DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT VS. PAULINO MANUEL, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

On October 6, 1949, Paulino Manuel filed a homestead application
with the Bureau of Lands covering Lot No. 6959 of Cadastre 211, Case 5,
situated at Santiago, Isabela, to replace the homestead application he
had previously filed in 1931 for the same lot which was lost or
destroyed during the last war. On the strength of an affidavit
submitted by Manuel to that effect, his homestead application was
considered reconstituted and, accordingly, it was accepted and recorded
as Homestead Application No. 197287.

On April 15, 1950, Homestead Application No. 197287 was approved as
of August 23, 1948 for Lots Nos. 6959-A and 6960-A, of Cadastre 211,
together with an area adjoining thereto denominated as Lot 3.

Upon investigation of said application, it was ascertained that the
land applied for corresponds, to Lot 6959-A, and so on April 15, 1950,
the Director of Lands issued an order amending the application so as to
cover Lot 6959-A, and, accordingly, a patent was ordered to be issued
therefor. On April 22, 1950, Homestead Patent No. V-5117 was issued to
Paulino Manuel.

Upon a checking made by the Director of Lands of the record in his
office subsequent to the issuance of the patent to Manuel, it was found
that the land covered by the latter’s patent is actually part of the
land covered by Homestead Application No. V-4837 of Feliciano Valeroso.
So an investigation was ordered during which Valeroso and Manuel
presented evidence in support of their respective sides. It was in
connection with this investigation that an affidavit executed by Manuel
on April 28, 1949 came to light which partly explains the overlapping.

In this affidavit, Manuel stated that sometime in 1933 he filed a
homestead application for a track of land which was approved in 1934;
that one year after said approval, he transferred all his rights and
interests in said land to Feliciano Valeroso; that all papers
pertaining to said application and transfer were lost during the last
war; that the said transfer was already approved; that Valeroso has
coutinously cleared and cultivated the land from 1934 to 1947; and that
he was no longer interested in the land. And on the strength of this
affidavit, Valeroso filed his Homestead Application No. 4837.

The Director of Lands rendered his decision on May 31, 1954 stating
that as Paulino Manuel had already relinquished all his rights over the
land long before a patent therefor was issued to him, he no longer had
any right thereto and, consequently, Homestead Patent No. V-5117 was
improperly issued to him.

As a consequence, a petition for cancellation of Homestead Patent
No. V-5117 was filed by the Director of Lands on December 6, 1954, and
after issues were joined and the case was ready for trial, the court a quo
ordered petitioner to file a motion for summary judgment upon the
theory that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact.

Accordingly, a motion for summary judgment was filed by petitioner
stating that his evidence consisted of Annexes A to H of the basic
petition. Respondent filed his “Conformity to Summary Judgment” wherein
he relied principally on Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 to support his side of the
case. To this petitioner filed a reply, and, thereafter, the court a quo rendered judgment dismissing the petition for lack of merit.

Hence the present appeal.

In his basic petition, the Director of Lands stated that on October
6, 1949 Paulino Manuel filed a homestead application accompanied by an
affidavit alleging that the land subject of his application was
formerly covered by a previous application filed by him in 1931, the
reforms of which were destroyed during the last war, and so he asked
that the same be accepted and recorded to take the place of his former
application; that this new homestead application was approved, and on
April 22, 1950 Patent No. V-5117 was issued to Paulino Manuel for which
a certificate of title was issued to him in accordance with Act 496;
that upon subsequent investigation made by the Director of Lands, it
was found that Manuel had already transferred whatever rights and
interests he had in the land covered by his homestead application to
Feliciano Valeroso as shown by an affidavit executed by the former on
April 28, 1947, and on the strength of which Valeroso also filed a
homestead application for the same land; that when Manuel reconstituted
his destroyed homestead application he never revealed that he had
already transferred to Valeroso whatever rights and interests he had in
the land applied for, thus making the Director of Lands believe that he
was entitled to acquire the land in question; and that in the light of
the foregoing facts, the Director of Lands issued an order on May 31,
1954 declaring that Patent No. V-5117 had been improperly issued to
Paulina Manuel and directing that proper action be taken for the
cancellation of said patent. Said order became final and executory for
lack of appeal.

In his answer, on the other hand, respondent Manuel admitted the
foregoing facts, but with the following qualifications: that in 1931 he
filed homestead application for an area of about 12 hectares which was
approved sometime in 1932; that in 1939, after clearing a portion of 5
hectares with one Marcelo. Esteban, as helper, he returned to his
native town because of illness and when he returned he gave up the idea
of clearing the rest of the land which by then was being cleared by one
Feliciano Valeroso, and so he decided to confine his application to
that portion of 5 hectares, while he transferred whatever, rights and
interests he had in the rest amounting to 7 hectares to Feliciano
Valeroso; and that when he asked for the reconstitution of his original
homestead applies, As new application was merely confined to that por
of S hectares for which a homestead patent was issued to hiia with the
corresponding certificate of title. He denied that he transferred all
his rights and interests in the whole land originally applied for by
him consisting: of 12 hectares.

On the strength of the foregoing allegations, the court a quo
considered that the pleadings did not raise any genuine issue as to any
material fact and so it ordered the parties to submit the case on a
motion for summary judgment. Petitioner so acquiesced and filed a
motion for summary judgment. Respondent likewise expressed his
conformity thereto, but submitted three affidavits in support of the
facts averred by him in his answer. In reply, petitioner alleged that
it was improper for respondent to bring out the facts stated in his
three affidavits considering that the same had already been passed upon
by the Director of Lands in the administrative in vestigation conducted
between Paulino Manuel and Feliciano Valeroso in connection with the
conflict that arose between them regarding the parcels of land covered
by their respective homestead applications. And now it is claimed that
the decision rendered by the Director of Lands on the matter has long
become final and executory and the same is now binding upon respondent
because of his failure to appeal as required by law. The issue now is:
Is this decision now conclusive on respondent Manuel in the instant
case?

The pertinent portion of the decision above referred reads:

“At the investigation, Feliciano Valeroso testified
that the land applied for was transferred to him for many years prior
to the last war hy Paulino Manuel who was the original applicant ofthe
land; that after the transfer was approved, Manuel left the land; and
that Valeroso has been in the actual occupation and cultivation of the
entire tract of land from the time he acquired the same up to 1951,
when the disputed portion was taken from him by Marcelo Esteban, the
nephew-in-law of Paulino Manuel, on the, ground that the same is
already patented in the name of Manuel.

“On the other hand,
Paulino Manuel denied having relinquished his rights to the entire lot.
He testified that he transferred to Valeroso only about 7 hectares as
compensation or a reward for cultivating his land during his absence
when he went to Tarlac and stayed there for several years.

“It
is the opinion of this Office that Paulino Mamuel had no more right to
the disputed land at the time the patent therefore was issued to him.
The preponderant evidence on record proves that he had previously
relinquished all his rights to the entire land now covered by
Valeroso’s application, but that in spite of said relinquishment, ho
(Manuel) employed fraudulent means to have the disputed portion
patented in his name.

“Paulino Manuel did not deny the
genuineness and due execution of the affidavit executed by him on April
28, 1947, in which he acknowleged that he transferred the nntire tract
to Valeroso in 1933 and that he (Manuel) was no longer interested in
the land. It is flimsy and incredible for him now to allege that be did
not know the contents thereof and that he intended to transfer only the
portion of about 7 hectares situated in Alicia, Isabela. It has been
satisfactorily established that lie had abandoned the laud after the
reliquishment to Valeroso who has continuously possessed the entire
tract, including the patented portion, since 1933 until 1951 when the
controverted portion was grabbed from him by Marcelo Esteban.”

The affidavit executed by respondent on April 28, 1947 before Public Lands Inspector Alejandro Ramos, also reads:

“That I filed said application sometimes in 1933 and approved in the year 1934;

That one year after the approval, I transferred all my rights to and interests in said land to Feliciaiio Valeroso;

That
said land was continuously cleared and cultivated by said Feliciano
Valeroso after the transfer was consummated in 1934 to the present time;

That till papers pertaining to said application and transfer were lost during the war;

That the land was cadastrally surveyed but I can no longer remember the lot number;

That
I am again reiterating: that said transfer was really made and already
approved and that I am still and always been, after the transfer was
made, no longer interested in the land.”

Considering that the question relative to the transfer of the rights
and interests of respondent to Feliciano Valeroso in the land in
question has already been passed upon by the Director of Lands in the
sense that the preponderance of evidence shows that the former had
previously relinquished all his rights to the entire land now covered
by the latter’s application but that in spite of said relinquishment he
employed fraudulent means to have the disputed portion patented in his
name, and this decision having become final and executory for lack of
appeal on the part of respondent, the same cannot now be looked into.
This is more so when this decision finds full support in the affidavit
of respondent the content of which is quoted above:

There is, therefore, no other alternative than to hold that the
patent issued to respondent is null and void, and the certificate of
title issued thereunder should be set aside.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed. The court
declares Patent No. V-5117 issued to respondent null and void, as well
as the certificate of title issued in accordance therewith. Costs
against respondent Paulino Manuel.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, J., took no part.