REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. RICARDO RAMOS, PHIL. NATIONAL BANK AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ISABELA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Two of the defendants, the Philippine National Bank
and Ricardo Ramos, filed motions to dismiss upon the ground that the
complaint does not state a cause of action. The other defendant, the
Registrar of Deeds in and for the province of Isabela, filed no
pleading.

After hearing and consideration of the motions and
the objections thereto, the Court of First Instance of Isabela
dismissed the complaint without costs, from which dismissal the State
has appealed.

The complaint alleges that on 20 September 1947
Ricardo Ramos filed with the Bureau of Lands a homestead application
No. V-4-17 for a parcel of land in the barrios of Dagupan and Calooean,
municipality of San Mateo, province of Isabela a. part of Lot No. 7004,
Cad. 211, containing an area of 9.2820 hectares, now subdivisional lots
Nos. 9840, 9842, 9843 and 9844, which was approved on 3 December 1954
under Homestead Entry No. E-4-617 and for which Patent No. V-62617 was
granted on 15 December 1955 by the Bureau of Lands, and original
certificate of title No. P-5619 was issued by the Registrar of Deeds in
and for the province of Isabels (Annexes A, B, C, D, E and F); that on
25 May 1958 Jose Ganadin and 49 residents of San Mateo, Isabela, who
were in actual possession of the parcel of land applied for as
homestead, petitioned the Bureau of Lands to cancel Ricardo Ramos’
homestead Patent No. V-62617 and original certificate of title No.
P-5619, on the ground that at the time he secured his homestead patent
for a parcel of land in San Mateo , Isabela, above referred to, he
already had secured a homestead patent on a parcel of land in the
municipality of Rizal , province of Nueva Ecija , homestead application
No. 229645, containing an area of 3.1730 hectares, situated in
Manlongoy, barrio of Cauaan, known as Lot No. 2222, Cad. 137, under
Homestead Entry No. E-137238 approved on 22 June 1940 , for which
Patent No. V-1833 was issued on 25 January 1949 by the Bureau of Lands,
and on 21 April 1949 original certificate of title No. P-360, by the
Registrar of Deeds in and for the province of Nueva Ecija, as verified
by the Director of Lands after an investigation (Annexes G, H, I, J, K
and L), the last homestead land applied for by and granted to him being
in violation of the provisions of section 19 of Commonwealth Act No.
141, the Public Land Law, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 456; that
the name of Ricardo Ramos appearing in both homestead applications
referred to one and the same person, as shown by the fact that in those
application he stated that he was born, in Bustos, Bulacan, married to
Rita Ramos by whom he has six children, the names of Rita Ramos and of
the six children being the same in both applications; that in his
second homestead application and final proof he stated under oath that
he never had filed and made any homestead application or entry nor was
he a homestead patentee before applying for a homestead land in San
Mateo, Isabela; that because of said false statement under oath
(Annexes A and D), on 23 July 1958 the Director of Lands recommended
that steps be taken for the cancellation of Patent No. V-62617 (Annex
M); that such false statement shall ipso facto cause the cancellation
of his second homestead Patent No. V-62617 and certificate of title No.
P-5619 issued in his name pursuant to the provisions of section 91 of
Commonwealth. Act No. 141; that as Ricardo Ramos mortgaged the
homestead land under patent No. V-62617 and described in certificate of
title No. P-5619, together with several other parcels of land to the
Philippine National Bank as security for the payment of a loan, a
mortgage duly registered, the Philippine National Bank and the
Registrar of Deeds in and for the province of Isabela , are made party
defendants.

The trial court is of the opinion (1) that it has no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint because more than, a
year had elapsed from 24 December 1955, the date of the issuance of the
Torrens title, to 2 August 1958, the date of the commencement of the
action, the homestead land having been brought under the operation of
the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496); (2) that as the complaint does
not allege that Ricardo Ramos knowingly, wilfully and deliberately made
the false statement, which is necessary to render it actionable, there
is no sufficient cause of action; (3) that Ricardo Ramos made the
statement, even if untrue, in good faith; (4) that Commonwealth Act No.
456, amending section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, in so far it
prohibits more than one homestead entry and disqualifies a homestead
patentee of a parcel of land containing, less than 24 hectares acquired
after 8 June 1939, the date the amendatory Act became effective,
infringes upon section 2 of Article XIII of the Constitution and
therefore null, void and inoperative; (5) that the limitation to one
homestead application, if applied for after 8 June 1939, imposed by
said amendatory Act, as contrasted with the provisions of the Public
Land Act on free patents, sale and lease of agricultural public lands,
is discriminatory; and (6) that bad faith on the part of the Philippine
National Bank not being alleged in the complaint the presumption is
that it was an innocent mortgagee and for value.

It should be borne in mind that the order appealed
from is upon motions to dismiss. The facts alleged in the complaint are
deemed admitted. Could the court render a valid judgment upon the facts
pleaded and deemed admitted? It should further be borne in mind that
the appellant seeks not only reversion of the homestead land granted to
the appellee Ricardo Ramos, cancellation of the patent and title on the
ground of nullity but also any other or further remedy or relief which
the court may deem just and equitable to grant.

Granting that because the homestead land in
controversy has been brought under the operation of the Land
Registration Act and the Torrens title issued therefor has become
indefeasible, under the prayer of any other or further relief, which
the court may deem just and equitable to grant, a directive for
reconveyance may be granted, if after trial on the merits the court
should find that the appellee Ricardo Ramos is not entitled
to hold and possess title in fee simple to the homestead land
erroneously granted to him because of the law transgression committed
by him. The action for reconveyance is not yet barred by the statute of
limitations, even granting that the statute could, which, of course,
does not, run against the State. The second and third grounds relied
upon by the trial court are untenable, because it is not a criminal
case for perjury or false testimony. It is a provision of the Public
Land Act which is involved in the controversy. And whether the appellee
Ricardo Ramos made the false statement in good faith cannot be
determined upon motions to dismiss but after evidence shall have been
presented. The appellee Ricardo Ramos cannot claim that he did not make
the false statement in the application and final proof on the second
homestead land applied for by him, because he knew that he previously
had applied for, and had been granted, another homestead in the
municipality of Rizal, province of Nueva Ecija, unless he could show
that at the time he made the statement in the second application and
final proof on the homestead land in San Mateo, Isabela, he was
suffering from amnesia. That, of course, requires proof or credible
evidence. The fourth and fifth grounds relied upon by the trial court
to hold the amendatory Act, Commonwealth Act No. 456, unconstitutional,
are also unmeritorious. Article XIII, section 2, of the Constitution
where it is provided that no individual may acquire by homestead public
agricultural lands in excess of twenty-four hectares, does not prohibit
the Congress to pass legislation decreasing the area of public
agricultural lands that an individual may acquire-by homestead. What is
prohibited is to increase the area thereof. Such being the case, the
amendatory Act, Commonwealth Act No. 456, is not unconstitutional.

The joining of the Philippine National Bank as
defendant is for the purpose of enabling it to protect its interest.
The original or a copy of the certificate of title of the homestead
land in question has not been attached to the pleadings. An examination
or reading thereof would enable the Court to determine whether the bank
acted in good faith when it accepted the mortgage on the homestead land
in controversy as partial security for the repayment of the loan it had
granted to its co-appellee Ricardo Ramos.

The order appealed from is set aside and the case
remanded to the court below for further proceedings in accord with law,
without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador , Concepcion , Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Regala, JJ., concur.

Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.