SOL SAMONTE, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. JUANA SAMBILON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. LUIS DESCALLAR, AND RAMON TIGLE, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Plaintiffs brought this action against defendants before the Court
of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur to recover the possession of
three lots situated in Atimonan, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, which were
covered by Torrens title.

Defendants Ramon Tigle and Luis Descallar claim to be the owners of
the lots respectively occupied by them having acquired them from one
Numeriano Acasio in 1951, while Juana Sambilon claims that she is
occupying a portion different from the lots in questions. Felix
Temporada in turn merely claims to be a tenant of his co-defendant Luis
Descallar. Defendants set up the common defense that the titles that
were issued to plaintiffs over the lots in question by the Bureau of
Lands are null and void because they were obtained by them through
fraud and, misrepresentation. By way of counterclaim, they asked for
damages and attorney’s fees.

After trial, the court rendered judgment (1) ordering the relocation
of the boundaries of the lots in question to determine whether the
portion occupied by Juana Sambilon is covered by the lots claimed by
plaintiffs; (2) declaring plaintiffs entitled to the immediate
possession of the lots respectively owned by them and ordering Luis
Descallar, Ramon Tigle and Felix Temporada to vacate them; and (3)
granting defendants Ramon Tigle and Luis Descallar the right to amend
their answer by including therein a claim for the value of the
improvements they have introduced on the lots in question within 15
days from receipt of the decision with the understanding that if they
should fail to do so this privilege will be deemed waived.

Defendants brought this case on appeal directly to this Court upon the plea that only questions of law are involved.

Plaintiffs Sol Samonte and Rustico Samonte are the sons of Felino
Samonte who died on December 28, 1951. In 1944, they applied for
homestead patents for lots Nos. 5338, 5339 and 5340 with the Bureau of
Lands. On September 4, 1950, Original Certificate of Title No. P-100
covering Lot No. 5340 was issued to Rustico Samonte and Original
Certificate of Title No. P-101 covering Lot No. 5339 was issued) to
Felino Samonte, and on October 4, 1950 Original Certificate of Title
No. P-197 covering Lot No. 5338 was issued to Sol Samonte. In 1950,
they entered into contracts with some tenants to work the lands with
the understanding that for the first two years they will not share in
the produce that might be harvested, but in 1953 their tenants informed
them that they had been driven out of the lands by some squatters among
whom were Luis Descallar and Ramon Tigle; and because the latter did
not withdraw notwithstanding the intervention of the chief of police,
plaintiffs brought the present action.

The question to be determined is whether appellants can question at
this late hour the validity of the homestead patents issued by the
Bureau of Lands to appellees covering the lots in question upon the
ground that they obtained the same through fraud and misrepresentation.
The trial court resolved the question in the negative holding that
since a homestead patent for which a certificate of title is issued has
the same effect and validity as a Torrens title, the same cannot be
collaterally attacked. Appellants now assign this as error.

We find no error in the ruling of the trial court. In El Hogar Filipino vs.
Olviga, 60 Phil., 17, we held that “Once a homestead patent, issued
according to the Public Land Act, is registered in conformity with the
provisions of section 122 of Act No. 496, it becomes irrevocable and
enjoys the same privilege as Torrens titles issued under the latter
Act.” (See also Aquino vs. Director of Lands, 39 Phil., 850; Manalo vs.
Lukban and Liwanag, 48 Phil., 973.) On the other hand, we also held
that “As the land in dispute is covered by plaintiff’s Torrens
certificate of title and was registered in 1914, the decree of
registration can no longer be impugned on the ground of fraud,, error,
or lack of notice to defendant, as more than one year has already
elapsed from the issuance and entry of the decree. Neither could the decree be collaterally attacked by any person claiming title to, or interest in, the land prior to the registration proceedings” (Sorongon us. Makalintal, 45 Off. Gaz., 3819; See also G. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., vs. Quirino Bolaños, 95 Phil., 106; Aguilar, et al. vs. Caoagdan, et al., 105 Phil., 661; 56 Off. Gaz. [28] 4546; Henderson vs. Garrido, et al., 90 Phil., 624; Italics supplied).

It appearing that the homestead patents, the validity of which
appellants are now seeking to impugn collaterally in this proceeding,
were issued way back in 1950, or more than four years prior to the
institution of the present case, it is evident that their claim that
the trial court erred in not sustaining their theory that said patents
are null and void, has no legal basis. The remaining alternative is
that they have to yield the possession of the lands to appellees who,
by virtue of the ruling of the Director of Lands, are the ones entitled
to their possession. They should, however be given an opportunity to
prove the value of the improvements they have introduced thereon, as
was granted them by the trial court, which however failed to set a date
for the presentation of the necessary evidence apparently through an oversight.

The decision appealed from is affirmed, with the only modification
that appellants should be given an opportunity to present evidence on
the value of the improvements they have made on the lands on a date to
be set by the trial court. No pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J. Bengzon, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.