G.R. No. 66866. June 18, 1987
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MINDA DE PORKAN, SADIN MARAUG, GORGONIO BERMUDEZ, LOLITA MACATINDOG, MEDORI DE PORKAN, JUAN ARANGALI, ANTONINA ESTARES, REGISTER OF …
FERNAN, J.:
In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, thru the
Solicitor General, seeks the reversal of the decision[1]
of the Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, dated February 29,
1984, which affirmed the joint decision[2]
of the then Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch
I [Tagum] dismissing petitioner’s complaint in Civil
Cases Nos. 1247 and 1248 for cancellation of the Homestead Patent of private
respondent Minda de Porkan
and her successors-in-interest and the Free Patent of private respondent
Lolita Macatindog and her successors-in-interest,
respectively.
The undisputed facts appearing on the records are as follows:
The family of Sadin de Porkan, father of Medori and Macampon de Porkan, both native
Muslims of La Paz, Carmen, [formerly Panabo] Davao del Norte, had been in actual possession as owner
since the Spanish colonial period of a tract of land planted with coconuts
situated in said municipality.[3]
During the Tagum Cadastral Survey of July 22, 1937, this tract of land,
identified as Lots Nos. 1099 and 1546 were respectively allocated to Medori and Macampon de Porkan, the predecessors-in-interest of herein private
respondents.[4]
On April 30, 1953,
or sixteen [16] years after the Tagum Cadastral
Survey, Medori de Porkan
filed her Free Patent Application No. V-27162[5] over Lot No.
1099 containing an area of 16.2983 hectares.
The following day, or on May 1,
1953, Vicente J. Villena, Junior Public Lands Inspector, submitted a final
investigation report[6]
recommending that the patent be granted to Medori de
Porkan. The
report was subsequently endorsed for approval
to the Director of Lands on May 30,
1953 by Juan Tapales, Head, Special
Investigation Party, Davao,
who recommended that the entry of applicant be favorably confirmed and a free
patent be issued to Medori de Porkan,
thus:
“9. That the said land
has been surveyed, and the survey records are known as Tagum
Cad., Survey No. 25-B. It corresponds to Lots 1099, B.L. Case
No. 4, Cadastral Record No. 276 which was allocated to the herein applicant, Medori
de Porkan during the cadastral survey of Tagum.
“10. FURTHER REMARKS: Due to the long possession and occupation by Medori de Porkan of the land, who
also introduced considerable improvements thereon the undersigned believed
beyond reasonable doubt that she
is entitled to a free
patent. Information gathered from other persons, settlers and
homesteaders in the vicinity reveals that no other persons had been allowed to
have any interests in, rights to, the improvements now existing therein. Records show that the land applied for was
allocated to the herein application (sic) during the cadastral survey of Tagum, but the said applicant has not filed any application
for the land.”
Fifteen [15] years after,
or on November 12, 1968, Medori de Porkan relinquished her rights and interests over Lot No.
1099[7]
to her daughter, Lolita Macatindog, who thereafter
filed her own free patent application[8]
on November 14, 1968. The Free Patent
Application No. V-271162 of Medori de Porkan covering Lot No. 1099 was thereafter ordered transferred
to, recorded and given due course in the name of Lolita Macatindog
in an order dated February 8, 1971.[9]
On May 27, 1971, the
Director of lands approved the Free Patent Application of Lolita Macatindog and ordered that the said application be entered
in the records of the Bureau of Lands as Free Patent Entry No. 431343 and that
the corresponding Free Patent be issued in her favor over Lot No. 1099.[10]
Free Patent No. 488112 was issued to Lolita Macatindog
on June 7, 1971, and on July 13, 1971, she was issued
Original Certificate of Title No. P-9742[11]
over said Lot No. 1099.
On June 6, 1978, or after seven [7]
years from the issuance of the Free Patent, Lolita Macatindog
conveyed 60,000 sq. meters of said Lot No. 1099 to Juan Arangali
who secured Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-25142[12]
over said area. Transfer Certificate of
Title T-25143[13]
was issued for the remaining 102,983 sq. meters in the name of Lolita Macatindog.
On the other hand, Macampon de Porkan died before he could file any application and
improve Lot No. 1546 containing area of 15.2406 hectares allocated to him. In his stead, the Homestead Application No.
V-76456[14]
of Sadin Maraug, who showed
much interest in acquiring said tract of land, was accepted on May 1, 1953 on
the basis of the investigation report[15]
of Vicente J. Villena, Junior Public lands
Inspector, dated May 1, 1953, which was favorably endorsed by Juan Tapales, Head, Special Investigation Party, Davao, on May 31, 1953.
Sadin Maraug’s
homestead application was subsequently approved and recorded as Homestead Entry
No. V-68302[16]
in an order dated January 13, 1954
issued by Zoilo Castrillo,
Director of lands.
On June 1, 1971, or seventeen [17] years after the approval of his homestead application, Sadin Maraug sought authority
from the Director of Lands to transfer his rights over Lot No. 1546, and on
June 8, 1971, he executed a transfer of homestead rights in favor of Minda de Porkan. This was approved by Vicente A. Valdellon, Director of Lands, in an order dated December 3,
1971, which likewise ordered that the Homestead Application No. V-76456 of Sadin Maraug be recorded in the
name of the transferee, Minda de Porkan.[17]
Minda de Porkan
thereafter filed her Homestead Application No. V-76456.[18]
After she made a final proof on July 8,
1971, she was issued Homestead Patent No. 135029 approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources on December 8, 1971. On March
17, 1972, she was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-10095[19]
over Lot No. 1546.
In 1977, or after six [6] years from the issuance of the
homestead patent, Minda de Porkan
conveyed 80,000 sq. meters of Lot No. 1546 to Gorgonio
S. Bermudez who secured his Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-23598[20]
on September 26, 1977. Transfer Certificate No. T-23599[21]
was issued in the name of Minda de Porkan for the remaining 72,406 sq. meters.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Viola C. Azurin, a
resident of 629 Sta.
Ana Avenue,
Davao City,
obtained from the then Philippine Fisheries Commission on March 4, 1966, Ordinary Fishpond Permit No. F-5551-V[22]
covering an area of 20 hectares situated at La Paz, Panabo
[now Carmen], Davao del Norte, described and indicated
in the sketch on the sheet[23]
attached to permit, subject to the additional rules on the next page[24]
and, among others, to the following terms and conditions:
“4. Upon the expiration
of the permit or upon its cancellation, all permanent improvements on the area
shall pass to the ownership the Government without any obligation on the part
of said Government to indemnify or reimburse the holder of the permit therefor.
“5. The decision of the
commissioner of Fisheries as to the exact location of the boundary lines of the
area shall be accepted as final.
“This permit will expire on December 31, 1966 or at an earlier
date under the conditions stated
in Rules 10, 11 and 12 hereof”.
Thereafter, Viola C. Azurin had the
area surveyed by Geodetic Engineer Roman F. Joaquin, a private surveyor, who
found out that her fishpond permit actually covered 33.6586 hectares, and not
20.0 hectares.[25]
On November 29, 1967,
Geodetic Engineer R. F. Joaquin prepared and submitted for approval by the
Director of Lands the allegedly corrected plan of the land [fishpond][26]
but the same was not approved by the Director of Lands.
On January 17, 1968,
the spouses Condi Mama and Cadingaga Mora, both
native Muslims of La Paz, Panabo [Carmen], Davao del Norte, sold to Viola C. Azurin,
their rights and interests over all the nipa plants
and improvements in the parcel of land covered by Viola C. Azurin’s
Fishpond Permit No. F-5551-V for and in consideration of P3,500.00.[27]
On March 1, 1968, Viola C. Azurin filed
with the Bureau of lands a sales application[28]
over an agricultural land to be used solely for agricultural purposes,
containing an area of 33.6586 hectares, bounded on the northeast by Tagum River and on the southwest by public land, situated
at La Paz, Panabo [now Carmen], Davao
del Norte, for which purpose she stated that she would invest the sum of
P20,000.00. Prior to the said sales
application, she asked the Director of Lands, in a survey request dated
February 12, 1968, to have a private surveyor, Geodetic Engineer Roman F.
Joaquin, survey the 33.6586 hectares allegedly covered by her sales
application, but she agreed that she would take only such title as may be
issued to her by the Director of Lands irrespective of the result of the survey
of the area which was allegedly occupied by her under Ordinary Fishpond Permit
No. F-5551-V.
The sales application of Viola C. Azurin
over the alleged 33.6586 hectares was not approved by the Director of Lands.[29]
On April 24, 1969,
Viola C. Azurin filed Fishpond Application No. 27257
over 13.6586 hectares allegedly representing the excess area over the 20
hectares under her Fishpond Permit No. F-5551-V which, as found by Geodetic
Engineer Roman F. Joaquin, actually covered 33.6586 hectares. Before her application over the said 13.6586
hectares was filed, a certain Moonyeen Rodriguez-Beleno filed on April 20, 1969 a protest with the
Philippine Fisheries Commission against Viola Azurin’s
fishpond permit claiming that the latter had not improved the area under her
permit; that it was she [Beleno] who was in actual possession and occupation of the area
and who had introduced improvements thereon, and that she entered the area in
good faith since the area was heavily forested with mangroves.[30]
The Philippine Fisheries Commission directed an investigation to
verify the allegations of Moonyeen Rodriguez-Beleno.
On September 29, 1969, Moonyeen R. Beleno filed Fishpond Application No. 27649 over 35.5
hectares stated to represent the 20 hectares under Viola C. Azurin’s
Fishpond Permit No. F-5551-V and the 13.5 hectares excess of said permit.[31]
On November 26, 1969,
the Philippine Fisheries Commissioner ordered the Regional Director at Davao City
to investigate the conflict of fishpond applications between Viola C. Azurin and Moonyeen R. Beleno over an area reportedly containing 13.6586 hectares,
entitled “Fishpond Application No.
27649, Beleno, Moonyeen
Rodriguez, Applicant-Complainant versus Fishpond Application No. 27257, Azurin Viola C., Permittee.”[32]
On May 26, 1972, while the fishpond conflict case was pending
investigation by the Philippine Fisheries Commission [Davao
City], Viola C. Azurin
filed with the Bureau of Lands a complaint[33]
for the correction, amendment or cancellation of Homestead Patent No. 135029
of Minda de Porkan over Lot
No. 1546 and Free Patent No. 488112 of Lolita Macatindog
over Lot No. 1099 situated at La Paz, Panabo [now
Carmen], Davao del Norte, alleging, among others,
that the patentees secured their patents and titles through fraud,
misrepresentation and illegal machinations, after which a relocation survey of
their lots was made, and on April 24, 1972, Minda de Porkan forcibly entered the northeastern portion of her [Azurin] landholding while Lolita Macatindog
likewise forcibly entered the southeastern portion of the same landholding.[34]
After an investigation, Acting Assistant District Land Officer Lazaro G. Berania recommended in
his findings dated July 9, 1973[35]
that a petition be filed in the proper court for the amendment of Homestead
Patent No. 135029 of Minda de Porkan
over Lot No. 1546, Cad. 276 and Free Patent No. 488112 of Lolita Macatindog over Lot No. 1099, Cad.
276 in order to exclude therefrom the portion of
around seven [7] hectares of Viola C. Azurin and that
the Land Inspector, Mr. Amer Yusop,
be charged administratively for gross negligence and grave misconduct for
submitting false report.
Meanwhile, on January 10, 1978, the Director of Fisheries issued
an order resolving the conflict of the fishpond applications between Viola C. Azurin [FpA No. 27257] and Moonyeen R. Beleno [FpA No. 27649] over 13.6586 hectares which, for the purpose
of identifying the disputed land involved in the instant case, We quote, thus:
“Considering the actuations
of both parties in this
case and of the fact that there is considerable difficulty in distinguishing
the excess area from the area of 20.0 hectares granted under Permit No.
F-5551-V owing to the absence of hearings in the technical descriptions of the area as released by the Bureau
of Forestry, it is only proper, for the sake of justice and equity, that the
claims of the parties
herein be resolved by taking into consideration the actual conditions existing
at the time the controversy arose and also to consider the principle that no
one shall unjustly enrich
himself at the expense of another.
“Moreover, in a more recent ocular inspection and/or relocation
of the area involved in the above-entitled case conducted by representatives of
this Office based on the sketch
plan prepared by Fortunato I. Javellana,
Jr., Geodetic Engineer of Fisheries Regional Office No. XI, Davao
City, the three [3] parcels of areas appears thereon, thus
“Parcel I –
consisting of 6.1010 hectares and is bounded on the North by Parcel II and a
portion of Parcel III on the East of Tagum River; on
the South by the junction of Tagum and Taganay rivers; and on the West by portion of the Parcel
III along the irrigation canal;
“Parcel II –
consisting of 11.7869 hectares and is bounded on the North by Tagum River; on the East by Tagum
River; on the South by Parcel I; and on the West by portion of Parcel III; and
“Parcel III –
consisting of 16.5655 hectares and is bounded on the North by the Tagum River; on the East by Parcels I and II; on the South
by Mangrove area; and on the West by Agricultural land.
“Said verification further disclose that Parcel 1 is a developed portion of the
fishpond area and is outside of the present conflicts. Parcel II was also found to be developed
and is the portion that Beleno claimed to have
introduced her improvements. Parcel
III was found to be undeveloped and
is the subject of the land title
claim of the De Porkans. Records also show that tie representatives of Viola C. Azurin also informed the
investigators that 60 to 70% of the area
in Parcel III is presently involved in
the land title conflict with the De
Porkans and that there is
a pending case
with the Bureau of Lands on this
matter. However, with respect
to Parcel II, the representatives Mrs. Azurin assured
them, that it is outside of the land title conflict with the De Porkans, hence, resolution on the instant controversy is believed well-taken.
“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, FpA.
No. 27649 of Moonyeen R. Beleno
be given due course to cover Parcel II as indicated in the sketch plan prepared
by Engineer Fortunato P. Javellana covering 11.7869 hectares and wherein her
improvements are indicated; and that the area of Mrs.
Viola C. Azurin
under OFP No. F-5551-V shall be confined to Parcels Nos.
I and III of said sketch, after the adverse
claims of the Muslim claimants shall have
been finally resolved by competent authority.”[36]
The aforequoted order of the Director
of Fisheries giving due course
to the Fishpond Application No. 27649 of Moonyeen R.
Beleno over Parcel II covering 11.7869 hectares was
appealed by Viola C. Azurin to the Minister of
Natural Resources.
On April 11, 1980, the Republic of the Philippines, represented
by the Director of Lands, thru the Solicitor General, filed two [2] separate
complaints[37]
with the then Court of First Instance of Davao del
Norte, seeking the cancellation in Civil Case No. 1247 of Homestead Patent No.
135029 of Minda de Porkan
and its derivative titles, TCT No. T-23598 and T-23599, in the names of Minda de Porkan and spouses Gorgonio S. Bermudez and Benecita
Duluan Bermudez insofar as the portion covered by the
Ordinary Fishpond Permit No. F-5551-V of Viola C. Azurin,
with an area of 3.9 hectares, more or less [subject to the result of a final
survey] was concerned; and the cancellation in Civil Case No. 1248 of Free
Patent No. V-488112 and OCT No. P-8742 in the name of Lolita Macatindog and its derivative titles, TCT Nos. T-25143 and
T-25142 in the names of Lolita Macatindog and the
spouses Juan Arangali and Antonina
Estares, respectively, insofar as the portion
covered by Fishpond Permit No. F-5551-V of Viola C. Azurin,
with an area of seven [7] hectares, more or less [subject to the result of a final
survey] was concerned.
The Solicitor General claimed that the disputed portions of land
in Civil Cases Nos. 1247 and 1248 were actually claimed, occupied and developed
by Viola C. Azurin, a holder of Fishpond Permit No.
F-5551-V, which portion the Director of Lands could not dispose of under the
Public Land Act[38]
hence, the patents and titles issued to Minda de Porkan and Lolita Macatindog and
all derivative titles issued to their successors-in-interest are null and void
insofar as that portion occupied and covered by the fishpond permit of Viola C.
Azurin.
Minda de Porkan,
et al. in Civil Case No. 1247 and Lolita Macatindog
in Civil Case No. 1248 similarly claimed in their separate answers[39]
that they were the ones who first protested, along with their Muslim relatives,
the intrusion of the families of the Azurins, Rodriguezes, and Belenos into
their “ancestral lands,” now the site of Barrio La Paz, Carmen
[formerly Panabo], Davao
del Norte, which from time immemorial had been occupied and cultivated by their
ancestors and predecessors-in-interest.
Upon motion of the Solicitor General for consolidation of cases,
Civil Cases Nos. 1247 and 1248 were ordered consolidated in an order[40]
dated August 19, 1980
issued by the then Court of First Instance, Branch II, Davao
del Norte for joint hearing in the Court of First Instance of Davao del Norte, Branch I.
After a joint hearing, the Court of First Instance of Davao del Norte, Branch [Tagum]
rendered its decision[41]
on November 18, 1980 dismissing the complaints for cancellation of titles and
upholding the validity of the patents/titles of Lolita Macatindog
and Minda de Porkan, as
well as the titles of their transferees co-defendants Juan Arangali
and Gorgonio Bermudez, who were adjudged to be
innocent purchasers for value and in good faith.
The Solicitor General appealed the decision of the lower court to
the then Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals.
In the meantime, on March 31, 1981, the Minister of Natural
Resources, thru his Acting Assistant Secretary, Jose A. Janolo,
rendered a decision[42]
setting aside the order of the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
dated January 10, 1978, thereby rejecting the Fishpond Application No. 27649 of
Moonyeen R. Beleno, and
declaring, among others, that the Ordinary Fishpond Permit No. F-5551-V of
Viola C. Azurin should cover Parcels I, II and III subject
to the final resolution by competent authorities of
the adverse claims of certain Muslim occupants
over parcel III.
[Underscoring supplied]
On February 29, 1984,
the Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, affirmed the decision
of the lower court.
The Solicitor General thus elevated the case to this Court by way
of petition for review on certiorari raising eleven [11] errors which,
in its entirety, seeks to cancel and declare as null and void the titles of
private respondents over Lot No. 1099, Cad. 276 and Lot
No. 1546, Cad. 276, and their eventual reversion to the State without prejudice
to the claim of Viola C. Azurin to a portion of seven
[7] hectares of Lot No. 1099 and a portion of 3.9 hectares of Lot No. 1546
under her Fishpond Permit No. F-5551-V.[43]
In other words, the Solicitor General seeks to cancel and declare as null and
void the titles of private respondents over Lot Nos. 1099 and 1546, but he
takes exception to the eventual reversion of the entire area of the two [2]
disputed lots to the State insofar as 10.9 hectares, more or less, in favor of
the claim of Viola C. Azurin under Fishpond Permit
No. F-5551-V.
In the main, the cancellation of titles of private respondents
over the disputed two [2] lots and their eventual reversion to the State primarily
rests on the contentions of the Solicitor General that Lot Nos. 1099 and 1546
could not be the subject of disposition under the Homestead [Chapter IV] and
Free Patent [Chapter VII] provisions of the Public Land Act[44]
since they are marshy and swampy, certified as such as more suitable for
fishpond development, disposable only thru lease under Chapter IX of the Public
Land, and private respondents’ non-compliance with certain statutory
requirements of possession and cultivation, and the disqualification of
applicant Minda de Porkan
to apply for a homestead patent, she being a married woman. On the other hand, the argument on retention
of 10.9 hectares in favor of the fishpond claim of Viola C. Azurin
in the event that the titles of private respondents are declared null and void
is predicated on the assumption that Viola C. Azurin’s
Fishpond Application No. 27257 filed on April 24, 1969 over the alleged excess
area of 13.6586 hectares over her 20-hectare fishpond under her Fishpond Permit
No. F-5551-V was, in fact, granted by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources of the Ministry of Natural Resources.
And on the basis of said assumption the Solicitor General then contended
that despite the presence of other claimants in the area, Amer
Yusop, a public land inspector of the Bureau of
Lands, misled the Director of Lands into erroneously approving private
respondents’ application and causing the fraudulent issuance of patents in
their favor by stating in report that “there are no claimants” to the
land applied for by Minda de Porkan
and that the land applied for by Lolita Macatindog
“is claimed by nobody.”
At the outset, it is significant to note that the tract of public
land then possessed, occupied, developed and planted to coconuts by the family
of Sadin de Porkan and his
predecessors-in-interest, all native Muslims of La Paz, Carmen [formerly Panabo], Davao del Norte, which,
by virtue of its being part of the unregistered lands, was included in the Tagum Cadastral Survey of July 22, 1937 and formed part of
the disposable or alienable agricultural lands of the public domain referred to
under Section 6, par. [a] in relation to Section 9, par.[a] of the Public Land
Act [C.A. 141, as amended]. The nature
and character of said tract of public land, more particularly Lot No. 1099, as
one found inside an “agricultural zone”, and that of Lot No. 1546, as
one suitable for rice cultivation, which were categorically stated in the
separate investigation reports in 1953 of Vicente J. Villena,
junior public land inspector of the Bureau of Lands [Davao]
is binding on the courts inasmuch as it is the exclusive prerogative of the
Executive Department of the Government to classify public lands.[45]
The classification is descriptive of its legal nature or status and does not
have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks like.[46]
This Court, speaking thru Justice Moir, in the case
of Jocson vs. Director of
Forestry, 39 Phil. 560 [1919], traced the meaning of public agricultural
lands, and the same was restated 29 years later in Krivenko
vs. Register of Deeds of Manila, 79
Phil. 461 [1948] thus:
“In the case of Mapa vs. Insular
Government, 10 Phil. 175, this court said that the phrase ‘agricultural lands’
as used in Act No. 926 means those public lands acquired
from Spain which are not timber or
mineral. Whatever may have been
the meaning of the term ‘forestry’ under the Spanish law, the Act of Congress
of July 1st, 1902, classifies the public lands in the Philippine Islands as timber, mineral or agricultural lands,
and all public lands that are not timber or mineral lands are necessarily
agricultural lands, whether they are used
as nipa swamps, manglares, fisheries or ordinary
farm lands.” [underscoring supplied.]
Since the disputed tract of public land is neither timber nor
mineral lands, the same is alienable or open to disposition as public
agricultural lands, under Section 11, C.A. 141 thru homestead settlement or
free patent.
The basic preliminary issue in resolving the overlapping claims
over the 10.9 hectares is whether or not the predecessors-in-interest of
private respondents Minda de Porkan,
et al. in Civil Case No. 1247 and Lolita Macatindog,
et al. in Civil Case No. 1248 had acquired valid and registrable
titles over Lot No. 1099 and 1546, respectively, by virtue of a grant by the
State under the Public Land Act.[47]
We rule in the affirmative.
The doctrine established in the 1909 case of Carino vs. Insular Government,
42 Phil. 935, 944, affirmed in Susi vs. Razon, 48 Phil.
424, and re-affirmed in a number of cases[48]
the most recent of which are the cases of Herico vs. Dar, 95 SCRA 437
and Director of Lands vs. Intermediate
Appelalte Court and Acme
Plywood and Veneer Co., Inc., G.R. No. 73002
[Dec. 29, 1986] sustains on all fours the ruling of the trial court that the
herein private respondent Lolita de Porkan Macatindog and her predecessors-in-interest, as early as
1953, had already acquired by operation of law not only a right to a grant over
Lot No. 1099, but a grant of the Government over the same alienable land by
virtue of their proven, open, exclusive and undisputed possession for more than
30 years since the Spanish colonial period.
The case of Susi vs. Razon, supra, in particular, puts the doctrine in a
clearer and more precise language which militates against the belated theory
of the Solicitor General after a period of 19 years since 1953 that in view of
its being swampy and marshy in nature, Lot No. 1099 is still public land which
the Director of Lands could not dispose of under the Public Land Act, thus:
“x x x
In favor of Valentin Susi,
there is, moreover, the
presumption juris et de jure etablished in
paragraph [b] of section 45 of Act No. 2874, amending Act No. 926, that all the
necessary requirements for a grant by the Government were complied with, for he
has been in actual and physical possession, personally and through his predecessors,
of an agricultural land of the public domain openly, continuously, exclusively
and publicly since July 26, 1894, with a right to a certificate of title to said land under the provisions Chapter VIII of said Act. So that when Angela Razon
applied for a grant in her favor, Valentin Susi had already acquired, by
operation of law not only a right to
a grant, but a grant
of the Government,
for it is not necessary that
a certificate of title should
be issued in order that said grant
may be sanctioned by the courts, an
application therefore is sufficient, under the
provisions section 47 of Act
No. 2874. If by a legal fiction, Valentin Susi had acquired the
land in question by a grant of the State, it had already ceased to be of the
public domain and had become private property, at least presumption, of Valentin Susi, beyond the control
of the Director of Lands. Consequently,
in selling the land in question to Angela Razon, the
Director of Lands disposed of a land over which he had no longer any title or
control, and the sale thus made was void and of no effect, and Angela Razon did not thereby acquire any right.”
[Underscoring supplied]
Where, as in the instant case, the possession of a public land
later identified as Lot No. 1099 by Sadin de Porkan, father of Medori de Porkan, and their predecessors-in-interest who were native
Muslims of La Paz, Panabo [now Carmen], Davao del Norte, dates back to the time of the Spanish colonial
period, such possession of the said tract of public land has attained the
character and duration prescribed by law as the equivalent of an express grant
from the Government. The mandate of the
law itself is that the possessors “shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be
entitled to a certificate of title” and by legal fiction, the land ceases
to be public and thus becomes private land.
In the language of Herico vs. Dar,
supra, title over the land was vested on the possessor so as to segregate the
land from the mass of the public domain.
And as stressed in Susi vs. Razon, supra, it is not necessary that a
certificate of title should be issued in order that said grant may be
sustained by the courts, an application therefor being
sufficient.
On the other hand, as regards the homestead patent over Lot No.
1546, Cad. 276, the ruling in the case of Balboa vs. Farrales, 51 Phil. 498 [1928], that when a
homesteader has complied with all the terms and conditions which entitle him to
a patent for a particular tract of public land, he acquires a vested interest
therein, and is to be regarded as the equitable owner thereof, and once the
right to a patent has become vested in a purchaser of public lands, it is
equivalent to a patent actually issued, sustains, the conclusion of the trial
court that a tract of public land later identified as Lot No. 1546 ceased to be
part of the public domain and became private land over which the Director of
Lands is divested of control and possession when the homestead application of Sadin Maraug was approved and
recorded as Homestead Entry No. V-68362 on January 13, 1954 which was later confirmed by the approval
of the transfer of homestead rights in favor of Minda
de Porkan. The
Court stated in Balboa vs. Farrales, supra, thus:
“A party who has complied with all the terms and conditions
which entitle him to a patent or a
particular tract of public
land acquires a vested interest therein, and is to be regarded as the equitable owner thereof [Wirth vs. Branson,
98 U.S. 118]. Where the right to
a patent has once become vested in a purchaser public lands, it is equivalent,
so far as the Government is concerned,
to a patent actually issued. The
execution and delivery of the patent after the right to it has become complete
are mere ministerial acts of the officers charged with that duty [Simmons vs.
Wagner, 101 U.S.
260]. x x
x A perfected valid appropriation public lands
operates as a withdrawal of the
tract from the body the public domain and, so long as such appropriation
remains valid and subsisting, the land covered thereby is deemed private
property. A perfected
homestead, under the law, is property in the highest
sense, which may be sold and conveyed
and will pass descent. xxxx Even
without a patent, a perfected
homestead property right in the fullest
sense, unaffected by the fact that the
paramount title to the lands in the Government. Such land may be conveyed or
inherited.” [underscoring supplied]
Corollary to the ruling in Balboa vs. Farrales, it was held in Diaz and Reyes
vs. Macalinao, et al.,
102 Phil. 999, a 1958 case, that a homestead entry having been permitted by the
Director of Lands, the homestead is segregated from the public domain and the
Director Lands is divested of the control and possession thereof except if the
application is finally disapproved and the entry annulled or revoked. In Dauan vs.
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
19 SCRA 223, involving a dispute as to whether a pre-war homestead application
was approved by the Director of Lands, the Court held that where the person had
all the qualifications to apply for a homestead and he was in actual possession
of the homestead at the time he transferred his rights thereto, the presumption
is that his application for said homestead was approved by the Director of
Lands.
In that sense, there is then no legal obstacle for Lolita de Porkan Macatindog,
successor-in-interest of Medori de Porkan, to complete the imperfect or incomplete title of
her predecessor-in-interest over Lot No. 1099 by means of confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete title by administrative legalization [free patent]
under Section 11 and Section 44 of the Public land Act, as amended by R.A. 3872
[June 18, 1964][49]
which she did when she filed her
free patent application on November 14, 1968; and for Minda
de Porkan to confirm her title over Lot No. 1546
which was deemed vested on her predecessor-in-interest, Sadin
Maraug, as early as 1954, by filing her homestead
application on June 8, 1971. In both
parcels of land, the application for confirmation is a mere formality, the lack
of which does not affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be
evidenced by the patent and the Torrens Title to be issued upon the strength of
said patent.[50]
There is therefore no equitable justification for the Director
of Lands to divest private respondents of their titles by claiming, after 19
years that the lots in question remain public lands because the same are swampy
and marshy in nature subject to lease only under Chapter IX of the Public Land
Act, and on a mere technical objection that Minda de Porkan is disqualified to apply for a homestead patent because
she is married. As clearly found by the
trial court, Viola C. Azurin entered the 20-hectare fishpond in 1966 and,
admittedly, she excavated and constructed dikes in the disputed portion she
assertively believed to be within her 20-hectare fishpond permit. The conversion of the disputed portion into a
fishpond will not change the agricultural nature of the land subject to
disposition by the Bureau of Lands as alienable lands of the public domain in
accordance with the State policy of “land for the landless”; and more
importantly in line with the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 3872
[June 18, 1964] to the Public Land Act intended to benefit the members of the
national cultural minorities. In fact,
the original registered owners of Lot No. 1099 and Lot No. 1546 were issued
their respective patents pursuant to the 1971 Land Patent
Drive for Cultural Minorities signed by Vicente A.
Valdellon.[51]
Inasmuch as Lot No. 1099 and Lot No. 1546 ceased to be part of
the public domain as early as 1953 and 1954, respectively, We need not dwell further
on the allegations of fraud advanced by the Solicitor General in the issuance
of the patents of Lolita Macatindog and Minda de Porkan who were the
successors-in-inteiest of Medori
de Porkan and Sadin Maraug whose titles to the lots in question become vested
by operation of law and by the equitable application of doctrinal jurisprudence
on the land dispute in the instant case.
The next issue then is whether or not the fishpond claim of Viola
C. Azurin over the 13.6586 hectares allegedly
representing the excess area over her 20-hectare fishpond under her Fishpond
Permit No. F-5551-V has attained the character of a final grant from the
Government as would warrant the exclusion of the same from Lot No. 1099 of
Lolita Macatindog and Lot No. 1546 of Minda de Porkan.
We rule in the negative.
A review of the records of
the case show that Viola C. Azurin has not
sufficiently established her right to a
grant by the Government under any of the modes of dispossession or
concession of public lands authorized under the Public Land Act or any special
law governing her alleged fishpond claim over the disputed lots. The inaction, if not disapproval, of her land
claims over the disputed lots, thru applications separate and distinct from
each other, by the concerned administrative agencies of the Government renders
untenable the Solicitor General’s contention that in the event Lot No. 1099 and
Lot No. 1546 are finally reverted to the State, the said 13.6586 hectares
should be excluded from the reversion in favor of the fishpond claim of Viola
C. Azurin under her Fishpond Permit No. F-5551-V.
First, it must be noted that on January 17, 1968, Viola C. Azurin
obtained by purchase and sale from Condi Mama and Cadingaga
Mora, both native Muslims of La Paz, Panabo [now
Carmen], Davao del Norte, all the rights and
interests over all the nipa plants and other
improvements in the parcel of land covered by her Fishpond Permit No. F-5551-V.[52]
Thereafter, on March 1, 1968,
she filed with the Bureau of Lands a sales application[53]
over an agricultural land with an area of 33.6586 hectares allegedly covered by
her 20-hectare fishpond permit. But the
sales application was not approved by the Director of Lands.
Second, after Viola C. Azurin was
granted on March 4, 1966 her
Fishpond Permit No. F-5551-V by the Philippine Fisheries Commission, she had
the area surveyed by a private land surveyor, Roman F. Joaquin, who allegedly
found out that her fishpond permit actually covered 33.6586 hectares, resulting
in an excess of 13.6586 hectares. On November 29, 1967, Roman F. Joaquin
submitted a plan of the land [fishpond], allegedly the correct plan of the
survey, but the Director of Lands did not approve the same. So Viola C. Azurin
opted to file a fishpond application [FpA No. 27257]
on April 24, 1969 over the
excess area of 13.6586 hectares over her 20-hectare fishpond under her Fishpond
Permit No. F-5551-V. A protest over Azurin’s application was filed earlier or on April 20, 1969
by a certain Moonyeen Rodriguez-Beleno
which was decided by the Director of Fisheries on January 10, 1978 by giving
due course to the fishpond application of Moonyeen
R. Beleno over Parcel II. However, on March 31, 1981, the Minister of
Natural Resources, thru his Acting Secretary, Jose A. Janolo
set aside the order by declaring that the Fishpond Permit No. F-5551-V of Viola
C. Azurin covers Parcel I, II, and III subject to the final resolution by competent
authorities of the adverse claim
of certain Muslim occupants over
Parcel III.
In other words, Viola C. Azurin’s claim
over Parcel III has not attained the status of finality unless and until the
conflict of land claims, now subject of the instant case, is finally resolved
by the courts.
Third, the instant case now before this Court for review is an
offshoot of Viola C. Azurin’s complaint for
correction, amendment or cancellation of the Homestead Patent of Minda de Porkan and Free Patent
of Lolita Macatindog filed with the Bureau of Lands
on May 26, 1972 involving the same portion of land subject of the sales application
filed on March 1, 1968 and fishpond application filed on April 24, 1969 by
Viola C. Azurin.
Fourth, the Fishpond Permit No. F-5551-V of Viola C. Azurin had technically expired on December 31, 1966. Obviously, recognizing the extent and limits
of her occupation, use and possession of the fishpond area, she filed the said
sales application over the same area on March
1, 1968, but said application was not approved.
Considering that Viola C. Azurin was
not able to legitimize her claim over the disputed portion, there is then no
justifiable reason for the Director of Lands to divest Lolita Macatindog and Minda de Porkan and their successors-in-interest of their titles,
which had long been vested on their predecessors-in-interest.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is
denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals on February 29, 1984 is hereby affirmed. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Padilla, and Cortes, JJ.,
concur.
Bidin, J., no part. I participated in the appellate court’s decision.
[1]
Penned by Justice Desiderio Jurado,
concurred in by Justice Porfirio V. Sison, Marcelino R. Veloso and Abdulwahid A. Bidin. Annex
“F”, Petition, pp. 96-117, Rollo
[2]
Annex “E”, Petition, pp. 83-95, Rollo
[3]
Joint Decision, CFI, Davao, p. 85, Rollo
[4]
Ibid, p. 83, Rollo
[5]
Exhibit “A”
[6]
Exhibit 12
[7]
Exhibit 10
[8]
Exhibit 8 or “A-1”
[9]
Exhibit 4
[10]
Exhibit 2
[11]
Exhibit “F”
[12]
Exhibit “F-1”
[13]
Exhibit “F-2”
[14]
Exhibit “A” de Porkan
[15]
Exhibit 18-A
[16]
Exhibit “B”
[17]
Exhibit “C”
[18]
Exhibit “D”
[19]
Exhibit “E”
[20]
Exhibit “F”
[21]
Exhibit “G”
[22]
Exhibit “E”
[23]
The attached sheet was not presented as evidence at the trial, see Joint
Decision, CFI of Davao, p. 85, Rollo
[24]
The page referred to was also not presented as evidence at the trial, Ibid,
p. 85, Rollo
[25]
See Decision, MNR Case No. 4473, p. 120, Rollo
[26]
Exhibit “J-1”
[27]
Exhibit “I”
[28]
Exhibit “H”
[29]
Joint Decision, CFI of Davao,
p. 87, Rollo
[30]
Decision, MNR Case No. 4473, pp. 120-121, Rollo
[31]
Decision, MNR Case No. 4473, p.
121, Rollo
[32]
Ibid, p. 121, Rollo
[33]
Exhibit “C”
[34]
Joint Decision, CFI of Davao,
p. 86, Rollo
[35]
Exhibits “D”, “D-1” to “D-6”
[36]
Joint Decision, CFI of Davao,
pp. 89-91, Rollo
[37]
pp. 7-25, Second Amended Record on Appeal, p. 192, Rollo
[38]
C.A. 141, as amended
[39]
pp. 25-35, Second Amended Record on Appeal, p. 192, Rollo
[40]
p. 46, Second Amended Record on Appeal, p.192, Rollo
[41]
pp. 83-95, Rollo
[42]
pp. 118-133, Rollo
[43]
pp. 52-53, Petition, p. 55, Rollo
[44]
C.A. 141, as amended
[45]
Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 689, 692
[46]
Heirs of Jose Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry,
126 SCRA 69, 75
[47]
C.A. 141 as amended
[48]
Lacaste vs. Director of Lands, 63 Phil. 654; Mesina vs. Vda. de Sonza, 108 Phil. 251; Manarpaac vs.
Cabauatan, 21 SCRA 743; Miguel vs. Court of
Appeals, 29 SCRA 760
[49]
Miguel vs. Court of Appeals, 29 SCRA 760, 778 [1969]
[50]
Herico vs. Dar, 95 SCRA 437, 444 [1980]
[51]
Pre-trial Order, dated August 18, 1980,
p. 39, Second Amended Record on Appeal, p. 192, Rollo
[52]
Exhibit “I”
[53]
Exhibit “H”