FAUSTO SENDRIJAS, REPRESENTED BY HERMOGENES M. RECAMADAS, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF TOMAS C. LIBA, SR., REP. BY HIS WIFE NATIVIDAD LIBA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM (REP. BY FE…

Sendrijas versus Heirs of Tomas C. Liba, Sr

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Fausto Sendrijas, represented by Hermogenes M. Recamadas, against the Heirs of Tomas C. Liba, Sr., represented by his widow Natividad Liba, with the Department of Agrarian Reform impleaded. Sendrijas claims that a five-hectare portion of Lot No. 1188 in Talacogon, Agusan del Sur, which he says he has cultivated since 1975, was erroneously included in the homestead title issued to the Liba family. He asks that the title be cancelled or amended. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the whole law of homestead patents: their indefeasibility after one year, the ban on their collateral attack, the prohibition on alienation within five years, and the rule that land fraudulently included in a patent reverts to the State, not to the claimant.

Procedural History

Sendrijas filed a complaint for cancellation or amendment of title with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office in San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. On November 4, 2004, Regional Adjudicator Jimmy V. Tapangan ruled in his favor, ordering the Register of Deeds to correct the title so as to show only three hectares in the name of Tomas Liba, Sr., and directing the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office to screen and qualify other beneficiaries for the remaining area, including Sendrijas if qualified, and to generate certificates of land ownership award. The private respondents appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. On April 23, 2012, the Board reversed, set aside the adjudicator's decision, and dismissed the case for lack of merit. Sendrijas then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review under Rule 43.

Facts

Sendrijas says he has been the actual claimant, possessor, and cultivator of about five hectares of Lot No. 1188, a parcel of roughly seven and one-third hectares in Nurica, Del Monte, Talacogon, Agusan del Sur, since 1975. His brother-in-law, Hermogenes M. Recamadas, joined him in 1984. On April 27, 1989, an original certificate of title, numbered D-491, covering the entire area was issued in the name of Tomas C. Liba, Sr., the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, pursuant to Homestead Patent No. 06408.

Sendrijas brought the matter to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of Talacogon. This led to a Mutual Agreement dated August 10, 1989, in which Liba reiterated his demand for cancellation of Lot No. 1188 as erroneously entered in his name, warranted that Sendrijas was the true and lawful cultivator and allocatee, and confessed that he was really an applicant of Lot No. 1186, praying that title to that lot be issued in his name instead. On October 10, 1990, the two signed another agreement in which Liba acknowledged that Sendrijas was a part-owner of the land covered by title D-491 and owned a total of five hectares therein, binding also their heirs and successors.

Because the agreement did not materialize, Sendrijas filed the complaint on May 27, 2004. The respondents admitted his cultivation for a time but claimed that in 1981 he and his family left for Bohol, permanently abandoning the land. They admitted the agreements but said they learned of them only upon the filing of the case, and they questioned Recamadas's authority, noting that he was already an awardee of an adjacent lot.

Issues

• Whether or not the case is a tenancy dispute between a landowner and his tenants.
• Whether or not the original certificate of title issued pursuant to a homestead patent had become indefeasible and was no longer open to collateral attack when the complaint was filed.
• Whether or not the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board had jurisdiction over an action to cancel or amend the title.
• Whether or not the disputed portion, if erroneously included in the homestead patent, may be conveyed directly to the petitioner.

Applicable Provisions

Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, the Public Land Act, provides:

Section 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 Commonwealth of the Philippines.

This fixes the State, through the Solicitor General, as the only proper plaintiff to recover public land fraudulently awarded, which is why the petitioner cannot ask that the land be given to him.

Section 118 of the same Act, as discussed in the decision, prohibits any encumbrance or alienation of lands acquired under the homestead provisions from the date of approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant. The Court held that an examination of whether the agreements violated this prohibition is imperative, since a violation makes the patent itself susceptible to cancellation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the petitioner that this is not a tenancy dispute, because tenancy was never even alleged. What the records show is the alleged erroneous inclusion of a portion of land in the title issued to the respondents' predecessor.

On the second issue, the Court held that once a homestead patent granted in accordance with law is registered, the certificate of title issued by virtue of it has the force and effect of a Torrens title. Citing Heirs of Simplicio Santiago versus Santiago and Buston-Arendain versus Gil, the Court ruled that such a title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from its issuance, and is not susceptible to collateral attack. Since the title was issued on April 27, 1989, and the complaint was filed only on May 27, 2004, the action was already time-barred.

On the third issue, the Court held that the complaint was filed before a tribunal without jurisdiction. Actions for reconveyance, cancellation of title, or quieting of title fall under cases involving title to or possession of real property, which under Batas Pambansa 129 belong to the regular courts, not to the agrarian adjudicator and not to the Land Registration Authority.

On the fourth issue, the Court stressed that while certificates of title are indefeasible and binding against the whole world, they do not create or vest title; they merely confirm or record title already existing. They cannot shield fraud or enrich one person at the expense of another. But the five-hectare portion cannot simply be conveyed to the petitioner. Lands under homestead patents come from the public domain, and if the portion was erroneously included, it must revert to the State. Only the Solicitor General may bring the reversion action, and the Statute of Limitations does not run against the State. It is in that action that the agreements between the parties may properly be threshed out.

Doctrine

• A certificate of title issued pursuant to a registered homestead patent has the force and effect of a Torrens title and becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from its issuance; it cannot be attacked collaterally.
• Actions for cancellation of title or quieting of title fall within the jurisdiction of the regular courts under Batas Pambansa 129, not the agrarian adjudicator.
• A Torrens certificate does not vest title; it only confirms title already existing, and cannot be used as a shield for fraud.
• Where public land is fraudulently or erroneously included in a homestead patent, the land reverts to the State, and only the Solicitor General, in the name of the Republic, may sue for reversion under Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141; the Statute of Limitations does not run against the State.
• Alienations of homestead land within five years from issuance of the patent violate Section 118 of the Public Land Act and render the patent susceptible to cancellation.

Disposition

The petition was denied, without prejudice to any appropriate reversion action the Republic, through the Solicitor General, may take against the title, and copies of the decision were ordered furnished to the Office of the Solicitor General.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a homestead title is indefeasible after one year, and land fraudulently included in it reverts to the State through the Solicitor General, never to the claimant. Examiners use this case to test the one-year indefeasibility rule, the jurisdictional line between agrarian adjudicators and regular courts, and the reversion rule under Section 101.