PEDRO LEE HONG HOK, SIMEON LEE HONG HOK, ROSITA LEE HONG HOK AND LEONCIO LEE HONG HOK, PETITIONERS, VS. ANIANO DAVID, THE HON. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, TH…

Lee Hong Hok versus David

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Lee Hong Hok family against Aniano David and the public land officials, asking the Supreme Court to annul a Torrens certificate of title issued to David over a parcel of reclaimed land in Naga City. The petitioners claim the lot by accretion and insist that the patent and title in David's favor are void. The case matters because it gathers into one decision three enduring public land rules: only the government may attack a void patent, public land cannot pass to private persons without a grant from the state, and a certificate of title founded on a public land patent becomes indefeasible after one year.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a complaint in the trial court to have David's Torrens title declared null and void. The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, through then Justice Salvador Esguerra, affirmed the dismissal. The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court by appeal by certiorari, assigning three errors against the affirmance. The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Fernando, affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Facts

Aniano David filed a miscellaneous sales application over Lot 2892, containing 226 square meters, a portion of Lot 2863 of the Naga Cadastre. The application was merely a renewal of the application of his deceased wife, who had occupied the land since 1938. The notices of the auction sale were published, and the sale and award were open and public official acts.

On June 18, 1958, the Director of Lands issued an order of award and for the issuance of a sales patent. On August 26, 1959, the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. V-1209. On October 21, 1959, the Register of Deeds of Naga City issued Original Certificate of Title No. 510 in David's name.

Throughout the proceedings on David's application, up to the issuance of the patent, the petitioners never filed any opposition or adverse claim. The Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources consistently treated the lot as public land formed by reclamation. The petitioners, on the other hand, claimed it as their own through accretion, a claim the Court of Appeals rejected on the facts.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting the petitioners' claim that the disputed lot passed to them by accretion.
• Whether or not a private party, as distinguished from the government, may bring an action to cancel a certificate of title issued pursuant to a patent.
• Whether or not the certificate of title issued to David on the basis of a public land patent had already become indefeasible.

Applicable Provisions

Section 38 of Act No. 496, the Land Registration Act, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Under Section 38 of Act 496 any question concerning the validity of the certificate of title based on fraud should be raised within one year from the date of the issuance of the patent.

This one-year period is the measure of the petitioners' remedy, and because they allowed it to lapse without objection, David's title became indefeasible.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the finding of the Court of Appeals that the lot was formed by reclamation, and not by accretion, is a factual finding that the petitioners cannot overturn. The first assigned error therefore deserved no further consideration.

On the second issue, the Court held that only the government, represented by the Director of Lands or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, may bring an action to cancel a void certificate of title issued pursuant to a void patent. The Court restated the principle from Maninang versus Consolacion:

The fact that the grant was made by the government is undisputed. Whether the grant was in conformity with the law or not is a question which the government may raise, but until it is raised by the government and set aside, the defendant can not question it. The legality of the grant is a question between the grantee and the government.

The Court also explained the distinction between the state's imperium, its authority as sovereign, and its dominium, its capacity to own and dispose of property in a proprietary character. As to unappropriated public lands, the Court affirmed that the sole power of legislation is vested in Congress, and that such lands remain public until severed by a state grant. Since the lot was reclaimed land, it was public land, and no public land can be acquired by private persons without a grant, express or implied, from the government.

On the third issue, the Court held that a certificate of title based on a public land patent automatically comes under the Land Registration Act and becomes indefeasible after one year. The petitioners never opposed the application, so their remedy, if any, was an action for reconveyance on the ground of fraud, which the courts below found absent because everything was done in the open.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain three rules. First, only the government, through the Director of Lands or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, may sue to cancel a void certificate of title issued under a void patent; a private party without a registered right cannot do so. Second, land of the public domain remains public until severed by a grant from the state, and no public land can be acquired by private persons without such a grant, express or implied. Third, under Section 38 of Act No. 496, a certificate of title based on a public land patent becomes indefeasible one year after issuance, and any question of fraud must be raised within that period.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution, with costs against the petitioners.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the legality of a grant is a question between the grantee and the government, and that a public land patent ripens into an indefeasible title after one year. Examiners use this case to test who may attack a void patent and when a Torrens title founded on a public land grant can no longer be disturbed.