DAWALING SUMAIL, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF COTABATO, THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND MELQUIADES GEPULIANO, RESPONDENTS.

The land involved in the present case of certiorari is lot No. 3633 of the
cadastral survey of Dulawan, Cotabato. The facts of the case as may be gathered
from the pleadings are as follows. Before the court where cadastral proceedings
were had over the cadastre of Dulawan, Cotabato, three separate applicants
claimed lot No. 3633 as their private property. The Bureau of Lands and
Melquiades Gepuliano claimed it as public land. On June 9, 1941, said lot was
declared public land by the cadastral court.

On January 5, 1940, herein respondent Gepuliano had filed a free patent
application for said lot No. 3633. His application was approved on August 10,
1943 and Free Patent No. V-459 was finally issued to him on September 26, 1949,
which Patent was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds in June,
1950, which office thereafter issued to him Original Certificate of Title
V-23.

On June 3, 1952, Gepuliano filed Civil Case No. 413 in the Court of First
Instance of Cotabato against petitioner Dawaling Sumail, alleging among other
things that he was the owner of the lot in question by virtue of a Free Patent
and an Original Certificate of Title; that he had been in possession of the land
since 1939 continuously, publicly, and adversely up to June, 1949, when Sumail
by means of force, threats and intimidation entered the parcel and divested him
of possession; that several demands had been made for the surrender of the
possession of the land which demands defendant had rejected. The complaint
prayed that the defendant be ordered to vacate the premises and to pay damages
and costs.

On June 21, 1952, defendant Sumail answered the complaint alleging that he
and his predecessor-in-interest had been in continuous possession of the land
since shortly before the end of the Spanish regime, and that the Certificate of
Title of Gepuliano had been obtained fraudulently, and he asked that the
complaint be dismissed, with costs.

On July 27, 1952, and said to be intended as counter-complaint to Civil Case
No. 413, Sumail, defendant in said case, filed Civil Case No. 420 in the same
court against Gepuliano and the Director of Lands for the purpose of cancelling
Certificate of Title V-23 covering lot 3633, alleging that Gepuliano thru fraud
and misrepresentation had filed with the Bureau of Lands a falsified application
for free patent for the lot, stating in his application that the parcel was not
occupied or claimed by any other person and that he had entered upon it and
introduced improvements thereon, when as a matter of fact, said applicant
Gepuliano had never occupied the land nor introduced improvements thereon, and
that it was he (Sumail) who had been in possession since shortly before, the end
of the Spanish regime; and that the Director of Lands through mistake or
inadvertence had approved the application and later issued Free Patent V-459 by
virtue of which Certificate of Title V-23 was issued in the name of Gepuliano.
Sumail asked that the original certificate of title be cancelled; that the
Director of Lands give due course to Sumail’s free patent application over said
parcel and that Gepuliano pay damages, including attorney’s fees.

Answering the complaint in Civil Case No. 420 the Director of Lands stated
that lot No. 3633 had been declared public land by the Court of First Instance
of Cotabato that Gepuliano had filed a free patent application for it, which
application was given due course and later approved and still later the
corresponding Patent was issued on the basis of which Original Certificate of
Title V-23 was issued in the name of Gepuliano. The Director of Lands asked that
the complaint be dismissed as to him. Gepuliano also answered the complaint of
Sumail, claiming that the latter took possession of the lot only in July, 1949
and he prayed that the complaint be also dismissed as against him.

By agreement of the parties the two civil cases, Nos. 413 and 420 were
ordered to be tried jointly. When called for joint hearing on March 25, 1954,
the Director of Lands filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 420 on the ground
that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint;
that the complaint of Sumail was premature and that he (Sumail) had no legal
personality to institute the action. The Director of Lands contended that the
complaint of Sumail called for the cancellation of a free patent issued by the
Director of Lands over a parcel of public land and that the court had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter because under the Public Land Act, the
Director of Lands had executive control over the concession or disposition of
the lands of the public domain, and that his findings as to questions of fact
shall be conclusive when approved by the Secretary of the Department; that
Sumail had filed a protest against the free patent application of Gepuliano and
the issuance of the patent to him, and that said protest had been ordered
Investigated by the corresponding District Land Officers who had not yet filed
his report, and that until said report is filed and the Director of Lands has
made a decision on the protest and until Sumail, if dissatisfied with the said
decision has exhausted his remedy such as appeal to the Secretary of the
Department, it was premature for him to file an action in court; that under the
Public Land Act only the Solicitor-General or his representative is authorized
to file reversion proceedings and that consequently, Sumail had no personality
to file the said action which would, if successful, result in the reversion of
the parcel in question to the public domain; and that even if such reversion
took place, Sumail would not get the land any way because it would still remain
for the Director of Lands to determine who of the public land applicants is
entitled to the same.

Acting upon this motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 420, the Court of First
Instance of Cotabato issued an order on May 26, 1954, stating that lot No. 3633
was public land; that it was applied for free patent by defendant Gepuliano and
the corresponding Patent had been issued to him; that it does not appear from
the complaint of Sumail that he had exhausted all the remedies available to him
such as an appeal to the Secretary of the Department, and that the courts will
not interfere with the administration by the Bureau of Lands of the public
domain, and that consequently, the complaint should be dismissed, as in fact it
was ordered dismissed. Sumail moved for the reconsideration of the order of
dismissal. By order of July 27, 1954 said motion for reconsideration was denied.
To annul the order of dismissal as well as the order denying the motion to
reconsider the said order, the present petition for certiorari was filed.

We agree with the Director of Lands and the trial court that the latter had
no jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. 420 which was filed for the purpose
of cancelling the Patent issued by the Director of Lands on lot No. 3633 and
also for the cancellation of the Original Certificate of Title V-23 issued to
Gepuliano on the basis of his free patent. Under section 122 of Act No. 496
known as the Land Registration Act, when any public lands in the Philippines are
alienated, granted, or conveyed to persons or public or private corporations,
the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of the said Act and
shall become registered lands and that the instrument of conveyance in the form
of a Patent, before its delivery to the grantee shall be filed with the Register
of Deeds for registration, and that once registered therein a certificate of
title shall be issued as in other cases of registered land. That is the reason
why an original certificate of title was issued to Gepuliano sometime in 1950 on
the basis of his free patent issued in 1949.

In ordinary registration proceedings involving private lands, courts may
reopen proceedings already closed by final decision or decree, only when
application for review is filed by the party aggrieved within one year from the
issuance of the decree of registration. Here, there was no decree of
registration because instead of an application for registration under the Land
Registration Act Gepuliano applied for free patent under the Public Land Act.
Assuming that even in bringing public land grants under the Land Registration
Law, there is a period of one year for review in cases of fraud, how shall that
period of one year be computed? For all practical purposes we might regard the
date of the issuance of the patent as corresponding to the date of the issuance
of the decree in ordinary registration cases, because the decree finally awards
the land applied for registration to the party entitled to it, and the patent
issued by the Director of Lands equally and finally grants, awards, and conveys
the land applied for to the applicant. The purpose and effect of both decree and
patent is the same. Now, further assuming that Civil Case No. 420 of the Court
of First Instance of Cotabato filed by Sumail was intended as a petition for
review of the public land grant and conveyance to Gepuliano, on the ground of
fraud, was it filed within the period of one year? The answer is in the
negative. As already stated, free patent No. V-459 was issued in the name of
Gepuliano on September 26, 1949, while Civil Case No. 420 was filed in court
only on July 21, 1952, or almost three years after the issuance of the free
patent. It is, therefore, clear that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction
to entertain the complaint in Civil Case No. 420 for the reasons already stated,
but not as contended by the Director of Lands that it involved public land, over
which he had exclusive and executive control, because once the patent was
granted and the corresponding certificate of title was issued, the land ceased
to be part of the public domain and became private property over which the
Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction.

But even if we regard the action of Sumail in Civil Case No. 420, as an
action for reversion to the Government of the lot in litigation, under the
provisions of sections 91 and 124 of the Public Land Act, which provide for the
annullment of patents and titles previously issued, and the reversion of the
lands covered by them to the state, may he bring said action? Section 101 of the
same Act, says no. We reproduce said section:

“All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public
domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or
the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the
Commonwealth (Republic) of the Philippines.”

Under section 101 above reproduced, only the Solicitor General or the officer
acting in his stead may bring the action for reversion. Consequently, Sumail may
not bring such action or any action which would have the effect of cancelling a
free patent and the corresponding certificate of title issued on the basis
thereof, with the result that the land covered thereby will again form part of
the public domain. Furthermore, there is another reason for withholding legal
personality from Sumail. He doe’s not claim the land to be his private property.
In fact, by his application for a free patent, he had formally acknowledged and
recognized the land to be a part of the public domain; this, aside from the
declaration made by the cadastral court that lot 3633 was public land.
Consequently, even if the parcel were declared reverted to the public domain,
Sumail does not automatically become owner thereof. He is a mere public land
applicant like others who might apply for the same.

It may not be out of place to state here that the claim of Sumail that he and
his predecessor-in-interest had been in possession of the lot since shortly
before the end of the Spanish regime, would appear to be unfounded. According to
the allegations in the answer of respondent Gepuliano, not denied by Sumail,
before the cadastral court of Cotabato Sumail never claimed lot 3633 despite the
fact that he must have been aware of the cadastral survey thereof and the legal
notices issued before hearing. As already stated, the only claimants of said lot
before said cadastral court were Kalid Dadika, Aurelio Tangente and Hadji Datu
Samama Ampatuan who claimed it as their private property, while the Director of
Lands and Gepuliano claimed it as a public land. This must have been between
1940 and 1941 because it was on June 9, 1941 that the cadastral court declared
said lot public land. And, as already stated, Gepuliano had filed his free
patent application as early as January 8, 1940, and claimed that he had occupied
it since March, 1939.

In view of the foregoing, finding no error or abuse of excess of jurisdiction
by the respondent Judge of the lower court in issuing the order of dismissal as
well as the order denying the motion for reconsideration thereof, the present
petition for certiorari is hereby denied, with costs.

Pablo, Acting C. J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

Petition denied.