technical description as found in the title of the defendant [Sucaldito], it is clearly stated therein that the lot is Lot 4512 and is located at Brgy. Calaya and not Brgy. Olacon, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras. 18 Aggrieved by the trial court’s ruling, Caro elevated the case to the CA on the following grounds: I THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RULING THAT PLAINTIFF HAS NO PERSONALITY TO BRING THE ACTION; II THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RULING THAT EVEN IF THE PLAINTIFF HAS THE PERSONALITY TO BRING THE ACTION STILL HE CANNOT RECOVER THE LOT IN QUESTION, CAD. LOT NO. 4512; III THE COURT ERRED IN NOT ORDERING THE DEFENDANT TO RECONVEY THE LAND IN QUESTION TO PLAINTIFF AND TO PAY DAMAGES. 19 The CA dismissed the petition in its Decision 20 dated July 31, 2002. The appellate court agreed with the ruling of the RTC that the petitioner had no personality to file the action under Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, considering further that he was a mere applicant for a free patent. Citing _______________ 18 CA Rollo, pp. 35-36. 19 Id. , at p. 45. 20 Id. , at pp. 80-87. 603 VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 603 Caro vs. Sucaldito several cases, 21 the appellate court ruled that the findings of fact made by administrative agencies which are supported by substantial evidence must be respected, particularly where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge and experience. 22 Caro filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision, which the appellate court denied in a Resolution 23 dated February 7, 2003. Caro, now the petitioner, assails the ruling of the appellate court on the following grounds: THAT THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAS NO LEGAL PERSONALITY TO FILE THIS ACTION; THAT THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL INTERPOSED BY PETITIONER ON THE GROUND THAT ONLY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL CAN FILE AN ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY PATENT. 24 The petitioner insists that contrary to the ruling of the CA, he has the legal personality to bring and institute the present action against the respondent, considering that title issued on the basis of a patent is annullable on the ground of fraud. Furthermore, the one-year period within which to file an action to cancel a torrens title under Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 does not apply where the registered owner, or the successor- in-interest, knew that the property described in the title actually belongs to another, as in this _______________ 21 Floralde v. Court of Appeals , 337 SCRA 371 (2000); Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission , 332 SCRA 819 (2000); and Ocampo v. Commission on Elections, 325 SCRA 636. (Id., at p. 86). 22 Ibid. 23 Rollo, pp. 55-56. 24 Id. , at p. 26. 604 604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Caro vs. Sucaldito case. The petitioner cites Vital v. Anore, et al.
- Fall '19
- Real property law, Torrens Title, Reconveyance