ISIDRO C. NERY, AS REGIONAL LAND DIRECTOR OF NORTHERN MINDANAO, AND MACARIO D. YCARO, AS DISTRICT LAND OFFICER OF BUKIDNON, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. BERNARDO TEVES, AS JUDGE OF THE…

This is a petition to review a decision of the defunct Court of
First Instance of Misamis Oriental in Civil Case No. 3512.

On September 29, 1969, homestead patent No. 128020 was issued to
the heirs of Mauricio Merlas, the private respondents herein. On September 15, 1970, the patent was
registered with the Register of Deeds of Bukidnon and the corresponding
Original Certificate of Title No.
P-4579 was issued to the aforesaid heirs.

On May 11, 1970, Francisco
Torres filed a verified letter-protest with the District Land Officer (DLO) of Bukidnon, alleging that homestead patent No. 128020 was
obtained thru deceit and misrepresentation. On August 17, 1970, Regional Land
Director Isidro Nery directed DLO Macario
Ycaro to investigate the protest pursuant to Sec. 91 of the Public Land Act.

The Merlas siblings objected
to the investigation. They claimed that the DLO had no power to
conduct an investigation because the
land had been registered under Act No. 496. DLO Ycaro overruled the
objection and set the case for hearing on October 20, 1970. The siblings filed a petition for
prohibition in the Court below which
rendered the following judgment:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for petitioners,
ordering respondents Regional Land Director Isidoro C. Nery and District Land
Officer Macario D. Ycaro to desist absolutely and perpetually from proceeding with the investigation in
question.”

The legal issue was well stated by the trial court as
follows: “After the issuance of
the Homestead Patent and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title thereto,
may the Director of Lands conduct an investigation
to determine whether or not said Patent had been obtained through fraud
or misrepresentation, as a basis, if warranted, for bringing the appropriate action before the courts of
Justice?”

The petitioners assert that the answer is in the
affirmative. Upon the other hand, the
respondents, both public and private, insist on a negative answer. They invoke Sumail vs. Judge of the Court
of First Instance of Cotabato, 96 Phil. 946, 952 (1955) which states that
“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.”

The petition is highly impressed with merit.

Sec. 91 of the Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141, as amended) pro­vides
the following:

“Sec. 91. The statements made in the appli­cation
shall be considered as essential conditions and parts of any concession, title,
or permit issued on the basis of such application, and any false statement
therein or omission of facts altering, changing, or modifying the consideration
of the facts set forth in such statements, and any subsequent modification,
alteration, or change of the material facts set forth in the application shall
ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession, title, or permit
granted. It shall be the duty of the
Director of Lands, from time to time and whenever he may deem it advisable, to
make the necessary investigations for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
material facts set out in the application are true, or whether they continue to
exist and are maintained and preserved in good faith, and for the purposes of
such investigation, the Director of Lands is hereby empowered to issue
subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum and, if necessary, to obtain compulsory
process from the courts. In every
investigation made in accordance with this section, the existence of bad faith,
fraud, concealment, or fraud­ulent and illegal modification of essential facts
shall be presumed if the grantee or possessor of the land shall refuse or fail
to obey a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum lawfully issued by the Director of
Lands or his authorized delegates or agents, or shall refuse or fail to give
direct and specific answers to pertinent questions, and on the basis of such
presumption, an order of cancellation may issue without further
proceedings.”

It should be noted that the foregoing provision speaks, inter
alia, of the “cancellation of the concession, title, or
permit granted” (underscoring supplied) in respect of which the Director
of Lands can conduct an investigation. This Court has confirmed such power in the following cases:

“It is not only the right but the duty of the Director of
Lands to conduct the investigation complained of and to file the corresponding
court action for the reversion of the properties to the State, if the facts
disclosed in the course of the investigation so warrants.” (Cebedo vs.
Director of Lands, L­-12777, May 23, 1961, 2 SCRA 25, 29.)

“The mere fact that a patent and a title have already been
issued to defendant Calamba does not preclude administrative investigation by
the Direc­tor of Lands, who, if he finds that there was fraud in obtaining the
same, may himself or in representation of the Republic of the Philippines file
an appro­priate action for the cancellation of the patent and title or for the
reversion of the land to the public domain, as the case may be.” (Gamao
vs. Calamba, L-13349, 109 Phil. 542, 546, [1960].)

“Furthermore, a certificate of title based on a patent, even
after the expiration of one year from the issuance thereof, is still subject to
certain con­ditions and restrictions. As a matter of fact, in appro­priate cases and after prior
administrative investiga­tions by the Director of Lands, proper actions may be
instituted by said officials which may lead to the can­cellation of the patent
and title, and the consequent reversion of the land to the Government.”
(Nieto vs. Quines, L-14643, September 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 74, 81.)

The trial court’s decision is based on a misconception of Sumail. That case simply means that once a patent is
granted and the corresponding certificate of title is issued the Director of
Lands has no power to revoke or cancel them. It does not follow that the Director of Lands cannot conduct an
investigation for the purpose of filing an action for reversion in court.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the judgment under review is hereby set aside with no costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

De Castro, J., no part.