REPUBLIC VS.

BALLOCANAG

G.R. No. 163794, November 28, 2008

Petitioners: Republic of the Philippines, represented by Romeo T. Acosta (formerly Jose D. Malvas), Director of Forest
Management Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Respondents: Hon. Normelito J. Ballocanag, Presiding Judge, Branch 41, regional Trial Court, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro
and Danilo Reyes Ponente: NACHURA, J.

FACTS:
Sometime in 1970, After Danilo Reyes brought a land from Regina Castillo with OTC of Title No. P-2388, he introduced
improvements and planted the land with fruit bearing trees. Later, the land turned out to be part of the timberland of Oriental
Mindoro which is considered to be an alienable and disposable area and therefore cannot be subjected to any disposition and
acquisition. The RTC and the CA ruled against Reyes in favor of the Republic and said that the title of Reyes in the two-hectare
land which appears disposable and alienable is null and void. The SC affirmed the decision. Years

after the finality of the case, Reyes filed a motion to remove improvements which the RTC granted and CA affirmed. The OSG
petitions that the consideration of the issue is barred by res judicata.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the motion to remove improvements can be granted (by the RTC and CA) even if the case has already reach its
finality. 2. Whether or not Reyes should be allowed to remove the improvements.

HELD:

1. Yes. Prior decisions simply ordered the reversion of the property to the State and did not considered the improvements
that Reyes had

introduced on the property or provide him with any remedy relative thereto. The Court is not precluded from rectifying
errors of judgment if blind and stubborn adherence to the doctrine of immutability of final judgments would involve the
sacrifice of justice for technicality.

2. Article 22 of the Civil Code prohibits unjust enrichment. The requisite for the application of this doctrine are present in
the case. There is enrichment on the part of the petitioner, as the State would come into possession of – and may
technically appropriate – the more than one thousand fruit bearing trees planted by the private respondent. There is
impoverishment on the part of Reyes, because he stands to lose improvements he had painstakingly planted and
invested in. Reyes introduced the improvement in good faith because he believed that the land is owned by him having
hold of the title. However, to grant his motion to remove improvement will be against the Agro-Forestry Farm Lease
Agreement (AFFLA), even if Reyes is legally allowed to do so, it would be risking substantial damage to the land. The
only equitable alternative is to order the Republic to pay Reyes the value of improvements he introduced.

DECISION:
The SC denied the petition and affirmed the June 4, 2004 decision of the CA with modification. The RTC of Panimalayan,
Oriental Mindoro, Branch 41 is directed to determine the actual improvements introduced, their current value and amount of
expenses spent by Reyes. The Republic through the Bureau of Forest Development of DENR is directed to pay Reyes in the
value determined by the RTC with the right of subrogation against the lessee in AFFLA, Atty. Marte.