10/09/2026
THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST MAY NOT ALWAYS BE THE PROPER PLAINTIFF.
The Supreme Court's ruling in G.R. No. 240047 reminds us that the authority to file an action depends not only on who claims an interest in the property, but also on the nature of the action and the law governing it.
Although AFAB claimed that the disputed properties had been transferred to its administration, the Court held that it merely administered and held the lands in trust for the Republic.
Since the complaint sought to recover lands allegedly forming part of the inalienable public domain, it was, in substance, an action for reversion, which under Section 101 of the Public Land Act may be instituted only by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
This case could easily become a tricky Bar Examination question, especially after the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure. Many Bar candidates may instinctively answer that the RTC should grant a Motion to Dismiss because only the Republic, through the OSG, may file a reversion case.
However, they must not overlook the procedural rules. Under the amended Rules, a Motion to Dismiss is generally prohibited, except when based on:
(1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(2) litis pendentia; and
(3) res judicata or prescription.
Thus, the defense that the plaintiff is not the proper party should ordinarily be raised as an affirmative defense in the Answer, not through a Motion to Dismiss.
This is a reminder to Bar candidates and aspiring lawyers that knowing the correct substantive doctrine is not enough. They must also know the proper procedural remedy. In the Bar Examination, identifying the right legal principle but applying the wrong procedural rule can still lead to an incorrect answer.
Read the full text and try to answer the sample question in the comments section.
