Civil Case No. C-192 was an action for reversion of land and cancellation of title filed by the Office of the Solicitor General against Pablo and several other respondents before the Regional Trial Court, arguing that TCT No. 24268 was derived from OCT No. 0-17421 which was allegedly issued pursuant to Decree No. 50573 in LRA Record No. 50573, Upon verification, there was no record of or copy of judgment rendered in LRC Record No. 50573 and the land covered by TCT No. 24268 still form part of an inalienable land of the public domain.
Pablo opposed the petition, contending that inasmuch as the case assails the judgment of a land registration court, the proper remedy should be an annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals, thus the case is beyond the jurisdiction of the RTC.
The RTC agreed with Pablo, and dismissed the case. The CA, at first dismissed the notice of appeal filed by the OSG, but reconsidered its decision. In ruling for the Republic, the CA ratiocinated that “Stated differently, where a parcel of land considered to be inalienable land of the public domain is found under private ownership, the Government is allowed by law to file an original action for reversion, an action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert the land to the government pursuant to the Regalian Doctrine, and over which action, no doubt, the RTC exercise exclusive jurisdiction.
The Issue:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to try a case for reversion/cancellation of title.
The Ruling:
The appeal lacks merit.
The basic rule is that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is determined from the allegations in the complaint,the law in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred.Jurisdiction over the subject matter is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in the answer or motion to dismiss;otherwise, jurisdiction becomes dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.
The complaint in Civil Case No. C-192 alleged that: (a) TCT No. T-24268 had emanated from OCT No. 0-17421 of the Registry of Deeds of Batangas pursuant to Decree No. 589383, issued in L.R.C. Record No. 50573; (b) copy of the decision in L.R.C. Record No. 50573 could not be found in the files of the Land Registration Authority; (c) the land described in TCT No. T-24268 was within the unclassified public forest of Batangas; (d) TCT No. T-24268 was subdivided into four lots that were covered by TCT No. T-24386, TCT No. T-24387, TCT No. T-24388 and TCT No. T-24389; (d) the land covered by TCT No. T-24386 was in turn subdivided into 92 lots registered in the name of Greenthumb Realty and Development Corporation; (e) the lands covered by TCT No. T-24387 and TCT No. T-24388 were now subdivided into nine lots each all in the name of the Malabanans (including herein petitioner); and (f) TCT No. T-24389 remained in the name of the Malabanans.
The complaint sought as reliefs the cancellation of OCT No. 0-17421, and the reversion to the Republic of the tract of land therein covered on the grounds that there had been no decision of the Land Registration Court authorizing its issuance, and that the land covered by TCT No. 24268 was within the unclassified public forest of Batangas.
We find and declare that the complaint of the Republic was not seeking the annulment of the judgment issued in L.R.C. Record No. 50573.
The factual setting in Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila is similar to that in Civil Case No. C-192. Therein, the Republic filed a complaint for cancellation of titles and reversion of OCT No. 588 supposedly issued pursuant to Decree No. 57486 because OCT No. 588 did not cover the lots described in Decree No. 57486. In resolving whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the action for cancellation of titles and reversion, the Court observed and held:
It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over such action are to be determined from the material allegations of the complaint, the law in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred. Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by defendant in an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss the same.
In the present case, the material averments, as well as the character of the relief prayed for by petitioners in the complaint before the R TC, show that their action is one for cancellation of titles and reversion, not for annulment of judgment of the RTC. The complaint alleged that Lot Nos. 43 to 50, the parcels of land subject matter of the action, were not the subject of the CFI’s judgment in the relevant prior land registration case. Hence, petitioners pray that the certificates of title of RCAM be cancelled which will not necessitate the annulment of said judgment. Clearly, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court on annulment of judgment finds no application in the instant case.
The RTC may properly take cognizance of reversion suits which do not call for an annulment of judgment of the RTC acting as a Land Registration Court. Actions for cancellation of title and reversion, like the present case, belong to the class of cases that “involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein” and where the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000.00, fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC. Consequently, no grave abuse of discretion excess of jurisdiction can be attributed to the RTC in denying RCAM’s motion to dismiss.
The rulings in Estate of the Late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic,Collado v. Court of Appeals and Republic v. Court of Appeals the petitioner cited and relied upon have no relevance herein. Therein, the Republic had instituted actions for the annulment of judgment, not actions for the cancellation and reversion of title, like what happened herein. The Republic recognized therein that the land titles subject of each action had been issued pursuant to final judgments rendered by the Land Registration Court, and that such judgments must necessarily be first invalidated before the lands involved could revert to the public domain. In contrast, the Republic alleges herein that no judgment had ever existed.
In a reversion suit, we should emphasize, the attack is directed not against the judgment ordering the issuance of title, but against the title that is being sought to be cancelled either because the judgment was not validly rendered, or the title issued did not faithfully reflect the land referred to in the judgment,or because no judgment was rendered at all.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on May 27, 2011 in CA-G.R. CV No. 70770; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
BERSAMIN, J.:
Leonardo-De Castro, C.J., (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Tijam, and J. Reyes, Jr.,* JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 201821, September 19, 2018, PABLO B. MALABANAN, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
Citations omitted.