"Petitioners also claim that they are protected by law considering that they were buyers in good faith.
Again, this assertion is without basis considering that Mora's reconstituted TCT No. RT-40 (140), from where petitioners'TCT No. 2574 was derived, is void. The only way by which Mora could have acquired ownership over the subject parcels of land and validly transfer that ownership to the petitioners was for Mora to apply for their registration in his own name.
What makes petitioners' cause doubly undeserving of merit is the finding of the two courts below that the land subject matter of this case is part timberland,7 a finding not even once disputed by petitioners. It is, thus, safe to conclude that the land subject of TCT No. 2574 could not have been registered in the name of petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest for the simple reason that under the Constitution, timberlands, which are part of the public domain, cannot be alienated.8 A certificate of title covering inalienable lands of the public domain is void and can be cancelled in whosever hand said title may be found.9 Thus, we have ruled that a certificate of title is void when it covers property of the public domain classified as forest or timber and mineral lands. And any title issued on non-disposable lands even if in the hands of alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall be cancelled.10 chanrobles virtual law library
All told, the Court finds no reversible error in the assailed decision of the CA, affirming that of the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs."
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 149122 : July 27, 2007]
HEIRS OF GREGORIO AND MARY VENTURANZA, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
https://chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2007/jul2007/gr_149122_2007.php
No comments:
Post a Comment