Topic: Reversion v.

Action for Nullity of Land Titles

KIONISALA v. DACUT

FACTS: In 1995, private respondents filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of titles, reconveyance,
and damages against petitioners. Said complaint involved two (2) parcels of land located in Bukidnon
which were granted free patents and were registered under the Torrens system in petitioners’ names.

In support of their causes of action, private respondents claimed absolute ownership of the lots even
prior to the issuance of the corresponding free patents and certificates of title. They further alleged that
they became absolute and exclusive owners by virtue of inheritance from their late father, Honorio
Dacut, who acquired the same from one Blasito Yacapin, and from then on was in possession thereof
exclusively, adversely, and in the concept of an owner for more than thirty (30) years. In fact, Honorio
Dacut had the same parcels of land rented.

They also alleged that herein petitioners, without their knowledge and consent, fraudulently applied for
patent and as a result thereof, certificate of titles had been issued to them. Since the same have been
issued fraudulently, said patents are null and void.

The Heirs of Kionisala filed their answer to the complaint and asserted that it is only the Director of
Lands (now DENR) through the office of the Solicitor General that has the authority to file annulment of
Free Patent or Homestead Patent issued by the Director of Lands or DENR.

The trial court dismissed the complaint by the respondents on the ground that the cause of action was
truly for reversion so that only the Director of Lands (now DENR) could have filed the complaint.

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of dismissal. It concluded that “in an action for reconveyance,
what is sought is the transfer of the property which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in
another person’s name, to its rightful and legal owner or to one with a better right.”

Thus, herein petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint alleges an action for reversion or an action for declaration of
nullity of free patents and certificates of title.

RULING: The complaint does not allege an action for reversion but it sufficiently states a cause of action
for declaration of nullity of free patents and certificates of title.

The Court ruled that an ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of free patents and certificates of
title is not the same as an action for reversion. The difference between them lies in the allegations as to
the character of ownership of the realty whose title is sought to be nullified.

In an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the
disputed land and that the only person or entity entitled to relief would be the Director of Lands.

On the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title
would require allegations of the plaintiff’s ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such
free patent and certificate of title as well as the defendant’s fraud or mistake. The real party in interest
is not the State but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-existing right of ownership over the parcel of land in
question even before the grant of title to the defendant.
It is obvious that respondents allege in their complaint all the facts necessary to seek the nullification of
the free patents as well as the certificates of title covering the lots. Clearly, they are the real parties in
interest in light of their allegations that they have always been the owners and possessors of the lands
even prior to the issuance of the documents of title in petitioners’ favor, hence the latter could only
have committed fraud in securing them.