CARO v. SUCALDITO

CARO v. SUCALDITO

G.R. No. 157536; May 16, 2005

Ponente: J. Callejo, Sr.

FACTS:

Gregorio Caro bought a parcel of land known as Assessor's Lot No. 160 from Ruperto Gepilano as evidenced by a Deed of Sale  dated October 21, 1953. The said lot was situated in Sitio Bangyan, Barrio Calaya, Municipality of Nueva Valencia, Iloilo City, consisting more or less of 17.9849 hectares. Thereafter, Gregorio Caro sold a portion of the said lot to his son Melchor Caro, consisting of 70,124 square meters, and now identified as Lot No. 4512 of the Cadastral survey of Nueva Valencia, Pls-775. Father and son executed a Deed of Definite Sale  dated January 31, 1973 covering Lot No. 4512.

On August 1, 1974, Melchor Caro applied for a free patent before the Bureau of Lands, District Land Office No. 6-1, covering the said area of the property which he bought from his father. The application was, however, opposed by Deogracias de la Cruz. On November 6, 1980, the Regional Director rendered a Decision canceling the said application.

Caro filed a notice of appeal before the Regional Land Office in Iloilo City, docketed as MNR Case No. 5207. However, the appeal was dismissed in an Order dated June 29, 1982, on the ground of failure to file an appeal memorandum within the reglementary period therefor.

On August 29, 1982, Susana R. Sucaldito, as the buyer of Lot No. 4512, filed an Application for a Free Patent covering the said lot, and was issued Free Patent No. 597599 Thereafter, on February 20, 1984, Caro filed a Complaint against Sucaldito for "Annulment of Title, Decision, Free Patent and/or Recovery of Ownership and/or Possession with Damages". He later filed an amended complaint, alleging that he was the owner of the subject lot, and had been in possession of the same "since 1953 and/or even prior thereto in the concept of owner, adversely, openly, continuously and notoriously."

Caro further alleged that since the issuance of the free patent over the subject lot in favor of Sucaldito was wrongful and fraudulent, she had no right whatsoever over the subject lot. Hence, as a "trustee of a constructive trust," she was obliged to return the same to him as the lawful owner

ISSUE:
Whether Caro has the legal personality to file for the reconveyance of the subject land

HELD:

No, Caro has no legal personality to file for the reconveyance of the subject land.

The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, or one "who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit." Corollarily, legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case, such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the challenged act. Interest means a material interest in issue that is affected by the questioned act or instrument, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question involved.

Clearly then, a suit filed by one who is not a party-in-interest must be dismissed. In this case, the petitioner, not being the owner of the disputed property but a mere applicant for a free patent, cannot thus be considered as a party-in-interest with personality to file an action for reconveyance.

To reiterate, the petitioner is not the proper party to file an action for reconveyance that would result in the reversion of the land to the government.  The petitioner has no personality to "recover" the property as he has not shown that he is the rightful owner thereof.