G.R. No. L-6669. May 03, 1954

This is an appeal from a final order of the Court of First Instance
of Nueva Ecija, in which the appellant raises only questions of law.
From said order, we gather the following facts, which are not disputed:

On September 21, 1921, Homestead Patent No. 3236 was issued to Pedro
Daquis, plaintiff in Civil Case No. 1032 of said court, and appellant
herein, covering Lot No. 1662 of the Cadastral Survey of Muñoz, Nueva
Ecija. This patent was filed and registered in the office of the
Register of Deeds of said province, who, on November 6, 1921, issued to
Pedro Daquis the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. 1073.

On January 19, 1922, Daquis filed with said court in the cadastral
proceeding of Munoz an answer in which he alleged that he had acquired
said lot by virtue of the homestead patent above mentioned and prayed
that same be adjudicated to him and his wife Feliciana Quiambao.

On March 9, 1922, Daquis filed another answer of the same tenor.

On September 6, 1926, Daquis, in an instrument acknowledged before
Notary Public Ignacio Castelo, conveyed by way of absolute sale said
lot to Maximo Bustos, defendant in said case and appellee herein, for
the sum of P4,450.00.

On the next day, September 7, 1926, Bustos filed with the court of
first instance of Nueva Ecija his cadastral answer claiming ownership
of the lot in question by virtue of the purchase evidenced by said
document, and prayed that the lot be adjudicated to him and his wife
Elvira Buenaventura.

On the same day, Bustos, with the approval of Daquis, declared for
tax purposes said property in his name by means of an affidavit of
transfer of real property of the same date.

On June 23, 1934, the Chief of the General Land Registration Office
in Manila issued an order directing the Register of Deeds of Nueva
Ecija to cancel Original Certificate of Title No. 1073, and in lieu
thereof issued a new Transfer Certificate of Title to Maximo Bustos and
Elvira Buenaventura, pursuant to the order of Judge Enrique V. Filamor
of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, dated November 18, 1932,
in the cadastral proceedings.

On June 30, 1934, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8310 was issued
by the Register of Deeds to the spouses Bustos and Buenaventura.

On September 24, 1952, Daquis filed a complaint with the court of
first instance of Nueva Ecija, presided over by Judge L. Pasicolan,
praying that the transferor’s affidavit, dated September 7, 1926, and
the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8310 be canceled, and he, the
plaintiff, be declared the owner of said Lot No. 1662, and that the
defendants, the spouses Bustos and Buenaventura, be sentenced to pay
jointly and severally plaintiff Daquis the sum of P20,000.00 as
damages, plus the costs of suit.

The defendants, Bustos and his wife, filed a motion to dismiss,
based on the ground that the cause of action was barred by a prior
judgment and by the statute of limitations.

The court of first instance dismissed the complaint. Daquis appealed
to this Court, and in his brief makes the following assignment of
errors:

“I

“The lower court erred in dismissing the complaint
of the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that the present action is
barred by a prior judgment.

“II

“The lower court erred in holding that the sale of
lot No. 1662 covered by Homestead Patent No. 3236 and Original
Certificate of Title No. 1073, which is now being assailed and impugned
as null and void, was clearly settled in the cadastral case . . . and
that the matter must now be regarded to all intents and purposes as res adjudicata.

“III

“The lower court erred in holding that in the
determination of the conflicting claims to the land in question the
court had no occasion or need to inquire into the validity of the first
title No. 1073, as the issue was not the indefeasibility of a Torrens
Title acquired under the homestead patents.”

The theory of the appellant is that, in the cadastral proceedings,
the court of first instance could not nullify or cancel the certificate
of title issued as a consequence of the homestead patent and order the
issuance of a transfer certificate of title in favor of the Bustos
spouses, for the reason that said certificate of title issued to the
homestead patentee was just as indefeasible as any other Torrens
Certificate of Title. The only defect of this theory is that the court
did not order the cancellation or nullification of either the patent or
the corresponding certificate of title, but based the issuance of the
transfer certificate of title in favor of the Bustos spouses on the
sale of the land made by Daquis to said spouses, as evidenced by the
transferor’s affidavit and the declaration in favor of the Bustos
spouses made with the consent of Daquis. The court below, far from
annulling the patent and the certificate of title of Daquis, impliedly
but necessarily recognized them, for Daquis could not have sold the
property to Bustos without possessing the patent and the Torrens
Certificate of Title.

However, Daquis contends that said sale was made four years, eleven
months, and fifteen days after the issuance of the patent and the
certificate of title, or, in other words, fifteen days short before the
expiration of the five-year period after the issuance, in violation of
Section 116 of Act No. 2874, which read as follows:

SEC. 116. Land acquired under the free patent or
homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation
from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five
years from and after the date of issuance of the patent of grant, nor
shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted
prior to the expiration of said period; but the improvements or crops
on the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons,
associations, or corporations.”

In the first place, the decision of Judge Filamor in favor of the
Bustos spouses was rendered on November 18, 1932, but the complaint in
the present case (Civil Case No. 1032 of the court of first instance of
Nueva Ecija) was filed on November 24, 1952, or more than twenty years
after the rendition of the decision of Judge Filamor. Needless to say,
the decision of Judge Filamor had become final for more than nineteen
years before the complaint seeking its annulment was filed.

Even assuming that Judge Filamor’s decision erroneously declared the
sale valid, such error, not being jurisdictional, could have been
corrected only by a regular appeal. Decisions, erroneous or not, become
final after the period fixed by law; litigations would be endless; no
questions would be finally settled; and titles to property would become
precarious if the losing party were allowed to reopen them at any time
in the future.

In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is affirmed with costs against the appellant. It is so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Bautista, Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., concur.