G.R. No. L-6614. November 29, 1954
BENITO AYZON, RECURRENTE Y APELANTE, CONTRA REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS, RECURRIDA Y APELADA.
PABLO, J.:
del Tribunal de Apelacion. Los hechos probados segun dicho Tribunal son:
“That the land in question is lot No. 4025 of the
Expediente No. 6, Record 483, situated in Labuan, Zamboanga City, and
described as follows—“Bounded on the
North, by lot No. 4027; on the east by lot No. 4026; on the south by
lots Nos. 4024 and 4023; and on the west, by the shore; .“That
in said lot No. 4025, there exist improvements mainly consisting of
fruit-bearing coconut trees which yield fruits estimated from 5 to 6
thousand every three months, and if converted into copra they would
produce 300 to 320 kilos per thousand;“That Lorenzo Ayson,
several years before 1924, had acquired by purchase from some Subanos
small parcels of land in Labuan, Zamboanga City, with the improvements
existing thereon;“That those parcels of land were surveyed by the surveyors of the Government, resulting into lot No. 4025, mentioned above;
“That lot No. 4025 was applied for by Lorenzo Ayzon in the Bureau of Lands as homestead (Homestead Application No. 31690);
“That
before the filing of the homestead application, Lorenzo Ayzon was
already in possession and occupation of this lot, planting it to
coconuts and other fruit-bearing trees;“That in August,
1927, Lorenzo Ayzon transferred his rights and interests and
participation over lot No. 4025 and its improvements in favor of his
son, defendant Benito Ayzon, who in turn continued possession and
occupation thereof, benefiting out of the existing improvements;“That Benito Ayzon has been paying the real estate taxes for said lot No. 4025;
“That
Benito Ayzon, after having acquired the land from Lorenzo Ayzon,
solicited the same and its improvement in concept of a homestead from
the Bureau of Lands, but this application has not been acted upon;“That
Benito Ayzon on September 2, 1941, had leased a portion of lot No. 4025
and its improvements to defendant Pura Enriquez (Exhibit “B”) who since
then occupied and worked on said portion up to the time when the
Director of Lands thru his representative entered into possession and
ordered Pura Enriquez to vacate said portion designated by letter “P”
on Exhibit “A”;“That on December 11, 1946, after the
liberation of Zamboanga by the Anierican Forces, defendant Benito Ayzon
again filed his homestead application with respect to Lot No. 4025
(Exhibit “E”), but said application also was not acted upon;“That
in Civil Case No. 56, the Municipal Court of Zamboanga City rendered
decision in favor of plaintiff Pura Enriquez (defendant in Civil Case
No. 181) and against said decision the Director of Lands, as thir4
party in Civil Case No. 56 appealed to the Court of First Instance;“That
the previous application of Lorenzo Ayzon had been cancelled by the
Director of Lands by virtue of an order dated January 22, 1938,
(Exhibits “F” and “I”), upon recommendation of the delegate inspector
of public lands, Raymundo C. German ‘(Exhibit “S”)’.“That
the ground for cancellation was that after investigation it was proven
that Lorenzo Ayzon was not directly interested in Lot No. 4025, but the
same was occupied by one Lee Sah, a Chinese citizen, who was the one benefiting of the improvements with the consent of Lorenzo Ayzon.“That
in accordance with Paragraph 12 of the Homestead Application (Exhibit
“E”) filed by Benito Ayzon with the Bureau of Lands, improvements of
said lot introduced by Lorenzo Ayzon and Benito Ayzon, one of the
defendants in Civil Case No. 181, with all the rights of occupation
were expressly renounced in favor of the Government by virtue of the
cancellation by the Director of Lands in his order of March 15, 1937,
and by his refusal to a’ct upon the homestead application filed by
Benito Ayzon (Exhibit “E”) as impliedly inferred by the filing of the
complaint in Civil Case No. 181.”
El recurrente contiende que el Tribunal de Apelacion incurrio en
error (1) al no declarar que el Director de Terrenos abuso de su
discretion al cancelar la solicitud de homestead sin notificar a la
parte interesada: y (2) al declarar que el lote No. 4025 es del dominio
publico bajo la administration y control del Director de Terrenos. La
orden del Director de Terrenos de 22 de enero de 1938, ordenando a Lee
Sah que vacase el lote, coniienza asi:
“On March 15, 1937, this office issued ex-parte an
order in connection with the Homestead Application No. 31690 (E-17403)
of Lorenzo Ayzon, as follows:‘As, upon investigation, it has been found that Lorenzo Ayzon is
not the one directly interested in the land covered by his Homestead
Application No. 31690 (E-17463), and that said land is actually
occupied by another person, said application its hereby cancelled.”
Con la cancelacion de la solicitud, la Oficina de Terrenos puede
privar al solicitante o a sus herederos de las mejoras hechas en el
lote y, en efecto, por medio de la demanda pressntada en la presente
causa, se pide que se dicte sentencia condenando a los demandados a
restituir la propiedad y la posesion del mismo.
El articulo 16 de la Ley del Commonwealth No. 141 dispone que “si en
cualquiera epoca antes de la expiration del plazo que concede la ley
para la presentation de la prueba den’nitiva se probare a satisfaction
del Director de Terrenos, previa notification al solicitante del homestead, que el terreno solicitado no esta sujeto, con arreglo a la ley, a ser registrado como homestead,
o que el solicitante ha cambiado su residencia, o que voluntariamente
ha abandonado el terreno por mas de seis meses consecutivos dentro de
los anos requeridos de residencia y de ocupacion, o que en alguna otra forma ha faltado o dejado de cumplir las condiciones requeridas por esta Ley, el Director de Terrenos podra cancelar la solicitud.”
Lorenzo Ayzon o sus herederos tienen derecho a ser notificados,
segun este articulo, de toda actuation sobre el lote solicitado. La
investigation ex-parte hecha por el Inspector de Terrenos a espaldas
del solicitante Lorenzo o herederos contraviene la disposicion expresa
de dicha ley. La base sobre que descansa el requisito de previa
notificacion es el principio bien establecido de que nadie debe eer
privado de sus derechos sin el debido proceso legal o sin ser antes
oido. La investigation irregularmente seguida por el Inspector indujo a
error al Director de Terrenos. No es este el primar caso en que por la
indebida conducta de un inspector de terrenos se cuestiona la actuacion
del Director de la Oficina de Terrenos.
En Garcia contra Carpio y otros, G. R. No. L-5105 (julio
27, 1953), se sostenia que el Director de Terrenoa expidio titulo de
homestead a favor de Carpio por maquinaciones de un inspector de
terrenos, en vez de expedirse. a favor del apelante Garcia a quien se
habia adjudicado el lote, Farm lot No. 5356, PIs-62, por la National
Land Settlement Administration en Mallig Plains, Isabela.
En Alejo y otros contra Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-7394,
(Res. enero 26, 1954), se contendia que se privd a los antiguos
ocupantes de varias porciones de terreno situado en Bubo Pond, barrio
San Fabian, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, cancelando la solicitud de
homestead de aquellos mediante falsos informes del inspector de
terrenoa para dar lugar a que otros nuevos solicitantes adquiriesen
derecho sobre dichas porciones. Estos casos y otros varioa que hemos
tenido oportunidad de conocer socavan la confianza del publico en la
Oficina de Terrenos.
La Oficina de Terrenos debe proceder con mucha cautela en la
cancelacion de solicitudes de homestead por recomendacion de los
inspectores de terrenos que suelen oir solamente a los nuevos
solicitantes, a espaldas de los antiguos. Las investigaciones ex-parte
frustran los buenos propositos de la Ley. La cancelacion de la
solicitud de homestead de Lorenzo Ayzon, en .contravencion del articulo
16 de la Ley del Commonwealth No. 141, es nula (Villegas vs. Juez
Roldan,[*] 42 Off. Gaz., 2830),
y el hecho de que no se haya apelado ante el Secretario de Agricultura
y Recursos Naturales no convalida la orden. La solicitud No. 31690, por
tanto, debe continuar sucurso ordinario, y cualquier accion que la
Oficina de Terrenos deseare tomar sobre la misma debe hacerse con
notificacion previa a los herederos de Lorenzo Ayzon. Declarada nula la
orden de cancelacion. La Oficina de Terrenos no tiene derecho a
recobrar la propiedad y posesion de! lote en litigio, sino la
obligacion de resolver la solicitud de homestead de Lorenzo Ayzon, de
acuerdo con las disposiciones de la ley citada.
Se declara nula y de ningun valor la orden de cancelacion de la
solicitud de homestead; se sobresee la demanda sin pronunciamiento
sobre costas.
Paras, Pres., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, y Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., estan conformes.
[1] 76 Phil., 349.