Lee Hong Kok vs.

David
G.R. No. L-30389, Dec. 27, 1972

Distinction between IMPERIUM andDOMINIUM

Only the government can question avoid certificate of title issued pursuantto a government grant.
FACTS:
This is regarding a piece of land which AnianoDavid acquired lawful title thereto, pursuant tohis
miscellaneous salesapplication. Afterapproval of his application, the Director of Landsissued an order
of award and issuance of salespatent, covering said lot by virtue of which theUndersecretary of
Agriculture and NaturalResources issued a Miscellaneous Sales Patent.The Register of Deeds then
issued anoriginal certificate of title to David.During all this time, Lee Hong Kok did notoppose nor file
any adverse claim.
ISSUE:


Whether or not Lee Hong Kok mayquestion the government grant
HELD:
Only the Government, represented bythe Director of Lands or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, can bring anaction to cancel a void certificate of title issuedpursuant to a void patent. This
was not done bysaid officers but by private parties like theplaintiffs, who cannot claim that the patent
andtitle issued for the land involved are void sincethey are not the registered owners thereof norhad
they been declared as owners in thecadastral proceedings after claiming it astheir private property.The
fact that the grant was made by thegovernment is undisputed. Whether the grantwas in conformity
with the law or not is aquestion which the government may raise, butuntil it is raised by the government
and setaside, the defendant cannot question it. Thelegality of the grant is a question between
thegrantee and the government.IMPERIUM vs. DOMINIUM:The government authority possessed by
theState which is appropriately embraced int ehconcept of sovereignty comes under the headingof
imperium; its capacity to own or acquireproperty under dominium. The use of this termis appropriate
with reference to lands held bythe State in its proprietary character. In suchcapacity, it may provide for
the exploitation anduse of lands and other natural resources,including their disposition, except as
limited bythe Constitution.


Lee Hong Hok vs David G.R. No. L-30389, Dec. 27, 1972
FACTS:This is regarding a piece of land
which Aniano David acquired lawful title thereto,pursuant to hismiscellaneous
sales application. After approval of his application, the Director of Lands issued an
orderof award and issuance of sales patent, covering said lot by virtue of
whichthe Undersecretary of Agri culture and NaturalResources issued a
Miscellaneous Sales
Patent.The Register of Deeds thenissued an originalcertificate of title to
David. During al l thi s time,Lee Hong Kok did not oppose nor fileany adverseclaim.
I SSUE: Wh e t h e r o r n o t L e e Ho n g Ko k ma y question the government grant
HELD: Only the Government, represented by theDirector of Lands or the Secretary of
AgricultureandNatural Resources, can bri ng an action tocancel a void certificate
of title issued pursuant toa void patent.This was not done by said
officersbut by pr i vat e par t i es l i ke t he pl ai nt i f f s, whocannot claim that
thepatent and title issued for the land involved are void since they are not
ther egi st er ed owner s t her eof nor had t hey beendeclared as owners in the
cadastral proceedingsafter claiming it as their private property.The factthat the grant
was made by the government
isu n d i s p u t e d . W h e t h e r t h e g r a n t w a s i n conformitywith the
law or not is a question whichthe government may raise, but until it is raised
byt he gover nment and set asi de, t he def endant