RESPONDENTS.37
PetitionerÊs Arguments
In its Petition and Reply38 seeking the reversal of the

assailed CA Resolution as well as the dismissal of LRC
Case No. 105-95-C, petitioner reiterates that it should not
be faulted for the delay in the proceedings on appeal, as it
resulted from the Calamba City Office of the Clerk of

CourtÊs failure to transmit the records of LRC Case No.
105-95-C to the CA; that it was the ministerial duty of the
clerk of court to transmit the records of the case to the CA,
and he has no authority to withhold the records on the
pretext that certain exhibits were lacking; and that the CA
should liberally apply Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules in
order to afford the State an opportunity to present its case
fully.
Petitioner further argues, at this stage of the
proceedings, that the Calamba RTCÊs December 9, 2005
Decision granting respondentsÊ application for registration
is null and void for lack of the required certification from
the Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) that the land applied for is
alienable and disposable land of the public domain. It
claims that the mere testimony of a special investigator of
the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO) cannot form the basis for the Calamba RTCÊs
finding that the land applied for is alienable and
disposable, pursuant to the ruling in Republic v. Hanover
Worldwide Trading Corporation;39 respondents should
_______________
37 Id., at p. 18.
38 Id., at pp. 231-236.
39 G.R. No. 172102, July 2, 2010, 622 SCRA 730, 739.
146

have submitted a copy of the original classification

approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true
copy by the legal custodian of the official records. Petitioner
justifies the raising of the issue at this late stage, arguing
that the State may not be estopped by the mistakes of its
officers and agents; and that when the inference made by
the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts, or when its
findings of fact are manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible, as in this case, its erroneous decision may be
reviewed by this Court.40
In its Reply, petitioner further points out that the
Calamba RTCÊs December 9, 2005 Decision is void for lack

of publication;41 in other words, petitioner suggests that
respondents in fact failed to cause the publication and
posting of the notice of initial hearing on its application,
and that the subsequent submission through its September
21, 2011 Compliance of an Affidavit of Publication and
Certificate of Posting of Notice of Initial Hearing was a
mere fabrication and fraudulent submission.
RespondentsÊ Arguments
In their Comment,42 respondents insist that the assailed

CA disposition is correct in all respects; that petitionerÊs
fail-
_______________
40 Citing National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil.

345; 283 SCRA 45 (1997).
41 Citing Fewkes v. Vasquez, 148-A Phil. 448, 452-453; 39 SCRA 514,
517 (1971), which declares as follows:
x x x It is this publication of the notice of hearing that is considered
one of the essential bases of the jurisdiction of the court in land
registration cases, for the proceedings being in rem, it is only when there
is constructive seizure of the land, effected by the publication and notice,
that jurisdiction over the res is vested on the court. Furthermore, it is
such notice and publication of the hearing that would enable all persons
concerned, who may have any rights or interests in the property, to come
forward and show to the court why the application for registration
thereof is not to be granted.
42 Rollo, pp. 183-203.
147
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 147

ure to file its brief is not attributable to respondents;

that petitioner filed no less than four motions for extension
to file its brief, which is indicative of its failure to prosecute
its appeal with reasonable diligence and despite having
been given by the CA the opportunity to do so; that the CAÊs
authority to dismiss an appeal for failure of the appellant
to file a brief is a matter of judicial discretion;43 that the CA
exercised its discretion soundly; that Section 1244 of Rule

44 of the Rules states that extensions of time for the filing
of briefs will not be allowed except for good and sufficient
cause; that petitioner should not expect that every motion
for extension it files will be granted; and that the rules on
appeal are not trivial technicalities that petitioner can
simply disregard at will.
Respondents add that petitionerÊs allegations of fraud
and fabrication are not substantiated by the evidence; that
the affidavit of publication and certificate of posting were
already presented during the initial hearing and later
submitted as part of their formal offer of evidence; that the
Calamba RTC admitted the said exhibits and in fact
mentioned the same in its Decision granting the
application; and that with the ruling in Republic v. Vega,45
it can be said that despite the absence of a certified true
copy of the DENR original land classification, an
application for registration could nonetheless be approved
when there has been substantial compliance with the legal
requirements relative to proof that the land applied for is
alienable and disposable.
_______________
43 Citing Bachrach Corporation v. Philippine Ports Authority, 600

Phil. 1, 6-7; 580 SCRA 659, 664 (2009); Beatingo v. Gasis, G.R. No.
179641, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 539, 546-548; and other cases.
44 Sec. 12. Extension of time for filing briefs.·Extension of time for
the filing of briefs will not be allowed, except for good and sufficient
cause, and only if the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of
the time sought to be extended.
45 654 Phil. 511, 519; 639 SCRA 541, 549-550 (2011).
148

Our Ruling
The Court finds for petitioner.

It is true, as we have held in numerous cases ·
particularly Beatingo v. Gasis46 · that the power conferred
upon the CA to dismiss an appeal for failure to file an
appellantÊs brief is discretionary. We likewise agree with
the CAÊs application of Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules.

Indeed, petitioner took its liberties in the prosecution of its
appeal, filing at least three motions for extension of time
before finally turning in its appellantÊs brief, and taking the
demeanor consistent with expecting that each motion for
extension of time would be granted.
However, while petitioner, through the Office of the
Solicitor General, was admittedly ornery in the prosecution
of its case, it is nonetheless true that „[a]s a matter of
doctrine, illegal acts of government agents do not bind the
State,‰ and „the Government is never estopped from
questioning the acts of its officials, more so if they are
erroneous, let alone irregular.‰47 This principle applies in
land registration cases.48 Certainly, the State will not be
allowed to abdicate its authority over lands of the public
domain just because its agents and officers have been
negligent in the performance of their duties. Under the
Regalian doctrine, „all lands of the public domain belong to
the State, and the State is the source of any
_______________
46 Beatingo v. Gasis, supra note 43.

47 Heirs of Atty. Jose C. Reyes v. Republic, 529 Phil. 510, 520-521; 497
SCRA 520, 529 (2006).
48 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Republic, 567 Phil. 427; 543 SCRA
453 (2008); Republic v. Lao, 453 Phil. 189; 405 SCRA 291 (2003);
Morandarte v. Court of Appeals, 479 Phil. 870; 436 SCRA 213 (2004);
Palomo v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 357; 266 SCRA 392 (1997).
149
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 149

asserted right to ownership in land and charged with

the conservation of such patrimony.‰49
Applicants for registration of title under PD 152950 must
prove: „(1) that the subject land forms part of the
disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; and
(2) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the land under a
bona fide claim of ownership since 12 June 1945 or earlier.
Section 14(1) of the law requires that the property sought
to be registered is already alienable and disposable at the
time the application for registration is filed.‰51

And, in order to prove that the land subject of the
application is alienable and disposable public land, „the
general rule remains: all applications for original
registration under the Property Registration Decree must
include both (1) a CENRO or PENRO52 certification and (2)
a certified true copy of the original classification made by
the DENR Secretary.‰53
A perfunctory appraisal of the records indicates that
respondents did not present any documentary evidence in
LRC
_______________
49 Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 605, 624; 295 SCRA 296, 312
(1998).
50 Presidential Decree No. 1529, Section 14(1), which provides as
follows:
Sec. 14. Who may apply.·The following persons may file in the
proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to
land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or
earlier.
xxxx
51 Republic v. Vega, supra note 45 at p. 520; pp. 548-549.
52 Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office.
53 Republic v. Vega, supra note 45 at p. 527; p. 556.
150

Case No. 105-95-C to prove that the land applied for is

alienable and disposable public land. Their Exhibits „A‰ to
„N‰54 are bereft of the required documentary proof ·
particularly, a copy of the original classification approved
by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the
legal custodian of the official records, and a CENRO or
PENRO certification · to show that the 293-square-meter
land applied for registration is alienable and disposable
public land. Respondents do not dispute this; in fact, they

sought the application of the exceptional ruling in Republic
v. Vega55 precisely to obtain exemption from the
requirement on the submission of documentary proof
showing that the property applied for constitutes alienable
and disposable public land.
Consequently, the December 9, 2005 Decision of the
Calamba RTC is rendered null and void. The trial court
had no basis in fact and law to grant respondentsÊ
application for registration as there was no proof of
alienability adduced. As such, it „has no legal and binding
effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of
law, it is nonexistent. Such judgment or order may be
resisted in any action or proceeding whenever it is
involved. It is not even necessary to take any steps to
vacate or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may
simply be ignored. x x x Accordingly, a void judgment is no
judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor of
any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all
claims emanating from it have no legal effect.‰56
„The well-entrenched rule is that all lands not appearing
to be clearly of private dominion presumably belong to the
State. The onus to overturn, by incontrovertible evidence,
the presumption that the land subject of an application for
registra-
_______________
54 Rollo, pp. 72, 264-265.

55 Republic v. Vega, supra note 45.
56 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Orilla, G.R. No. 194168, February
13, 2013, 690 SCRA 610, 618-619.
151
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 151

tion is alienable and disposable rests with the

applicant.‰57 „[P]ublic lands remain part of the inalienable
land of the public domain unless the State is shown to have
reclassified or alienated them to private persons.‰58 „Unless
public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated
to a private person by the State, it remains part of the
inalienable public domain. Indeed, occupation thereof in
the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into

ownership and be registered as a title.‰59
Therefore, even if the Office of the Solicitor General was
remiss in the handling of the StateÊs appeal, we
nevertheless cannot allow respondentsÊ application for
registration since they failed to prove that the land applied
for is alienable and disposable public land. Respondents
cannot invoke Republic v. Vega60 to claim substantial
compliance with the requirement of proof of alienability;
there is complete absence of documentary evidence showing
that the land applied for forms part of the alienable and
disposable portion of the public domain. Complete absence
of proof is certainly not equivalent to substantial
compliance with the required amount of proof.
Having disposed of the case in the foregoing manner, We
find no need to resolve the other issues raised by the
parties, as they have become irrelevant in view of the
finding that respondents failed to prove that the land
applied for forms part of the alienable and disposable
portion of the public domain. The only available course of
action is to dismiss respondentsÊ application for
registration.
_______________
57 Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., 578 Phil. 441, 450; 555 SCRA
477, 486 (2008).
58 Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987, September 3,
2013, 704 SCRA 561, 575.
59 Republic v. De Guzman Vda. de Joson, G.R. No. 163767, March 10,
2014, 718 SCRA 228, citing Menguito v. Republic, 401 Phil. 274; 348
SCRA 128 (2000).
60 Republic v. Vega, supra note 45.
152

We are aware that respondents have come to court at

great cost and effort. The application for registration was
filed way back in 1995. However, the difficult lesson that
must be realized here is that applicants for registration of
public land should come to court prepared and complete
with the necessary evidence to prove their registrable title;
otherwise, their efforts will be for naught, and they would

only have wasted precious time, resources and energy in
advancing a lost cause.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The
October 9, 2012 and January 22, 2013 Resolutions of the
Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 97995 are
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The December 9, 2005
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna,
Branch 35 in LRC Case No. 105-95-C is likewise SET
ASIDE, and LRC Case No. 105-95-C is thus ordered
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ.,

concur.
Petition granted, resolutions reversed and set aside.
Notes.·Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not

otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership
are presumed to belong to the State. (Republic vs. Santos
III, 685 SCRA 51 [2012])
The usage of the word may in Section 1(e) of Rule 50
indicates that the dismissal of the appeal upon failure to
file the appellantÊs brief is not mandatory, but
discretionary. Verily, the failure to serve and file the
required number of copies of the appellantÊs brief within
the time provided by the Rules of Court does not have the
immediate effect of causing the outright dismissal of the
appeal. (Diaz vs. People, 691 SCRA 139 [2013])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Republic V Benigno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic V Benigno

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic V Benigno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 753 3/6/19, 4)15 PM

G.R. No. 205492. March 11, 2015.*

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Dismissal of Actions; The

136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tion of its appeal, filing at least three motions for extension of

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 137

Registration Decree must include both (1) a CENRO or

registration as there was no proof of alienability adduced. As such,

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Espina and Yumul-Espina for respondents.

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to set aside

Motion for Extension5 of time to file its AppellantÊs Brief.

On November 2, 1995, spouses Dante and Lolita

WHEREFORE, this Court affirms the Order of general default

1 Rollo, pp. 7-26.

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 139

and Lolita Z. Benigno covered by Tax Declaration No. 0284 and

directing the Land Registration Authority to issue the

Petitioner filed its notice of appeal9 on January 10, 2006.

140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

in a March 26, 2010 Order16 which caused the non-

Without awaiting the resolution of its July 26, 2010

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 141

In an April 26, 2012 Notice,23 the CA directed petitioner

On June 22, 2012, petitioner filed a Motion for

142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

second motion for extension and dismissing its appeal

For resolution is oppositor-appellantÊs motion for extension of

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 143

It should also be noted that the appealed Decision was rendered

Considering the foregoing, applicants-appellees Manifestation

On October 18, 2012, petitioner filed a third Motion for

30 Id., at pp. 64-65.

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

substantial justice, the CA should instead adopt a

Assailed Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On January 22, 2013, the CA issued the assailed

A careful reading of oppositor-appellantÊs motion, however,

Thus, the instant Petition was filed.

In an April 23, 2014 Resolution,36 this Court resolved to

34 Id., at pp. 119-126.

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 145

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED ON A

In its Petition and Reply38 seeking the reversal of the

resulted from the Calamba City Office of the Clerk of

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

have submitted a copy of the original classification

Calamba RTCÊs December 9, 2005 Decision is void for lack

In their Comment,42 respondents insist that the assailed

40 Citing National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil.

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015 147

ure to file its brief is not attributable to respondents;

exercised its discretion soundly; that Section 1244 of Rule

43 Citing Bachrach Corporation v. Philippine Ports Authority, 600

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Court finds for petitioner.