CASE DIGEST

Lee Hong Hok v. David

Law 133 – Land Titles and Deeds

Court US Supreme Court

Citation G.R. No. L-30389

Date December 27, 1972

Petitioners PEDRO LEE HONG HOK, Et. Al.

Respondents ANIANO DAVID, Et. Al.

Ponente Fernando, J.

Relevant topic Regalian Doctrine

Page 1 of 4
CASE DIGEST
Lee Hong Hok v. David
Law 133 – Land Titles and Deeds

mark king cornel ampis

Prepared by

FACTS:

The case arises in relation to a parcel of land to which Aniano David obtained legal ownership through his
miscellaneous sales application.

In accordance with said 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.

On the basis of the order of award of the Director of Lands, the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
issued on August 26, 1959, Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. V-1209 pursuant to which OCT No. 510 was issued by
the Register of Deeds of Naga City on October 21, 1959 to David.

It must be noted that Lee Hong Kok did not put any opposition or make an adverse claim during this time.

Eventually, however, Lee Hong Kok, et. al. argued that David’s lot is private property since it was formed through the
process of accretion.

The lower court rendered judgment dismissing the petitioner’s complaint to have the Torrens Title of respondent
Aniano David declared null and void. This was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE HELD

WON Lee Hong Kok can question the grant of the land to David? NO

RATIO:

Page 2 of 4
CASE DIGEST
Lee Hong Hok v. David
Law 133 – Land Titles and Deeds

1. 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 issued pursuant to a void patent. The legality
of the grant is a question between the grantee and the government. Private parties like the plaintiffs 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 Naga Cadastre after claiming it
as their private property.

2. The Court also noted that the state’s governing authority, which is suitably incorporated in the idea of
sovereignty includes the state’s ability to own or acquire property under the concept of dominium. The latter
term is acceptable when referring to lands that the state owns 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.

As far as the Philippines was concerned, there was a recognition in Cariño v. Insular Government, that "Spain
in its earlier decrees embodied the universal feudal theory that all lands were held from the Crown." That was
a manifestation of the concept of jura regalia, which was adopted by the present Constitution, ownership
however being vested in the state as such rather than the head thereof.

Thus, except as otherwise limited by the Constitution, the state may prescribe for the exploitation and use of
lands and other natural resources, including their disposition.

RULING:

Page 3 of 4
CASE DIGEST
Lee Hong Hok v. David
Law 133 – Land Titles and Deeds

WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals of January 31, 1969 and its resolution of March 14, 1969
are affirmed. With costs against petitioners-appellants.

Page 4 of 4