07 REPUBLIC VS.
BENIGNO AUTHOR:
G.R. No. 205492, March 11, 2015 Notes:
TOPIC: State Immunity
PONENTE: DEL CASTILLO
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: Illegal acts of government agents do not bind the State. The Government is never
estopped from questioning the acts of its officials, more so if they are erroneous, let alone irregular.” This
principle applies in land registration cases.
EMERGENCY RECIT:
Respondent filed for registration of title for Laguna property. RTC granted, CA dismissed the appeal. CA erred
in dismissing the appeal since RTC decision is rendered null and void. The trial court had no basis in fact and
law to grant respondents’ application for registration as there was no proof of alienability adduced. Even if the
OSG was remiss in the handling of the State’s appeal, SC cannot allow respondents’ application for registration
since they failed to prove that the land applied for is alienable and disposable public land. 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. PETITIONER WON.
FACTS:
On November 2, 1995, spouses Dante and Lolita Benigno filed with Calamba RTC an Application for
Registration of title under Presidential Decree No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree (PD 1529) to a 293-
square meter lot in Los Baños, Laguna. RTC GRANTED. CA DENIED third motion for extension of time to file its
appellant brief, and DISMISSED the case.
PETITIONER:
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 Court’s failure to transmit the records of LRC Case No. 105-95-C to the CA
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
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.
Calamba RTC’s December 9, 2005 Decision granting respondents’ 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.
mere testimony of a special investigator of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO) cannot form the basis for the Calamba RTC’s finding that the land applied for is alienable and
disposable, pursuant to the ruling in Republic v. Hanover Worldwide Trading Corporation; respondents
should 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
Calamba RTC’s December 9, 2005 Decision is void for lack of publication; Compliance of an Affidavit of
Publication and Certificate of Posting of Notice of Initial Hearing was a mere fabrication and fraudulent
submission.
RESPONDENT:
petitioner’s failure to file its brief is not attributable to respondents;
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;
CA’s authority to dismiss an appeal for failure of the appellant to file a brief is a matter of judicial
discretion; 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
petitioner’s 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, 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.
ISSUE(S):
Whether CA gravely erred on a question of law when it ordered the dismissal of appeal although the delay in
filing of appellant’s brief was caused by RTC and respondent?
RATIO:
YES, 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.” 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.” *
A perfunctory appraisal of the records indicates that respondents did not present any documentary evidence
in LRC 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 sought the application of the exceptional
ruling in Republic v. Vega 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.
RTC decision is rendered null and void. The trial court had no basis in fact and law to grant respondents’
application for registration as there was no proof of alienability adduced. Even if the Office of the Solicitor
General was remiss in the handling of the State’s appeal, SC nevertheless cannot allow respondents’
application for registration since they failed to prove that the land applied for is alienable and disposable
public land. 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. Petition is GRANTED.
* 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.” 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 PENRO certification and (2) a certified true copy of the original classification made by the DENR
Secretary.”
