7/25/2019 Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. vs. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc.,

1/2

7/25/2019 Taiwan Kolin Corporation, Ltd. vs. Kolin Electronics Co., Inc.,

2/2

Ruling:

In the instant case, respondent Roxas applied for and was granted Homestead Patent No.

111598 for the su!ect propert", pursuant to which, he ac#uired $%& No. P'5885 in his

name. &he prolem, howe(er, is that the su!ect propert" is not alienale and disposale

agricultural land to egin with.

In sum, the su!ect propert" is within the )atchwood *orest Reser(e and, therefore, inalienale and

not su!ect to disposition. Respondent Roxas could not ha(e (alidl" ac#uired a homestead patent

and certificate of title for the same.

+lthough there is no e(idence of fraud " respondent Roxas, there is still reason to cancel $%& No.

P'5885 and re(ert the su!ect propert" to the tate.

-e do not find e(idence indicating that respondent Roxas committed fraud when he applied for

homestead patent o(er the su!ect propert". It does not appear that he nowingl" and intentionall"

misrepresented in his application that the su!ect propert" was alienale and disposale agriculturalland. Nonetheless, we recogni/ed in Repulic of the Phils. (. )angotara58that there are instances

when we granted re(ersion for reasonsother than fraud0

Re(ersion is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to re(ert the land ac to the go(ernment

under the Regalian doctrine. %onsidering that the land su!ect of the action originated from a grant

" the go(ernment, its cancellation is a matter etween the grantor and the grantee. In state of the

2ate 3esus . 4u!uico (. Repulic 4u!uico case6, re(ersion was defined as an action which sees to

restore pulic land fraudulentl" awarded and disposed of to pri(ate indi(iduals or corporations to the

mass of pulic domain. It ears to point out, though, that the %ourt also allowed the resort " the

7o(ernment to actions for re(ersion to cancel titles that were (oid for reasons other than fraud, i.e.,

(iolation " the grantee of a patent of the conditions imposed " law and lac of !urisdiction of theirector of 2ands to grant a patent co(ering inalienale forest land or portion of a ri(er, e(en when

such grant was made through mere o(ersight. In Repulic (. 7uerrero, the %ourt ga(e a more

general statement that the remed" of re(ersion can e a(ailed of :onl" in cases of fraudulent or

unlawful inclusion of the land in patents or certificates of title.: mphasis ours, citations omitted.6

parentl", in the case at ar, a mistae or o(ersight was committed on the part of respondent Roxas,

as well as the 7o(ernment, resulting in the grant of a homestead patent o(er inalienale forest land.

Hence, it can e said that the su!ect propert" was unlawfull" co(ered " Homestead Patent No.

111598 and $%& No. P'5885 in respondent Roxas;s name, whichentitles petitioner Repulic to the

cancellation of said patent and certificate of title and the re(ersion of the su!ect propert" to the

pulic domain.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_157988_2013.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_157988_2013.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_157988_2013.html#fnt58