IRENEO CUCHAPIN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. VIRGINIA LOZANO, ET AL,, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This is an appeal directly from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija in Civil Case No. 2214, declaring defendants’
title to a piece of land absolute and indefeasible and dismissing
plaintiff’s complaint.

The pertinent facts as found by the lower court are as follows: On
July 6, 1931, a homestead patent was issued to Casimiro Gattoc covering
Lot 2180 of the Muñoz Cadastre. Pursuant to this patent, Lot 2180 was
registered under the Land Registration Act and Original Certificate of
Title No. 3404 was issued to Casimiro Gattoc on July 16, 1931. On March
21, 1932, Casimiro Gattoc executed a document (Exhibit “B”) in which he
declared that the eastern half of the lot belonged to his grandson, the
plaintiff, who, according to him, had cleared . and taken possession of
the land since they began clearing and possessing the homestead; that
to avoid expenses, they had agreed that one of them would apply for a
homestead and that by virtue of the application, title was issued in
his name alone. On the same day, March 21, 1932, Casimiro Gattoc
acknowledged in another instrument (Exh. “A”) that he had received on
various occasions, the sum of PI,500 from the plaintiff to becure the
payment of which, he’ mortgaged the products and. Improvements of his
land to the plaintiff. Neither of these documents (Exlis. “A” and “B”)
was registered. On March 13, 1939, Casimiro Gattoc died/leaving as his
sole heir his daughter Maria Gattoc.

On August 4, 1949, Maria Gattoc executed an affidavit of
adjudication with a conveyance of Lot 2180 to Eusebio Carbonell for
P800. Upon the registration of this document, Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 3404 was cancelled and TCT No. 15644 was issued in the name
of Maria Gattoc. Thereafter, TCT No. 15644 was cancelled and, in lieu
thereof, TCT No. 15645 was issued in the name of Eusebio Carbonell. —

On December 5, 1941, plaintiff filed an adverse claim in the Office
of the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija which was annotated on the back
of the original copy of the title but not in the owner’s duplicate
certificate of title’ of Carbonell.—

On May 29, i944, Eusebio Carbonell sold Lot 2180 to, Oasiano Lozano
for P16,978.88. Upon ‘the registration of the deed of sale (Exh. “4”),
TCT No. 25645 was replaced by TCT No, 20879 in the name of Casiano
Lozano, married to. Pptenciana Panlaqui.” The adverse claim filed by
the plaintiff was annotated on the back of both the original and the
owner’s duplicate copy, of TCT No. 20879.

On July 12, 1956, plaintiff brought this action to annul the sale
niade by Maria Gattoc to Eusebio Carbonell and the subsequent sale
made, by Carbonell to Casiano Lozano, father of the defendants, on the
allegation that the conveyance of the land from Gattoc to Carbonell was
procured through the fraudulent machinations and manipulations of a
certain Simeon Madayag, a half-brother’of Carbonell.. ‘Plaintiff prayed
that’ tbe . sales be annulled as far as one half of Lot 2108 was
concerned and that on the basis of Exhibits “A” and; “B”, the same be
adjudicated to him and the other half be declared subject to a mortgage
in bis favor.

In due time, defendants filed their answer. After trial, the lower
court rendered a decision dismissing the com-. plaint on the ground
that the pJaintiff failed to prove the ciharge of bad faith and that
the deed of acknowledgment was in fact and in effect a conveyance to
the plaintiff, contrary to Section 116 of Act No. 2874 which prohibited
the. alienation of lands acquired under a homestead patent within five
years.

The plaintiff appealed to this Court, raising both questions of fact
and of law. Thus, in his first assignment of error, plaintiff contends
that the lower court erred in holding that ttie deed of acknowledgment
signed, by Casimiro Gattoc was null and void being in violation of Act
No. 2874 and, in support thereof, claims that he has been in possession
of half of the lot since 1918 during which time he has allegedly been
paying the land taxes.

The second assignment of error is that the lower court erred in
finding that the defendants-appellees’ father Casiano Lozano, had
acquired the land in dispute in good  faith.

These allegations raise essentially questions of fact which require
a review of the evidence in this case. The trial court’s decision
contains no findings that, plaintiff’s possession dates back to 1918
nor does it say who has been paying the taxes on the land.

Since some of the. questions raised call for a review of the
evidence, and the amount involved not exceeding P50,000 (now P200.000),
the appeal should have been brought to the Court of Appeals.

Wherefore, this case is hereby remanded to the Court of Appeals.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angela, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,, Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.