LEONARDO T. JOSON AND MIGRADEL DEL BARRIO VDA. DE SINAGUINAN, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE SOCIEDAD AGRICOLA DE BALARIN…

The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, in a decision
rendered on July 31, 1964 in its Civil Case No. 21325, dismissed the petition
for certiorari filed by herein appellants, in which they prayed that:

“Judgment be rendered annulling all the proceedings before,
and all orders and decisions of, the respondent Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources regarding Lots Nos. 3804, 3805 and 3806, D.A.N.R. Case No. 575-B, or
at least, with respect to the said order of August 24, 1960, all findings of
facts, conclusions, and pronouncements with respect to Lots Nos. 3804, 3805 and
3806, and the homestead applicants Montano Villarama,
Leonardo T. Joson and Felipe Sinaguinan,
as well as all matters, relating to the home­stead applications of these
persons and the patents issued in their favor particularly the above-quoted
findings and condemnations, be eliminated from the said order.”

The case started with an
investigation conducted by the Bureau of Lands concerning Sales Application No.
6541 of herein respondent Sociedad Agricola de Balarin, cover­ing a
tract of land with an area of about 459 hectares situated in Balarin, Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, and composed of lots
Nos. 3807, 3809, 3810, 3811, 3812, 3814, 3815, 2254, 2255, 2256, 2257, 2259-B,
1284, 1285 and 2240 of the Cabanatuan Cadastre.  Two orders were issued by the Director of
Lands as a result of that investigation – the first on January 21, 1957 and the second,
amending the first, on December 20 of the same year.  In this second order it was
declared:

“The Sales Application No. 6541 of the Sociedad
Agricola de Balarin shall
be reinstated and amended to include therein the portion of Lot No. 3807
allocated to Victor Eusebio in his Lease Application
No. V-79, but excluding therefrom the rest of Lot No.
3807 mentioned in the same decision^[1]
to be subdivided into small farm lots of not more than five (5) hectares, the
area reserved for barrio and school sites and the lots already patented to
other occupants.”

From the aforesaid order two appeals were taken to the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources: 
one by Victor Eusebio, et al., docketed as D.A.N.R. Case No. 575; and the
other by the Sociedad Agricola
de Balarin, docketed as D.A.N.R. Case No. 575-B, from
that part of the decision excluding from Lot No. 3807 the areas to be
subdivided into farm lots and reserved for barrio and school sites and the
“lots already patented to other occupants.” Case No. 575-B, captioned
with the Sociedad Agricola
de Balarin as applicant-appellant
and Montano Villarama, Leonardo T. Joson, Felipe Sinaguinan and Crispulo Ceña as
applicants-respondents, referred particularly to lots Nos. 3804, 3805, 3806 and
3810-A, Cadastral Case No. 51 of Cabanatuan City.

It appears that lot No.
3804 had been acquired by Montano Villarama under
Homestead Application No. V-43168 and patented and registered in his name since
March 9, 1952
under Original Certificate of Title No. P-196 of the Register of Deeds of Cabanatuan City, and that the same had been sold to
Leonardo T. Joson on June 13, 1958; that lot No. 3505
had been acquired by Joson under Homestead
Application No. V-43162 and patented and registered in his name on October 24,
1951, under Original Certificate of Title No. P-135; and that lot No. 3806 had likewise
been acquired by Felipe Sinaguinan under Homestead Application No. V-43167, and patented and registered in
his name on August 2, 1954,
under Original Certificate of Title No. P-322. 
Crispulo Ceña
obtained his certificate of title No. P-19 under similar circumstances.

On April
11, 1960 the Acting
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources issued an order which reads in part as follows:

“By way of supporting its appeal, the Sociedad
Agricola de Balarin alleges
that the above-mentioned lots had long ago been covered by its Sales
Application No. 6541; that it acquired these lots from previous applicants long
before the last Pacific War;
that it has been the one occupying and cultivating the said lots; and that the
patents granted to the appellees were acquired
between the years 1951 and 1957 when the “ownership and rights acquired
under S.A. No. 6541 were under
litigation and not yet resolved.” So that these patents were obtained
fraudulently.

From the indication in the Records, it does not appear that the conflict between Sales Application No. 6541
of the Sociedad Agricola de Balarin, on one hand, and Homestead
Applications Nos. V-43168, V-43162, V-43167 and 117040 of Montano Villarama, Leonardo T. Joson,
Felipe Sinaguinan and Crispulo
Ceña, respectively, on the other, has ever been
investigated notwithstanding the fact that the land covered by the said sales application had been the
subject of numerous investigations.  In
order, therefore, to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice, this case is
hereby remanded to the Director of Lands for further proceedings pursuant to
Sections 6 and 7 of Lands Administrative Order No. 6 and to decide the case in
accordance with the rules and regulations governing the matter.  Consequently, the effects of the order of the
Director of Lands dated December 20, 1957, in so far as they affect the Sociedad Agricola de Balarin, Montano Villarama,
Leonardo T. Joson, Felipe Sinaguinan
and Crispulo Ceña are
hereby set aside.

Leonardo T. Joson, Felipe Sinaguinan and Crispulo Ceña moved separately for the
reconsideration of the foregoing order, alleging that since the lots mentioned
therein were already covered by certificates of title issued pursuant to the corresponding homestead patents in
their favor, the same had ceased to be parts of the public domain and hence
were outside the control and jurisdic­tion of the Bureau of Lands or of the
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

On August 24, 1960
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued an order wherein, after reviewing the history of each of
the homestead applications which led to the issuance of the corresponding
titles, he made the following findings and disposition:

“It will be noted that the Sociedad Agricola de Balarin was already
the owner of Lots Nos. 3804,
3805, 3806 and 3810-A (Now Lot No. 4413) long before the last Global War by
lawful acquisition thereof from previous applicants therefor.  The evidence of records shows that it never
relinquished its claims thereto.  As a matter of fact, it restated its
claim to those lots on the first opportunity after the said Global War when in
July, 1950, thru its representative in the person of Mrs. Veronica Vda. de Lacalle, it gave notice
to the Bureau of Lands in Manila of
its protest against the persons who had manifested and shown interest in
acquiring them.  It will also be noted
that the homestead applications of Montano Villarama and Felipe Sinaguinan were
filed on the same date, that is, August 30, 1950, while that of Leonardo T.
Joson was filed on August 31, 1950, so that when their applications were filed,
they already knew of the claim of the Sociedad Agricola de Balarin to the
aforementioned lots.  With respect to Crispulo Ceña, he always knew of
the claim of the Partnership because he
had long ago sold his rights to it.  They
were, therefore, homestead applicants in bad faith.  Under the circumstances and as the conflict
between Sales Application No. 6541 of the Sociedad Agricola de Balarin, on one hand,
and the aforesaid four homestead applications, on the other, was still pending
determination when the homestead patents were issued, the issuance of those
patents was basically irregular and highly fraudulent.

“We have observed that there was a deliberate intent to hasten
the issuance of the homestead
patents, evidently to hoodwink and to catch unaware the Sociedad
Agricola de Balarin.  This is shown by the approvals of the
applications, which were made retroactive in order to accommodate and make the
final proofs acceptable before the expiration of one year from the said
approvals.  It appears that the approvals
of the applications of Montano Villarama and Felipe Sinaguinan were made retroactive as of the date of their filing on August 30, 1950. 
The application of Leonardo T. Joson was filed
on August 31, 1950, but the
approval was made retroactive as of May
1, 1950.  The order of
approval, in so far as it
refers to the retroactiveness of the date simple
reason that an application cannot be approved before it is filed, acknowledged
and recorded (sic).  Parenthetically, and
as the common saying goes, ‘the water cannot rise higher than its source.’

“It does not appear, however that the Sociedad
Agricola de Balarin had
filed a petition in court for the cancellation of Original Certificates of
Title Nos. P-196, P-135, P-322 and P-19 issued in favor of Montano Villarama, Leonardo T. Joson,
Felipe Sinaguinan and Crispulo
Ceña, respectively, within one (1) year from such
issuance.  Consequently, these titles are
already irrevocable.  It is now well-settled
rule in this jurisdiction that a homestead patent issued in pursuance of
the Public Land Law has the same indefeasibility as that issued under Act No.
496 (otherwise known as the Land Registration Law) after one (1) year from its
issuance.  A certificate of title issued
pursuant to a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate
issued as a consequence of a judicial proceeding as long as the land
disposed of is
really a part of the public domain and becomes indefeasible and
incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of issuance
thereof.” (Lucas vs. Durian, G.R. No. L-7886, promulgated September 23, 1957).  This ruling was reinstated by the Supreme
Court in the case of the Director of Lands vs. The Heirs of Ciriaco
Carlo, et al., G.R. No. L-2485, promulgated July 11, 1959.

“WHEREFORE, the order entered on these cases on April 11, 1960
is hereby set aside and the Sales Application No. 6541 of the Sociedad Agricola de Balarin, amended by excluding from the land covered thereby
lots Nos. 3804, 3805, 3806 and 3810-A (Now lot No. 4413), Cabanatuan
Cadastre No. 51.  Consequently, the
decision of this Office rendered on D.A.N.R. Case No. 575-A (sic) is hereby modified
by eliminating therefrom the second paragraph of the dispositive portions there­of.  As thus amended, the said sales application
shall be given due course.

“Sufficient evidence
being on hand showing fraud and irregularity in the issuance of the patents in
favor of Montano Villarama, Leonardo T. Joson, Felipe Sinaguinan and Crispulo Ceña, the Director of
Lands is hereby directed to conduct thorough investigation for purposes of ascertaining and pin-pointing the officials and employees
of his Bureau, who are responsible for such fraud and irregularity and to
submit his report within thirty (30) days from his receipt of a copy
hereof.”

On November 2, 1960
Leonardo T. Joson, for himself and as vendee of
Montano Villarama with respect to lot No. 3804, moved
to reconsider the order of August 24, 1960, praying “that the appeal of
the Sociedad Agricola de Balarin re lots 3804 and 3805 be dismissed outright, or, at
least, the order of this office dated August 24, 1960 be amended as to
eliminate therein all holdings, manifestations and conclusions condemning
Montano Villarama and Leonardo T. Joson
as abovestated.” The motion was denied in an
order dated December 21, 1960, and Joson then went to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija on a special civil action
for certiorari,^[2] together with the widow of Felipe Sinaguinan, then already
deceased.  The petitioners there alleged
that respondent Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion, in entertaining
the appeal of the Sociedad Agricola
with respect to lots Nos. 3804,
3805 and 3806 because they were not included in the investigation originally ordered
and conducted by the Bureau of Lands,
nor in his decision rendered as
a result of that investigation; and in making his findings of fraud and
irregularities against petitioners without giving them an opportunity to be
heard and to present their evidence.

The Court of First
Instance denied the petition, and petitioner forthwith interposed the present
appeal from the decision.

We do not see that the
lower court erred in so deciding, and finding that respondent Secretary acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or committed a grave abuse of discretion.

In the first place, petitioners obtained a favorable ruling from
said respondent on their motion for reconsideration of the order of April 11, 1960, when the Secretary
held, in his order of August 24, 1960,
that petitioners’ titles to the lots in question had become indefeasible.  True it is that the same order contains
findings of fraud and irregularities in connection with the issuance of the
home­stead patents to petitioners, but said findings, according to respondent,
were based on the records before him,
and made with a view to a “thorough investigation for purposes of
ascertaining and pin-pointing the officials and employees (of the Bureau of
Lands) who are responsible for such fraud and irregularity.” Those
findings were certainly within the competence and authority of respondent
Secretary to make, for the specific purpose intended, in the exercise of his
administrative power of supervision over the officials and employees under
him.  And as to their correctness, the
same cannot properly be reviewed by the courts particularly in a special civil
action for certiorari.

Petitioners have raised the issue of due process, alleging that
they had not been heard before the condemnatory findings were arrived at.  This issue was correctly disposed of in the
order of December 2, 1960,
wherein respondent Secretary stated:

“In our order of April
11, 1960, we directed a formal investigation of this case so that
he (petitioner Joson) could be given all the chances
to present his side of the case.  Since
he objected to that order and as we found his objection to be well taken, we
set the same aside and did away with a formal investigation.  Now he comes and says that he has not been afforded “Due Process of Law.” Nevertheless, he can still have the
opportunity to take advantage of a due process of law if he appears as an
interested party at, and cooperate in, the investigation directed to be made in
the last paragraph of the aforementioned order (of August 24, 1960).”

In any event, the order
complained of in the instant case has practically become functus
oficio.  It appears from the motion to dismiss filed in the Court below by respondent Sociedad
Agricola de Balarin on
April 30, 1964, that in July 1962, even ahead of the petition for certiorari,
the Republic of the Philippines through the Director of Lands filed complaints
for reversion against herein petitioners, precisely for the annulment of the
patents and titles issued for the lots involved in the present case.  Said complaints were docketed as Case No.
3972, against Leonardo T. Joson, et al., and Case No.
3976, against Migradel del Barrio Vda.
de Sinaguinan, both in the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija.  Needless to say, the matters objected to by
petitioners in the order of respondent
Secretary dated August 24, 1960,
being also involved in those cases, will be thoroughly ventilated therein, thus
affording petitioners full opportunity to present their side in accordance with
the requirements of due process.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed,
with costs against petitioners-appellants.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, and
Barredo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Of January 21, 1957.

^[2]
Filed on November 12, 1962.