Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > February 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 197983 : February 22, 2012] SPOUSES CAYETANO AND FLORA MONDOY v. LILIBETH, RHODORA AND ALEJANDRO, JR., ALL SURNAMED MONTANER :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 22 February 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 197983 (Spouses Cayetano and Flora Mondoy v. Lilibeth, Rhodora and Alejandro, Jr., all surnamed Montaner).  � On 12 October 2011, this Court issued a Resolution denying the Spouses Mondoy's Petition. Before this Court is a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarificatory Resolution dated 15 December 2011.

In the Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners state that the dismissal of the Petition for the failure to attach the registry receipts was too harsh a penalty. They also attached a Certification issued by the Post Office and an Affidavit of the messenger, explaining the failure to attach the receipts.

Petitioners further move for a reconsideration of the denial on the ground that the Petition involves novel questions of law. The issues raised, however, are not novel and have already been settled by jurisprudence.

What petitioners fail to see is that the Petition was dismissed primarily for failure to show any reversible error in the assailed judgment to warrant the exercise by the Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction, and only secondarily for the failure to attach postal registry receipts.

Petitioners claim that the case of Cabuay v. Malvar,^[1] should apply. In Cabuay, this Court had already rendered a final and executory decision adjudicating title to the subject property to the Lopezes. However, the Land Management Bureau subsequently rendered a contrary decision and awarded the property to the Adias. The Court then held that, the mere lapse of the statutory period of 30 years of open, continuous and exclusive possession of disposable public land automatically transforms the same into private property and vests title on the possessor. As the Adias asserted their claim only in 1983, or after the ownership of the Lopezes ripened in 1950, the Director of Lands had no more authority to grant to another a free patent for land that has ceased to be public land and has passed to private ownership.

Clearly, Cabuay is not applicable here. In this case, the free patent issued to the heirs of Luis Dajis in 1956 was not registered. In the meantime, or in 1967, Luisa Kho Monta�er was able to obtain a certificate of title over the property in cadastral proceedings. In Franco v. Executive Secretary,^[2] this Court held that two circumstances should concur before the land is deemed excluded from the public domain. First, the patent should be issued and second, the patent should be subsequently registered in the office of the Register of Deeds. It is the registration that constitutes the operative act that would convey ownership of the land to the applicant.^[3] In the instant case, it is a conceded fact that no registration was made. Thus, the land in question remained part of the public domain and could be subject of a cadastral case. cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarificatory Resolution dated 15 December 2011 is DENIED  with finality. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made in due course. (Villarama, Jr., J., designated acting member vice Brion, J., per S.O. No. 1195 dated 15 February 2012)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] 438 Phil. 252 (2002). The full title of the case is In Re: Petition Seeking for Clarification as to the Validity and Forceful Effect of Two (2) Final and Executory but Conflicting Decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court. 

^[2] 229 Phil. 116 (1986). 

^[3] Id. at 124-125.