Decision 10 G.R. No. 201213 decreeing registration is null and void. In Collado v. Court of Appeals and the Republic, the Court declared that any title to an inalienable public land is void ab initio. Any procedural infirmities attending the filing of the petition for annulment of judgment are immaterial since the LRC never acquired jurisdiction over the property. All proceedings of the LRC involving the property are null and void and, hence, did not create any legal effect. A judgment by a court without jurisdiction can never attain finality. In Collado, the Court made the following citation: The Land Registration Court has no jurisdiction over non-registrable properties, such as public navigable rivers which are parts of the public domain, and cannot validly adjudge the registration of title in favor of private applicant. Hence, the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga as regards the Lot No. 2 of certificate of Title No. 15856 in the name of petitioners may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally, by the State which is not bound by any prescriptive period provided for by the Statute of Limitations. 41 (Emphasis in the original) In Bacas, the principal prayer for cancellation of the Torrens title entailed the nullification of a decision of the LRC, a co-equal body of the RTC. Here, similarly, as a result of the prayer for reversion and cancellation of title, the RTC will necessarily have to rule on the validity of Resolution No. 060-2009-AL. The RTC also has to rule on whether the Register of Deeds of Baguio City acted correctly in issuing OCT No. 0-CALT-37 based on CALT No. CAR-BAG-0309-000207. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the Republic's Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. As the Court ruled in Heirs ofSpouses Reterta v. Spouses Mores and Lopez: 42 "The term grave abuse of discretion connotes whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility." 43 The RTC's dismissal of the Complaint is a refusal to perform its duty enjoined by law as it is the court that has jurisdiction over the Complaint. The CA therefore committed reversible error in affirming the RTC's dismissal of the Complaint. Nonetheless, the Court finds that the Republic's prayer that the Court rule on its nine causes of action as raised in its Complaint to be premature. A ruling on the nine causes of action requires the presentation and reception of evidence, a function the Court cannot discharge as it is not a trier of facts. 41 42 43 Id. at 828-829. 671 Phil. 346 (2011 ). Id. at 364.