Expro and Cancellation of Title Q and A
Expro and Cancellation of Title Q and A
Expro and Cancellation of Title Q and A
I. Expropriation.
1. Q: What is expropriation?
A: It is the State’s inherent right to condemn private property for public use
upon payment of just compensation.1
2. Q: Is expropriation absolute?
A: No. The requisites for its exercise are:
i. Act 190 (7 August 1901), or the Code of Civil Procedure, more particularly,
Sections 241 to 253; and
ii. Act 2826 (5 March 1919).4
1
PNOC Alternative Fuels Corporation v. NGCP, G.R. 224936, 4 September 2019.
2
“[A] property already devoted to public use can still be subject to expropriation, provided this is done directly by
the national legislature or under a specific grant of authority to a delegate.” (See More Electric and Power
Corporation, infra).
3
More Electric and Power Corporation v. Panay Electric Company, Inc., G.R. 248061, 9 March 2021.
4
An Act to Establish Provisions Additional to Those Contained in Act Numbered One Hundred and Ninety with
Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Eminent Domain in Cases in Which the Exercise of Said Right is Resorted to
in Favor of the Insular Government of or Any Province or Municipality.
5
More Electric and Power Corporation, supra.
5. Q: Can an expropriated property be used for a different purpose, i.e., other
than the original public purpose established in the expropriation
proceeding?
A: No. The Supreme Court held:
Meanwhile, the Decision dated 14 May 1940 states that the lots were
condemned in favor of the Government “to form part of the military
reservation for the use of the Philippine Army.”
7. Q: Is Lot 937 still being used for the above public purpose?
A: Yes. Lot 937 is part of Camp Lapu-lapu, a military reservation, and is
being used to implement the National Defense Act. The Regional
Community Defense Group (“RCDG”) is stationed in, and conducts its
activities on, Lot 937.
10. Q: What happens if the State fails to pay just compensation within a
reasonable time?
A: Where the government failed to pay just compensation within five (5)
years from the finality of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings,
the expropriation is rendered “incomplete” and the owner has the right to
recover possession of the property.10
11. Q: Did the State pay just compensation for Lot 937?
A: Yes. The State paid the original owner ₱1,845.72 as Lot 937’s just
compensation.11
12. Q: Are you aware of the other cases involving Civil Case 781 that reached the
Supreme Court?
A: Yes. The allied cases are:
i. Valdehueza v. Republic;12
ii. Republic v. Lim;13
iii. Federated Realty Corporation v. Court of Appeals;14 and
iv. San Roque Realty and Development Corporation v. Republic .15
13. Q: In those cases, the Supreme Court found that the State failed to prove,
among others, that it paid the original owners, and ordered the lots’
reversion. How is this case different from the allied cases?
A: In this case, the State has proof, i.e., Provincial Voucher, that it paid Lot
937’s original owner. In addition, unlike in the allied cases, the State has
been in possession of Lot 937 since 1938 until present. Except for the
portion that was demolished in November 2022, the State’s possession of
Lot 937 has been continuing and undisturbed.
9
Republic v. Lim, G.R. 161656, 29 June 2005.
10
Id.
11
Comment, Annex 5 (Provincial Voucher).
12
G.R. L-21032, 19 May 1966.
13
G.R. 161656, 29 June 2005.
14
G.R. 127967, 14 December 2005.
15
G.R. 163130, 7 September 2007.
14. Q: Whether Godinez is estopped from assailing the legality and/or propriety
of
the expropriation proceedings, considering that after the promulgation of
the Decision Parcial in 1939 and the Decision in 1940, he did not raise any
issue on the title until the filing of the Complaint for Reconstitution in
1954 and accion reivindicatoria in 1997.
A: It is submitted that Godinez should be estopped from assailing the legality
of the expropriation proceedings under the principle of estoppel and
laches.
xxxx
Laches has also set in, the elements of which are as follows: (a) conduct
on the part of the defendant, or one under whom he claims, giving rise to
the situation of which complaint in made and for which the complainant
seeks a remedy; (b) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the
complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct
and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (c) lack of
knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant
would assert the right on which he bares his suit; and (d) injury or
prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the
complainant, or the suit is not held barred. 18
15. Q: Did the non-registration of title in the name of the Republic affect its title?
A: At the time the Republic filed its Complaint for Expropriation in 1938, the
governing law is Act No. 282619, which states:
The Code of Civil Procedure then in effect provides that the final judgment
in a condemnation proceeding shall be recorded in the office of the
registrar of deeds for the province where the property is located, thus:
17
Emphasis supplied.
18
Arga, et al., v. PNB, G.R. No. 133317, June 29, 1999.
19
An Act to Establish Provisions Additional to those Contained in Act No. 190 with regard to the Exercise of the
Right of Eminent Domain in Cases in which the Exercise of Said Right is Resorted to in Favor of the Insular
Government or of any Province or Municipality.
SECTION 251. Final Judgment, Its Record and Effect. — The
record of the final judgment in such action shall state definitely,
by metes and bounds and adequate description, the particular
land or interest in land condemned to the public use, and the
nature of the public use. A certified copy of the record of the
judgment shall be recorded in the office of the registrar of
deeds for the province in which the estate is situated, and its
effect shall be to vest in the plaintiff for the public use stated
the land and estate so described.
When the Decision Parcial and the Decision were promulgated in the years 1939
and 1940, respectively, affirming the authority of the State to expropriate Lot
937, the governing law on land registration is Act No. 496 20, the pertinent
provision of which states, thus:
In any event, non-registration of the Decision Parcial (1939) and the Decision
(1940) and non-issuance of a certificate of title in the name of Republic does not
20
An Act to Provide for the Adjudication and Registration of Titles to Lands in the Philippine Islands.
amount to abandonment of ownership. Registration of title does not create or
vest ownership, for the same is merely an evidence of ownership, thus:21
(b) Section 64, Act No. 2711, The Administrative Code, 10 March 1917
(a) Sections 241 to 253, Act No. 190, Code of Procedure in Civil Actions and
Special Proceedings in the Philippine Islands, 07 August 1901;
21
Heirs of Ermac v. Heirs of Ermac, G.R. No. 149679, 30 May 2003.
22
Visayan Refining Company, et. al, v. Hon. Manuel Camus, G.R. No. 15870, 3 December 1919.
(b) Sections 2 to 5, Act No. 2826, An Act To Establish Provisions Additional To
Those Contained In Act Numbered One Hundred And Ninety With Regard To
The Exercise Of The Right Of Eminent Domain In Cases In Which The
Exercise Of Said Right Is Resorted To In Favor Of The Insular Government
Or Of Any Province Or Municipality , 05 March 1919.
SECTION 5. When the lands have been surveyed and platted the Director
of Lands, represented by the Attorney-General, shall file in the Court of
Land Registration a petition against the holders, claimants, possessors or
occupants of such lands or any part thereof, stating in substance that the
public interests require that the titles to such lands be settled and
adjudicated, and praying that such titles be so settled and adjudicated.
The petition shall contain a description of the lands in question and shall
be accompanied by a plan thereof, and may contain such other data as
may serve to furnish full notice to the occupants of the lands and to all
persons who may claim any right or interest therein. If the lands contain
two or more parcels held or occupied by different persons the plan shall
indicate the boundaries or limits of the various parcels as correctly as
may be. The parcels shall be known as "lots" and shall on the plans filed
in the case be given separate numbers by the Director of Lands, which
numbers shall be known as "cadastral numbers." The lots situated within
each municipality, township or settlement shall, as far as practicable be
numbered consecutively, beginning with the number "1" and only one
series of numbers shall be used for that purpose in each municipality,
township or settlement: Provided, however, That in cities or townsites a
designation of the land holdings by block and lot numbers may be
employed instead of the designation by cadastral numbers and shall have
the same effect for all purposes as the latter.
SECTION 6. After final decree has been entered for the registration of a
lot its cadastral number shall not be changed except by order of the
Court of Land Registration. Future subdivisions of any lot shall, with the
approval of said Court, be designated by a letter or letters of the
alphabet added to the cadastral number of the lot to which the
respective subdivisions pertain. The letter with which a subdivision is
designated shall be known as its "cadastral letter:" Provided, however,
That subdivisions of additions to cities or townsites may, with the
approval of the court, be designated by block and lot numbers instead of
cadastral numbers and letters.
(c) Act No. 2874, The Public Land Act, 29 November 1919
(d) Commonwealth Act No. 141, The Public Land Act, 7 November 1936
19. Q: What should the Republic have done upon securing the expropriation
order?
A: Consistent with the provisions of the law cited above, the Republic should
have filed for the issuance of a new certificate of title with the Registrar of
Deeds.23 When the Government is plaintiff, the judgment will take the
form of an order merely requiring the payment of the award as a
condition precedent to the transfer of the title. 24 A certified copy of the
record of the judgment shall be recorded in the office of the registrar of
deeds for the province in which the estate is situated, and its effect shall
be to vest in the plaintiff, for the public use stated, the land and estate so
described.25
Based on historical timelines, shortly after the Decision in Civil Case No. 781 was
issued in the year 1940, World War II broke out in December 8, 1941. A few
months after, on April 10, 1942, the Japanese Imperial Army occupied Cebu. 26 As
23
Section 88, Act. No. 496.
24
Visayan Refining Company, et. al, v. Hon. Manuel Camus, G.R. No. 15870, 3 December 1919.
25
Section 251, 1901 Code of Civil Procedure.
26
Letter from Cebu (6) "Relations Between Japan and Cebu – During WW-II and After", Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Japan, available at https://www.cebu.ph.emb-japan.go.jp/itpr_ja/11_000001_00447.html (last visited Jan
21, 2023).
a consequence of the occupation, provincial governors and judges of the courts
of first instance were appointed.27
27
Lockwood, L.D. “The Philippine Supreme Court and Postwar Problems of International Law,” Stanford
Law Review, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Dec., 1950) available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/1226047.
28
G.R. No. 146587, 02 July 2002.
"Said relief may be granted under plaintiffs' prayer for: `such
other remedies, which may be deemed just and equitable under
the premises'."
However, the Court clarified in Republic v. Lim29 that a deliberate refusal on the
part of the State to pay just compensation, exemplified by failure to pay within
five (5) years from finality of judgment, justifies recovery of possession, hence:
Lot No. 937 has been the subject of expropriation proceedings. By final and
executory judgment in said proceedings, it was condemned for public use, and
ordered sold to the government.30 The Republic has also paid just compensation
in the amount of One Thousand Eight-Hundred Forty-Five and Seventy-Two
Centavos (Php 1,845.72), as evidenced by a Provincial Voucher signed by the
Clerk of Court, Eugenio Rodil, and Felisa Sy Cip.
These guidelines have since been followed by our courts in determining the
propriety of motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.34
It should be emphasized that the applicant for new trial has the burden of
showing that the new evidence he seeks to present has complied with the
requisites to justify the holding of a new trial.35
The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial based on newly
discovered evidence is whether the proferred evidence is in fact a "newly
discovered evidence which could not have been discovered by due diligence."
The question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two aspects: a
temporal one, i.e., when was the evidence discovered, and a predictive one, i.e.,
when should or could it have been discovered. 36
Here, as culled from the facts, the recent discovery of evidence of payment of
just compensation for Lot No. 937 as paid and received by Felisa Sy Cip, is a
supervening event which renders the supposed final decision of RTC Cebu City-
Branch 9 in Civil Case No. CEB-19845 inequitable and mutable.
23. Q: Whether non-issuance of a title in the name of the Republic defeats the
right of eminent domain of Republic, already established through the
Decision Parcial and Decision
A: It is submitted that the non-issuance of a title in the name of the Republic
does not affect its right over the subject property or its ownership thereof
by virtue of its expropriation.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
37
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002.
After condemnation of the property, the paramount title is in the
public under a new and independent title; thus, by giving notice to
all claimants to a disputed title, condemnation proceedings provide a
judicial process for securing better title against all the world than may be
obtained by voluntary conveyance.38
24. Q: Whether issuance of the Decision Parcial and Decision in the expropriation
proceedings vested title upon the Republic over Lot 937?
A: Yes. Expropriation of land consists of two stages: (a) the determination of
the authority of the plaintiff and the propriety to exercise the power of
eminent domain and (b) the determination by the court of just
compensation for the property sought to be taken. It is only upon the
completion of these two stages that expropriation is said to have been
completed.39
1. Q: Whether the Petition for Cancellation of Title filed by the Republic is the
appropriate remedy to question the Reconstitution Proceedings held
before the Court of First Instance of Cebu
A: Yes, because its purpose is to annul the Order of Reconstitution and the
resulting reconstituted title. It is likewise submitted that a closer reading
of the material allegations and relief prayed for therein reveal that the
action may be considered as one for Quieting of Title.
38
Id.
39
Republic of the Philippines v. Salem Investment Corporation, G.R. No. 137569, 23 June 2000.
40
Gaoiran v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 215925, March 7, 2022.
Rule 19 – Intervention . Republic could not have intervened because it was
not aware of the proceedings. There was likewise no appeal, which, assuming
that procedural rules are relaxed, could have been an avenue for the State to
intervene.
Rule 38 – Petition for Relief from Judgment. This remedy could not have been
availed of because it must have been filed not more than six (6) months after
the judgment or final order was entered. The State was made aware of the
claim of Godinez only when the reivindicatory action was filed in 1997, more
than 41 years after the Order in Reconstitution case was issued in 1956. Even
then, it is submitted that the Republic was misled in the Reivindicatoria case
when Godinez made a general allegation that his right over Lot 937 was
acquired “pursuant to law.” There was no mention of reconstitution.
Rule 41 – Ordinary Appeal from the RTC to the CA . The appeal must be taken
within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order. Where record on
appeal is required, notice of appeal and record on appeal shall be filed within
30 days from notice of the judgment or final order. However, Republic is not
a party in reconstitution case and has no personality to file an appeal. As
mentioned above, it could not have intervened in the RTC proceedings for
reconstitution.
Rule 65 – Petition for Certiorari. The Petition must be filed within 60 days
from notice of judgment, order, or resolution. But since Republic was not
impleaded in the Reconstitution case, it could not have been notified of the
Order. The Republic was likewise misled in the Reivindicatoria case, when
Godinez claimed in his Complaint for Reivindicatory action that –
Section 10 of RA 6732. The law states that an interested party who, by fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence was prevented from taking part in
the proceedings, may file a petition to set aside the decision and reopen the
proceedings, no later than six (6) months from the promulgation thereof.
When the Republic obtained knowledge of the reconstitution and the
fraudulent machinations of Godinez, it had been more than 40 years since the
Order of reconstitution was promulgated. When this law was passed on July
1989, it had been more than 30 years since the Order of Reconstitution was
promulgated in 1956.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title
to real property or any interest therein.
ART. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in
the real property which is the subject-matter of the action. He need not be
in possession of said property.
In Gatmaytan and Valdellon v. Misibis Land, Inc. 42, the Court laid down the
requisites, as well as the prescription, of an action for the quieting of title, to wit:
41
Yu v. Topacio, G.R. No. 216024, 18 September 2019.
42
G.R. No. 222166, 10 June 2020.
For an action for quieting of title to prosper: (i) the plaintiff or complainant
must have a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property
subject of the action; and (ii) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding
claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid
or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
Here, the Republic’s legal title to Lot 937 is based on the Court judgments
upholding the right of the State to expropriate said lot, as well as the payment of
just compensation, duly evidenced by a Provincial Voucher. On the other hand,
the Order dated 01 March 1956 in GLRO Record No. 5988 (Reconstitution), the
reconstituted title, as well as the Court decision in the reivindicatory case,
although appearing valid, are in fact invalid. Considering that the Republic is in
possession of Lot 937, the action for quieting of title does not prescribe.
It is thus submitted that the Complaint for Cancellation may also be viewed as
one for Quieting of Title.
The position that the Republic could have availed of an action for annulment of
judgment could arise.
The Order dated 01 March 1956 in GLRO Record No. 5988 (Reconstitution) is a
void judgment for lack of jurisdiction. The Court instructs that the proper remedy
to assail a void judgment for lack of jurisdiction is an action for annulment of
judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.43
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have
been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. (n)
Section 3. Period for filing action. — If based on extrinsic fraud, the action
must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack
of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel. (n)
The petition shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies, together with
sufficient copies corresponding to the number of respondents. A certified
true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution shall be attached to
the original copy of the petition intended for the court and indicated as
such by the petitioner.
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition affidavits of
witnesses or documents supporting the cause of action or defense and a
sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency if there is such
other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same, and if he
should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to
promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof
within five (5) days therefrom.
The Republic prayed for the Court to declare as null and void, and order the
cancellation of, TCT No. RT-6757, and its derivative titles. Since TCT No. RT-
6757 was issued pursuant to an Order of Reconstitution in a proceeding that is
void for lack of jurisdiction, the Complaint effectively prays for the nullity of the
Reconstitution Order.
An action for the Annulment of the Order in GLRO Rec No. 5988 is not barred by
prescription because a Petition under Rule 47 based on lack of jurisdiction is
allowable as long as it is not barred by laches or estoppel. As discussed in this
briefer, the State is not barred by estoppel or laches in instituting this present
action.
45
G.R. No. 195726, November 20, 2017.
46
G.R. No. 155703, September 8, 2008.
47
Heirs of Abadilla vs. Gregorio Galarosa, G.R. No. 149041, July 12, 2006.
48
G.R. No. 155703, September 8, 2008.
49
Heirs of Abadilla vs. Gregorio Galarosa, G.R. No. 149041, July 12, 2006.
50
Id.
of title does not foreclose the possibility of having a different owner, and
it cannot be used against the true owner as a shield for fraud. 51
xxx
The issue of ownership must be threshed out in a separate civil suit and
should not be confused with reconstitution proceedings.
51
Sps. Aboitiz and Cabarrus vs Spouses Po, G.R. No. 208450, June 5, 2017.
52
Heirs of Abadilla vs. Gregorio Galarosa, G.R. No. 149041, July 12, 2006.
53
Supra note 12.
54
Id.
3. Q: When the title was reconstituted, what remedies were available to the
State, if any?
A: As discussed above, the Republic was not impleaded in the judicial
reconstitution instituted by Godinez. Hence, the remedies available to the
State are limited.
It should be added that the indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not find
application when a title is secured through fraud, as was done by Godinez,
hence: 55
The Republic can question even a final and executory judgment when
there was fraud, and that prescription or estoppel cannot lie against the
government.56 The principle of immutability of judgments must yield to the
basic rule that a decision which is null and void for want of jurisdiction of
the trial court is not a decision in contemplation of law, and can never
become final and executory.57
55
Piñero vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-36507, June 14, 1974.
56
Republic vs. Bacas, et al., G.R. No. 182913, November 20, 2013.
57
Id.
4. Q: Was the Republic prevented from seeking an appropriate remedy?
A: Yes, the Republic, particularly the DND, as true and lawful owner and
possessor of subject Lot 937, was not notified of the reconstitution
proceedings (GLRO Rec. No. 5988) and accordingly deprived of its right to
be heard and file an opposition to said petition for reconstitution.
Courts have been forewarned to observe extreme caution by applying strictly the
requirement imposed by law, among which include proper publication and notice
to all interested parties including the registered owner, possessors or occupants
of the property and owners of adjoining lots and that:
(c) said certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or
destroyed; and
As discussed above, the Republic was not impleaded in the Reconstitution proceedings,
and did not have an opportunity to intervene. As a non-party to the case, it did not
receive court processes, which would have allowed it to file an ordinary appeal or a
petition for certiorari. A Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 38 was likewise not
available to the Republic because more than 40 years elapsed from the date the Order
of Reconstitution was issued until the Complaint for Reivindicatory action was filed. Rule
38 allows a petition to be filed not later than six (6) months after a final order is entered.
58
Republic v. Susi, G.R. No. 213209, January 16, 2017.
59
As culled from Section 15, Republic Act No. 26.