PEDRO DE LA CONCHA, MARIO DE LA CONCHA, JOSE C. LOPEZ, J. LEON GONZALES, CONSUELO S. GONZALES-PRECILLA, JUANA F. GONZALES-DE LEON, MARIA C. GONZALES-HILARIO, FRANCISCO F. GONZAL…

The property in litigation is Lot
No. 2716 of the San Miguel (Bulacan) cadastre, covered
by free patent No. V-2309 and
certificate of title No. P-89 of the Bulacan
land registry, issued to defendant Irineo Magtira on October 20,
1952, in
accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 141 and Section 122 of Act No. 496.
Plaintiffs commenced this action on January 12,
1960,
praying (1) that the free patent be declared null and void; (2) that the
certificate of title be cancelled; and (3) that defendant be ordered to reconvey the land to plaintiffs and to pay them damages and attorney’s fees.

After defendant’s answer was
filed the parties entered into the following stipulation of facts and submitted
the case for decision on the basis thereof:

“1. Defendant admits that
plaintiffs Pedro de la Concha, Mario de la Concha and Jose C. Lopez are the sole heirs of Francisco de
la Concha, now deceased, and J. Leon Gonzalez,
Consuelo S. Gonzalez-Precilla, Juana F. Gonzalez de
Leon, Maria C. Gonzalez-Hilario, Francisco F. Gonzalez
and Concepcion A. Gonzalez-Virata are the only heirs
of Francisco J. Gonzalez, also deceased;

2. That parties hereby agree that
the land in controversy designated as Lot No. 2716, San Miguel Cadastre, is
situated in Sibul, San Miguel, Bulacan and is more particularly
described in Original Certificate of Title No. P-89 of the
Registry of Deeds of Bulacan in the name of
defendant. A certified true copy of said title consisting of three (3)
pages is hereto attached as Exhibit ‘A’ and made an integral part of this
stipulation;

3. That parties also agree that
the land in question was declared by this Honorable Court as the private
property of plaintiffs’ predecessors, Francisco de la Concha and Francisco J. Gonzales, in its decision dated
September 13,
1929, In
Exp. Cat. No. 13, G.L.R.O. Record No. 707, entitled ‘El Director de Terrenos vs. Francisco de la Concha,’ which has already be come
final and executory. A certified true copy of said
decision consisting of three (3) pages including the certificate of the Clerk of
Court is hereto attached as Exh. ‘B’and made an integral part hereof;

4. Plaintiffs admit that
defendant’s title, Exh. ‘A’ was issued by virtue of
his application for Free Patent hereto attached as Exh. ‘C’, the Order of Approval and Issuance of Patent
hereto attached as Exh. ‘D’(
and Free Patent No. V-2309 hereto attached as Exh. ‘E’, all of which are incorporated herein and made
integral parts of this stipulation;

5. The parties agree that the
land in question has been the subject of an administrative investigation in the
Bureau of Lands in B.L. Claim No. 47 (n), entitled ‘Francisco de la Concha, et al. vs. Irineo Magtira‘, which was decided by the Director of Lands on
November 25, 1959, but was appealed to the Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources by the respondent (defendant herein). However, action on said appeal
was suspended on account of the pendency of the
Instant case. A certified true copy of the aforesaid decision consisting of two
(2) pages is hereto attached as Exh. ‘F’ and made an
integral part hereof;

6. Defendant admits that all real
estate taxes for the land in controversy has been paid
by plaintiffs until the year 1950 as shown by the Certification of the Municipal
Treasurer of San Miguel Bulacan, which is hereto
attached as Exh. ‘G’ and made an integral part here
of. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, admit that after defendant’s title was issued
in 1952 all real estate taxes for said property were paid by the
defendant.

7. For purposes of this
stipulation and to further abbreviate the proceedings, the parties hereby fix
the annual yield of the land in question at P500.00.”

On July 21,
1961 the
trial court rendered judgment as follows:

In view of all the foregoing,
judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

(1) that
the land in controversy be, as it is, hereby declared as the private property of
the plaintiffs with the right of its immediate possession;

(2) that
the Free Patent No. V-2309 and the corresponding Original
certificate of Title No. P-89 be, as they are,
hereby declared null and void and, therefore, should be
cancelled;

(3) that defendant shall pay to
the plaintiffs, as damages, the sum of P250.00 annually from the year 1953 until
the possession of the property in question has been duly surrendered to the
plaintiffs, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this
decision, and be cause of the payment of land taxes by defendant from 1952,
whatever amounts paid by him from the year up to the present should be
correspondingly deducted from the total amount of the damages awarded in favor
of plaintiffs; and

(4) defendant shall further pay the plaintiffs the sum of P400.00
as attorney’s fees and the costs of the
suit.”

Defendant interposed the present
appeal on a lone assignment of error that the judgment of the trial court is
contrary to the doctrine of indefeasibility of title. He invokes several Supreme
Court decisions which hold that once a homestead patent granted according to the
Public Land Act is registered pursuant to Section 122 of Act 496, the title
becomes as irrevocable as a Torrens title itself, and therefore is not subject
to review except within one year from the entry of the decree, and then only on
the ground of fraud, as provided in Section 38.

It should be noted, however, that
in every one of the cases relied upon by appellant the dispute involved
“disposable” land, that is, land that formed part of the public domain at the
time the free patent therefor was issued. . And the
conflict was between the right of the patentee under the certificate of title
issued pursuant to the free patent and a right acquired under a subsequent
proceeding, as, for example, an attempted partition of the lot in a cadastral
proceeding, under Act No. 2259 ^[1] or the issuance of a
certificate of title in the name of the homesteader or his successors in a
subsequent cadastral proceeding, the property, in the meantime, having been
mortgaged ^[2] or sold ^[3] by the homesteader or his
successors, or the claim of an adverse claimant who charged that the homestead
patent was obtained through fraud and who sought to annul the decree after more
than one year from entry and issuance thereof.^[4] Or the controversy was
between the right under the homestead patent and an inferior right of another
over the land, such as a lessee’s right under a public lease contract registered
prior to the certificate of title of the homesteader^[5] or the right of a mere
homestead applicant.^[6]

Private ownership of land (as
when there is a prima facie proof of ownership like a
duly registered possessory information) is not
affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same land, because the Public
Land Law applies only to lands of the public domain. The Director of Lands has
no authority to grant to another a free patent for land that has ceased to be a
public land and has passed to private ownership.^[7] Consequently, a certificate
of title issued pursuant to a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a
certificate issued in a judicial proceeding only if the land covered by it is
really a part of the disposable land of the public domain.^[8]

In the case of
Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals and Braulio
Cosme, G.R. No. L-17696, May 19,
1966, the
Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that a certificate of title issued pursuant to
a decree of registration is on a “higher level” than a certificate of title
based on a patent issued by the Director of Lands.

In the instant case the parties
agree that as early as September 13, 1929 a decision was rendered against the
Director of Lands ^[9] declaring the land as the
private property of appellees‘ predecessors. Hence
when the homestead patent was issued In favor of appellant the land was no
longer “disposable” land. The Director had no authority to issue it and the
certificate of title based thereon is a nullity.

Contrary to appellant’s claim,
appellees have not been guilty of laches. They were in possession of the property from the
time they inherited it until appellant dispossessed them in 1952. They were
paying the real estate taxes up to the year 1950. Upon discovering that
appellant had secured a free patent and title over the property they immediately
filed a protest in the Bureau of Lands, asking for its cancellation. On
November 25,
1959 the
Director decided the case in favor of appellees.
Appellant appealed to the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. While
said appeal was pending appellees filed the present
suit in court. Far from indicating these laches, these
circumstances show vigilance on the part of appellees
in protecting their rights over the property.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is
affirmed, with costs against appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J. B. L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez
and Ruiz
Castro, JJ.,concur.

Barrera, J., on
leave.

^[1] Manalo
v. Lucban, 48 Phil. 973

^[2] El Hogar Filipino v. Olviga, 60 Phil.
17. Here the
mortgage had been foreclosed and the land sold at public auction before the
cadastral proceeding.

^[3] Remoso
v. Obligado, 70 Phil. 86.

^[4] Sumail
v. Court of First Instance of Cotabato, 96 Phil. 946;
Samonte v. Sambilon, G.R.
No. L-12964, Feb. 29,
1960.

^[5] Dagdag
v. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. L-12691, February 27,
1959.

^[6] Republic v. Heirs of Carle, G.R.
No. L-12485, July 31,
1959.

^[7] Garcia v. Director of Lands, 80
Phil. 474, citing Lacaste v. Director of Lands, 63
Phil. 654, and Lizada v. Omanan, 59 Phil. 547. m Vital v. Anore, 90 Phil. 855, the Court declared that the rule laid
down in Ramoso v. Obligado,
supra, that a home stead patent, once registered under the Registration Act,
becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title, is only true and correct if the
parcel of agricultural land patented or granted as homestead by the Government,
after the requirements of law have been complied with, was a part of the public
domain, but if it was private land, the patent granted and the Torrens title
issued upon the patent or homestead grant are a nullity.

^[8] Lucas v. Durian, G.R. No. L-7856, September 23,
1957, citing El Hogar Filipino, supra, and Ramoso
v. Obligado, supra. Appellant also relies on the
case of Republic v. Heirs of Carle, supra. But, as stated in the case of
Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals and Braulio
Cosme, supra, “the case of Director of Lands v. Heirs
of Ciriaco Carle, supra, was based upon that or Lucas
v. Durian, supra, and hence, its force as precedent is similarly limited to
lands of the public domain which are ‘disposable’ by the Director of Lands.”

^[9] In accordance with the ruling in
Nieto v. Quines, G.R. No. L-14643, September 29,
1962, the
Director of Lands is the predecessor-in-interest of appellant.