ESTANISLAO PANIMDIM, PETITIONER, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

On December 27, 1927, the Director of Lands rendered a joint
decision approving the free patent applications filed separately by
Joaquin Panimdim and Fulgencio Minalabag. Accordingly, Parcel A
containing an area of 9.000 hectares was adjudicated to Panimdim, white
Parcel B containing an area of 13.000 hectares was adjudicated to
Minalabag. The opposition interposed by Mariano De la Rosa to the
approval of said free patent applications was overruled.

Nevertheless, De la Rosa took steps to have said Parcels A and B
surveyed under his name as Lot No. 4, Psu-49596, and applied later for
their registration in his name before the Court of First Instance of
Camarines Sur. After due hearing, the Court denied the petition for
registration declaring said parcels of land as parts of the public
domain.

Meanwhile, Joaquin Panimdim was succeeded in his rights over Parcel
A by his son Estanislao, and after the former’s death, the latter
succeeded in having a patent issued in his name on July 8, 1957, the
register of deeds of Camarines Sur having issued in his favor Original
Certificate of Title No. 9040. But in issuing said certificate of
title, it was made to appear erroneously therein that it covers both
Parcels A and B although the late Joaquin Panimdim never possessed
Parcel B nor has laid any claim therefor thereby creating a trust in
favor of the heirs of Fulgencio Minalabag.

Mariano De la Rosa did not cease in asserting his claim not only
over Parcel B but also over a portion of Parcel A and so he again filed
a petition with the Director of Lands praying for the annulment of the
free patent issued in the name of Estanislao Panimdim claiming that the
latter if at all is only entitled to an area of about 4 hectares.
Acting on this petition, the Director of Lands ordered a new
investigation of the claim relative to the two parcels of land and in
the course thereof an ocular inspection was ordered which was carried
out by Deputy Public Land Inspector Augusto Corpuz. In this ocular
inspection, Inspector Corpuz interviewed several persons he found in
the premises although it is claimed that Estanislao Panimdim was not
notified thereof, nor given an opportunity to be present.

On March 20, 1959, Panimdim moved to dismiss the petition of Da la
Rosa, as well as to set aside whatever administrative action has been
taken thereon, en the ground tnat the Director cf Lands has already
lost jurisdiction over the parcel of land adjudicated to him inasmuch
as after the issuance of the patent covering the same in his favor the
land is deemed to have been segregated frcm the public domain and as
such it no longer comes under the jurisdiction of the Director of Lands.

On August 24, 1959, the Director of Lands rendered decision denying
the motion to dismiss and declaring the issuance of the patent in favor
of Panimdim erroneous and improper for it covers more area than what he
was entitled to. He stated that the “corresponding administrative
action to amend the said free patent and re-issue it for the arears
marked A only will be taken accordingly.”

Panimdim moved to reconsider the decision reiterating his plea that
the Director of Lands had no longer jurisdiction to reopen the case
relative to his patent because of the many years that have elapsed
since it was issued, but the motion was denied. In due time, he
appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and
when the decision of the Director of Lands was affirmed, he filed the
present petition for certiorari.

It appears that the free patent application of petitioner’s
predecessor-in-interest was approved by the Director of Lands on
December 27, 1927, and after petitioner had succeeded to the rights of
his father over the land a free patent was issued in his name on July
8, 1957, and thereafter Original Certificate of Title No. 904) was also
issued in his name by the register of deeds of Camarines Sur. But
because of a protest lodged by Mariano De la Rosa against the issuance
of the patent over Parcel A, the Director of Lands ordered a new
investigation in the course of which an ocular inspection was made
which was conducted by Land Inspector Augusto Corpuz. And
notwithstanding the opposition of petitioner on the ground that the
Director of Lands had no longer jurisdiction to act thereon because the
property had ceased to be a portion of the public domain, said official
rendered en August 24, 1959 a decision ignoring the opposition and
declaring the issuance of said patent over a portion of Parcel A “legally wrong and improper.”
The Director of Lands made manifest that corresponding administrative
action to amend said free patent and re-issue it to cover a smaller
area will be taken accordingly. Petitioner has now come pleading that
such administrate notion be prevented for being erroneous and illegal.

We find this stand in line with the ruling we recently laid down in the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Ciriaco Carle, et al., 105 Phil., 1227, the facts of which are on all fours with those of the present.

Thus, in said case a homestead patent was issued to the heirs of one
Ciriaco Carle on April 26, 1944 which was duly recorded in the office
of the register of deeds and for which a certificate of title was
issued in their favor on May 11, 1946. Seven years later, or on August
31, 1953, acting on the opposition of certain Maynardo Ilagan, the
Director of Lands declared aaid patent inoperative insofar as it covers
a portion designated as area A-2 and. adjudged the same in favor of the
oppositor, this decision having been affirmed by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources. Thereafter, the Director of Lands
filed an action with the Court of First Instance of Mindoro to have the
homestead patent declared null and void, to which the patentees
objected claiming that the action has already prescribed since more
than one year had elapsed since the issuance of the patent. This
objection was sustained, and on appeal this Court made the following
pronouncement:

“There is no controversy as to the fact that on May
11, 1946, the homestead patent in favor of the appellees heirs of
Chiaro Carle was duly registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds
of Mindoro and the corresponding certificate of title issued to them,
and that the order of the Director of Lands cancelling a part of the
homestead patent upon which the aforesaid certificate of title was
based was handed down on August 31, 1953, or after the lapse
of more than 7 years. Appellant, however, maintains that Section 38 of
the Land Registration Act providing for the prescriptive period of one
year within which to assail the correctness or validity of a
certificate of title is not controlling in the case at bar. It is
claimed that a homestead patent differs from a decree of restoration
obtained in an ordinary registration proceeding in many fundamental
ways, thus depriving the former of that indefeasible nature ordinarily
characteristic of the later.

“The flaw in this contention is
that appellant compares a homestead patent and a decree of
registration. But what is involved in the instant case is the
indefeasibility of the certificate of title issued after the homestead
patent has been duly registered pursuant to Section 122 of the Land
Registration Act (No. 496). As to this, the law is clear: ‘After due
registration and issue of the certificate And owner’s duplicate, such
land shall be registered land for all purposes under this Act.’ (Sec.
122). Consequently, the land automatically comes under the operation of
Sec. 88 of the same Act and subject to all the safeguards therein
provided. And this, too, is the constant doctrine laid down by this
Court in a long. line of adjudicated cases.

*       *       *       *       *       *       *

True,
it may be, as appellant alleges, that neither the Public Land Act (Com.
Act 141) nor the land Registration Law provides for the period within
which the certificate of title to a public land grant may be questioned,
but this does not necessarily sustain appellant’s contention that such
action may be brought within 10 years (Art. 1144, new Civil Code),
because this point has already been determined by this Tribunal-when we
held that:

‘A certificate of title issued
pursuant to a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate
issued as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, as long as the land
disposed of is really a part of the disposable land of the public
domain, and becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the
expiration of one year from the date of the issuance thereof (Lucas vs. Durian, G. R. No. L-7886, promulgated September 23, 1957)’

“But
appellant contends that as he is the official who exercises the power
to dispoee public lands, it necessarily follows that the right to
review a patent pertains to him. In support of his stand, he cites
Section 91 of Commonwealth Act 141. This view is correct but only as
long as the land remains a part of the public domain and still
continues to be under his exclusive and executive control. But 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, Court of First Instance, et al.,
supra.).

“The parties, however, are not without any remedy in law. As we have suggested:

‘If
patent has already been issued, allegedly through fraud or mistake and
had been registered, the remedy of the party who had been injured by the fraudulent registration is an action for reconveyance (Koco vn.
Gemida, 104 Phil., 1011, promulgated December 27, 1958).'”

Here the free patent covering Parcel A was issued to Estanislao
Panimdim on July 8, 1957 for which Original Certificate of Title No.
9010 was issued in his name by the register of deeds of Camarines Sur,
but on August 24, 1959 the Director of Lands, acting on a protest
interposed by Mariano de la Rosa, rendered a decision declaring the
issuance of the patent erroneous and ordering that an administrative
action be taken in order to amend the same and issue another reducing
the patent to merely four hectares. This the Director of Lands can no
longer do, considering that more than two years had elapsed since the
registration of the patent. As such, the same has already become
indefeasible and incontrovertible.

WHEREFORE, petition is granted. The decision of respondent Director of Lands of August 24, 1959 is hereby set aside. No costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.