G.R. No. L-14641. November 23, 1960
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT VS. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.
BARRERA, J.:
First Instance of Oriental Mindoro a petition alleging, inter alia, that on
April 28, 1955, respondent Eustaquio de Luna filed with his office, an
application for free patent over a parcel of land, designated as Lot No. 4422,
Cad. No. 200 Ext, in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, claiming that he (de Luna) is in
actual occupation of said land, having acquired it from Eusebia and Bemardina
Castillo, who had been in possession and cultivation thereof since 1943; that
relying on the statements made by respondent de Luna in his said application
that his occupation of the land was made prior to July 4, 1945, he (Director)
approved it as Free Patent Application No. V-35154 (Er-V-21291), on September 7,
1955, and thereafter gave it due course; that on October 4, 1955, he issued Free
Patent No. V-21168 for the land, in favor, and in the name of respondent, and
the same was transmitted to the Register of Deeds of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro,
who registered it and issued the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No.
P-1537, in accordance with Section 122 of Act No. 496; that, subsequently, upon
complaint made by one Igmedio Gaa against said free patent issued to respondent,
he conducted an investigation thereon and, from the result thereof, it was found
that respondent and his alleged predecessors-in-interest, have never been in
occupation of the land covered by the patent and title, but on the contrary, it
is in the actual and exclusive cultivation of said Igmedio Gaa, who has been in
possession thereof since prior to the last war up to the’present, openly,
adversely, and in the concept of an owner; that said patent and title were
issued to respondent by virtue of his said application, which was approved and
given due course due to respondent’s misrepresentation and false statements made
in said application; and that inasmuch as respondent is not entitled to a free
patent, on account of his failure to fulfill the conditions prescribed by the
Public Land Act, said patent and title issued to him for the land, are null and
void. Petitioner prayed in his complaint that judgment be rendered declaring
null and void said patent and title issued to respondent.
Respondent, on April 16, 1958, filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground that
petitioner has no legal capacity to sue, the real party in interest being
Igmedio Gaa, whose rights are adversely affected by the issuance of said patent
and title to him (respondent). On June 2, 1958, petitioner filed an opposition
to said motion to dismiss, which opposition was duly answered by respondent on
June 30, 1958.
On August 16, 1958, the court dismissed the petition, in an order which in
part reads:
“The allegations contained in the petition clearly shows that the action for
the reversion of the lot in question to the government is premised on the ground
of false representation. However, actions instituted pursuant to Sec. 101 of the
Public Land Act must be in the name of the (Commonwealth) Republic of the
Philippines and prosecuted by the Solicitor General. Since the present petition
is instituted in the name of the Director of Lands, it stands to reason that the
petition is fundamentally defective. Hence, under Rule 8, the petition should be
dismissed, on the ground that the Director of Lands is not legally authorized to
institute the present petition.”
On September 3, 1958, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of said
order, but the same was denied by the court on September 30, 1958. Hence, this
appeal.
The only issue to be resolved in this appeal is whether petitioner had the
authority to file the petition in question.
It is not disputed that the free patent to the land in question was issued to
respondent on October 4, 1955, on the basis of which Original Certificate of
Title No. P-1537 was, likewise, issued to him, pursuant to Section 122 of the
Land Registration Act.[1] Well settled is
the rule that once the patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of
title is issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes
private property over which the Director of Lands has neither control nor
jurisdiction. (Sumail vs. Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Cotabato, et al., 96 Phil., 946; 51 Off. Gaz., [5] 2413; Republic vs.
Heirs of Ciriaco Carle, 105, Phil, 1231).
There is, likewise, no controversy as to the fact that the present action was
instituted by petitioner on gebruary 19, 1958, or more than 2 years after the
issuance of the’ aforementioned free patent to respondent, or more thati 1 year
after the expiration of the 1-year period provided in Section 38 of the Land
Registration Act for review of a certificate of title, on the ground of fraud. A
public land patent when registered in the corresponding register of deeds
office, Is a veritable torrens title (Dagdag vs. Nepomuceno, 105-Phil.,
216; 56 Off. Gaz., [48] 7294) and becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title
(Ramoso vs. Obligado, 70 Phil., 86), upon the expiration of 1 year from
the date of the issuance thereof (Lucas vs. Durian, G.R. No. L-7886,
prom. September 23, 1957). As such it can no longer be cancelled or annulled. In
the Sumail case (supra), we stated:
“We agree with the Director of Lands and the trial court that the latter had
no1 jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. 420[2] 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 r shall be issued as in other cases of registered land. That is the reason
why an original certificate of title was issued to Gepulinao sometime in 1950 on
the basis of his free patent issued in 1949.*******
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.”
Notwithstanding the aforementioned doctrine of inde-feasibility of a torrens
title after the expiration of the 1-year period provided in Section 38 of the
Land Registration Act, Section 101 of the Public Land Law[3] provides a remedy whereby lands of the
public domain fraudulently awarded to the applicant may be recovered or reverted
back to its original owner, the Government. Said section provides that:
“Sec. 101. 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 Republic (Commonwealth) of the Philippines.”
It is quite clear from the provision just quoted that actions for reversion
of public lands fraudulently awarded are to be instituted by the Solicitor
General or the officer acting in his stead, and that the same must be brought in
the name of the Republic of the Philippines. (See Sumail case,
supra.)
In support of the view that petitioner may bring the present action, he cites
Section 91 of the Public Land Law. Suffice it to say that said provision is only
applicable where the patent or title is sought to be cancelled or annulled, for
having been procured through fraud or misrepresentation, prior to the expiration
of the 1-year period provided in Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, from
its issuance and registration, and not where, as in the instant case, said
period had already elapsed.
However, we note that petitioner’s error in this case is merely one of form
which is non-prejudicial. In furtherance of justice, and to the end that the
real matter in dispute between the parties may be completely determined in this
proceeding (Sec. 2, Rule 17, Rules of Court), we have decided to remand this
case to the court of origin for further proceedings, allowing petitioner to
amend his pleadings accordingly, in compliance with the requirement of law.
Without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Case remanded to lower court for further proceedings
[1] Act No. 496 as amended.
[2] Filed almost 3 years after the
issuance of the Free Patent.
[3] Comm. Ace No. 141, as
amended.