LEE HONG HOK, et al,​ vs.

A
​ NIANO DAVID 
G.R. No. L-30389 December 27, 1972 | ​FERNANDO, ​J.: 
 
Nature:  
Lee Hong Kok, et al filed an appeal on certiorari seeking to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the 
decision of the lower court in dismissing the complaint to have the Torrens Title of Aniano David be declared null and 
void.  
 
Facts: 
● Aniano David acquired lawful title to a parcel of land pursuant to his miscellaneous sales application. An order of 
award and for issuance of a sales patent was made by the Director of Lands on June 18, 1958, covering Lot 2892 
containing an area of 226 square meters, which is a portion of Lot 2863 of the Naga Cadastre.  
 
● On the basis of the order of award of the Director of Lands, the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural 
Resources issued Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. V-1209 pursuant to which an OCT was issued by the Register of 
Deeds of Naga City to Aniano David.  
 
● Since the filing of the sales application of Aniano David and during all the proceedings in connection with said 
application, up to the actual issuance of the sales patent in his favor, ​Lee Hong Kok did not put up any opposition 
or adverse claim to Lot 2892. 
 
● The opposition was fatal because after the registration and issuance of the certificate and duplicate certificate of title 
based on a public land patent, the land covered thereby automatically comes under the operation of RA 496 subject to 
all the safeguards provided therein.​ Under Section 38 of RA 496, any question concerning the validity of the 
certificate of title based on fraud should be raised within 1 year from the date of the issuance of the patent 
otherwise the certificate of title becomes​ indefeasible a​ fter the lapse of 1 year.  
 
● The contention of Lee Hong Kok was that David’s lot is a private property for it was formed thru the process of 
accretion. 
 
Issue:  
Can the patent certificate of Aniano David to the property be nullified? 
 
Held:  
No. There is no legal justification for nullifying the right to the disputed lot arising from the grant made in his favor.  
1. The lot in question is NOT a private property as the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural 
Resources have always sustained its public character for having been formed by reclamation and not accretion.  
 
a. RECLAMATION is the act of filling submerged land by deliberate acts and reclaiming title thereto. 
b. ACCRETION - is the process whereby the soil is deposited; accretion resulting from the gradual deposit by or sedimentation from the 
waters belongs to the owners of the land bordering on streams, torrents, lakes, or rivers 
 
i. Therefore the only remedy available to the appellants is an action for reconveyance on the 
ground of fraud​.  
ii. But did he commit any fraud? 
1. NO. Aniano David has not committed any fraud in applying for the purchase of the Lot 
because everything was done in the open. The notices regarding the auction sale of the 
land were published, the actual sale and award thereof to Aniano David were not 
clandestine but open and public official acts of an officer of the Government. The 
application was merely a renewal of his deceased wife's application who had occupied the 
land since 1938. 
 
2. If the grant was​ presumed to be​ invalid, who has the right to question it? 
 
a. Only the Government, represented by the Director of Lands or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural 
Resources can bring an action to cancel a void certificate of title pursuant to a void patent.  
 b. The private parties cannot claim that the patent and title issued for the land involved are void since they 
are not the registered owners thereof nor had they been declared as owners in the cadastral proceedings 
of the Naga Cadastre after claiming it as their private property.  
c. Citing Maninang vs Consolacion: ‘The fact that the grant was made by the government is undisputed. 
Whether the grant was in conformity with the law or not is a question which the government may raise, 
but until it is raised by the government and set aside, the defendant cannot question it. The legality of the 
grant is a question between the grantee and the government.’  
 
3. By what authority does the government have in disposing of the land in question? 
 
a. IMPERIUM refers to the government authority possessed by the state which is appropriately embraced in 
the concept of sovereignty. DOMINIUM, on the other hand, is appropriate with reference to lands held by 
the state in its proprietary character. In such capacity, it may provide for the exploitation and use of lands 
and other natural resources, including their disposition, except as limited by the Constitution.  
 
b. The manifestation of the concept of​ ​jura regalia​,​ which was adopted by the present Constitution, was 
embodied in t​ he universal feudal theory that all lands were held from the Crown, the ownership 
however is vested in the state rather than the head thereof. 
 
c. As to the unappropriated public lands constituting the public domain, the sole power of legislation is 
vested in Congress.  
 
d. There being no evidence whatever that the property in question was ever acquired by the applicants or 
their ancestors either by composition title from the Spanish Government or by possessory information 
title or by any other means for the acquisition of public lands, the property must be held to be public 
domain (Heirs of ​Datu Pendatun v. Director of Lands​).  
 
e. “No public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied, from the 
government.”​ Therefore it is indispensable that there be a showing of a title from the state or any other 
mode of acquisition recognized by law otherwise the property is and remains part of the public domain. 
 
4. Was David’s title to the property already indefeasible? 
 
a. As far back as 1919, in Aquino v. Director of Lands, ​29​ Justice Malcolm, speaking for the Court, stated: 
"​The proceedings under the Land Registration Law and under the provisions of Chapter VI of the Public Land 
Law are the same in that both are against the whole world, both take the nature of judicial proceedings, and 
for both the decree of registration issued is conclusive and final."  
 
b. Meanwhile in Cabacug v. Lao. There is this revealing excerpt appearing in that decision: "It is said, and 
with reason,​ that a holder of a land acquired under a free patent is more favorably situated than that of 
an owner of registered property.​ Not only does a free patent have a force and effect of a Torrens Title, but 
in addition the person to whom it is granted has likewise in his favor the right to repurchase within a 
period of five years." 33​
​ It is quite apparent, therefore, that petitioners' stand is legally indefensible. 
 
RULING: 
The decision of the CA of January 31, 1969 and its resolution of March 14, 1969 are affirmed.  
 
IMPORTANT CONCEPTS 

IMPERIUM  DOMINIUM 

The State’s authority to govern is embraced in the concept  1. The capacity of the State to own and acquire 
of sovereignty that includes passing laws concerning a  property. It covers such rights as title to land, 
territory, maintaining peace and order over it, and  exploitation and use of it, and disposition or sale 
defending it against foreign invasion.   of the same.  
 2. It refers to lands held by the government in a 
proprietary character: can provide for the 
exploitation and use of lands and other natural 
resources. 

When the State acts in this capacity, j​ ure imperii, ​it  The Regalian Doctrine whereby all lands of the public 
generally enjoys state immunity.   domain belong to the State, and anyone claiming title has 
  the burden to show ownership, comes within this concept. 
In this capacity,​ jure gestium​, the State descends to the 
status of ordinary persons and thus becomes liable as 
such.