Director of Lands v. Daño
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns an application for the registration of a parcel of land, approximately 5,518 square meters, located in Sinonoc, Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental. The applicant, Ida L. Daño, representing the heirs of Francisco P. Daño, sought to register the land as private property. The Director of Lands, through the Assistant Provincial Fiscal, opposed the application, asserting that the land is foreshore land and thus part of the public domain, making it ineligible for private ownership. Occupant-oppositors also filed an opposition, which was dismissed by the trial court on the grounds that they lacked standing to object to land they admitted was public. 2. Procedural History: Ida L. Daño filed an application for land registration on January 8, 1969. The Director of Lands opposed this application. After a hearing, the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental rendered a decision on October 23, 1969, decreeing the registration of the property in the name of the heirs of Francisco P. Daño. The Director of Lands filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 14, 1969, arguing that the applicant failed to prove a registerable title and that the application was filed beyond the statutory deadline. This motion was denied on December 6, 1969. A Second Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently filed, asserting that the issue of jurisdiction could be raised at any stage. This second motion was also denied on January 8, 1970. 3. The Petition: The Director of Lands, as petitioner, seeks Certiorari to annul the decision and orders of the respondent Court of First Instance. The core of the petition revolves around the contention that the application for land registration was filed beyond the period prescribed by Sections 45 and 47 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 2061, which set a deadline of December 31, 1968, for such applications. The petitioner argues that this deadline is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. The petition further contends that the respondent court erred in deeming the timeliness of the application as a waivable defense rather than a jurisdictional defect, and that the subsequent extensions of the filing period by other laws should not retroactively validate an application filed after the specified deadline.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for registration filed after December 31, 1968, considering the statutory time limitations. Whether the period fixed by Section 47 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Republic Act No. 2061, is jurisdictional or a mere time limitation that can be waived, and the effect of subsequent legislative extensions on applications filed after the initial deadline.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Decision dated October 23, 1969, and the Orders dated December 6, 1969, and January 8, 1970, issued by the respondent Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental are declared valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the time limitation: The Court held that the period fixed by Section 47 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, is not jurisdictional but a time limitation. This limitation constitutes a defense or objection that must be set up either in a Motion to Dismiss or in an Answer, in accordance with Section 2, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. Since the petitioner, the Director of Lands, failed to plead this defense in its pleadings, it is deemed to have waived the same. The Court reiterated the principle that where the statute of limitations is not pleaded, it is error for the lower court to dismiss the proceeding on that ground. The defense of prescription cannot be raised for the first time at the trial or on appeal, and much less in a motion for reconsideration. On the retroactivity of extensions and its effect on the application: Even though prescription does not run against the State and government rights cannot be waived by mistakes of officers, the Court considered the legislative intent behind the repeated extensions of the period for filing applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles. The Court noted the series of extensions granted through various amendments, culminating in Republic Act No. 6236 which extended the period to December 31, 1967. The Court held that this extension retroacted to and covered the application filed by the private respondent on January 8, 1969, or during the intervening period from January 1, 1969, up to December 31, 1976. This interpretation was supported by the Court's ruling in Director of Lands vs. Abarro, et als., which emphasized giving respect to the lawmaker's intention to provide full opportunity for qualified individuals to own disposable lands.
Main Doctrine
The period fixed by Section 47 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, for filing applications for judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles is a time limitation and not jurisdictional. As such, it constitutes a defense or objection that must be pleaded either in a Motion to Dismiss or in an Answer; otherwise, it is deemed waived. The subsequent extension of the period by Republic Act No. 6236 retroacted to cover applications filed during the intervening period.