REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF NICOLAS FELISILDA, NAMELY: CATALINA ASERTO VDA. DE FELISILDA, MAGDALENA, TIRSO, MELECIO, PEDRO, ANICETA, …

The Republic of the Philippines (Republic, for brevity), through
the Solicitor General, seeks to assert its title, by reversion, to a Free
Patent and derivative titles therefrom, issued in
favor of private respondents.  Thus, it
prays for the review and reversal of the Decision of respondent Court of
Appeals of 13 August 1987^[1]
which affirmed, except as to costs against
the Government, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos
City, Branch 12,^[2] declaring (a) Free Patent No. 326416, issued
in favor of Nicolas Felisilda on 14 April 1967 for
Lot No. 2198 on Plan P1s-209-D-11 situated at Dole Cannery Site, Polomolok, South Cotabato, (b)
Original Certificate of Title No. P-29004, as well as (c) all derivative
Transfer Certificates of Title, as valid and binding.

The prefatory facts follow:

Sometime in 1941, the late Nicolas Felisilda,
as a settler of the National Land Settlement Administration (NLSA), was
assigned Farmlot No. 1279 (later re-numbered as Lot
No. 2198, P1s-209-D11) and Homelot No. 200, both
situated in Polomolok, South Cotabato,
with an area of 11.8822 hectares (the Disputed Property, for easy
reference).  On 24 December 1949, a Certificate of Permanent
Assignment of said lots was issued to him
by the Farm Administrator of Polomolok Settlement
District (Exhibits “1”, “1-A” to “1-D”).

On 19 March 1954, Senior Inspector Bienvenido
Abrea of the Land Settlement and Development
Corporation, Polomolok Settlement District, rendered
a Status Report attesting to Felisilda’s actual
possession and occupancy (Exhibits “2”, “2-A” to
“2-D”).

On 11 October 1960,
Nicolas Felisilda filed Free Patent Application No.
37-175 for the Disputed Property with the Bureau of Lands, through Lands
Inspector Vicente Gal Cejas as shown by a Second Indorsement
dated 11 July 1973 by
District Land Officer, Buenaventura M. Gonzales
(Exhibit “3”).

On 10 October 1962,
Nicolas Felisilda died (Exhibit “H”).

In the meantime, Free Patent Application No. 37-175 remained unacted upon and unprocessed as it was not supported by a
Joint Affidavit of two (2) disinterested witnesses.  It was only sometime in 1963, or after the
death of Nicolas Felisilda, when Lands Inspector Cejas acted upon said application and processed it, after Felisilda’s widow, Catalina Felisilda,
sought his help in expediting action on her husband’s application.

Thus, it was only on 11
October 1963 that the Application for Free Patent signed by Nicolas
Felisilda was formally presented, subscribed and
sworn to before Lands Inspector Cejas.  In the same document, two (2) witnesses, Flaviano Salada and Paterna Cortes, subscribed and swore to a Joint Affidavit
in support of the Free Patent Application (Exhibits “G”,
“G-1” to “G-4”).

On 27 October 1963
a Notice of Application for Free
Patent, with a certification of posting by Nicolas Felisilda,
subscribed and sworn to before Lands Inspector Cejas,
was released by the Bureau of Lands.  The
affiant was stated to have exhibited his Residence Certificate No. A-4968202
issued at Polomolok, South Cotabato on 18 February 1963 (Exhibits “J”, “J-1,
“J-2”).

On 31 October 1963, Inspector Cejas
submitted a Certification to the Director of Lands that upon ocular inspection
of the land covered by Free Patent Application No. 37-175, he found that the
applicant had been in continuous occupation and cultivation thereof since 1941;
that the applicant “is still living” (Exhibit “I-2”); that
it was free from claims and conflicts at the time of inspection; and
recommending that patent be issued to the applicant (Exhibit “I”).

On 20 March 1967
the Bureau of Lands approved the Application and ordered the issuance of Patent
(Exhibit “L”).

On 14 April 1967 Free Patent No.
326416 was issued to Nicolas Felisilda, for Lot No.
2198, P1s-209-D-11 followed by the issuance of the corresponding Original
Certificate of Title No. (P-29004) P-11128 on 9 May 1967 (Exhibit “M”).  This was subsequently cancelled and Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-10450 was issued in the name of the Heirs of Nicolas
Felisilda after an extrajudicial settlement had been
executed by them (Exhibit “1-A”).

On 14 June 1972, for and in consideration of the sum of
P120,000.00 the Heirs of Nicolas Felisilda sold
9.8822 hectares to Manuel Serranillo, and 2 hectares
to Francisco Laiz for P60,000.00 (Exhibit
“4”), or the totality of the area covered by the Free Patent.
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-12335 and T-12416 were issued to Serranillo and Laiz, on 11 August 1972 (Exhibit
“O”) and 15 August 1972
(Exhibit “N”), respectively. 
It appears that thereafter Serranillo
subdivided the area sold to him and was issued 307 Transfer Certificates of
Title, all on 20 April 1979
(Exhibits “P”, “P-1” to “P-307”).

If the Deeds of Sale of 14
June 1972 to Serranillo and Laiz are to be taken at their face value, the Disputed
Property was sold beyond the prohibitory period of five (5) years from the
issuance of the Free Patent on 14
April 1967.  The Republic
stresses, however, that as early as 1970, or within the proscribed period for
transfer of land covered by a Free Patent, the Heirs of Nicolas Felisilda had already alienated portions of the land to Serranillo and Laiz except that
the formal contracts were not executed until 1972.  Proof of the matter was that even on 29
September 1970 and 22 April 1971 Serranillo had
executed acts of ownership by entering into notarized contracts to sell portions
of the Disputed Property with Nena B. Jamila and Pablo Poliquit,
respectively (Exhibits “K”, “K-1” to
“K-12”).  Said contracts
carried the letterhead “Matutum Heights Subd., Manuel Serranillo, Owner;
Tomas D. Bayan, Manager.”

On 17 November 1972,
a Protest entitled “Sta. Cruz Homeowners Association Inc.,
Occupant-Claimant-Protestant, vs. Heirs of the late Nicolas Felisilda
represented by Catalina Vda. de Felisilda,
et al., Applicant-Respondent,” was filed with the Bureau of Lands (Exhibit
“8”).  The grounds relied upon
were that the protestants were the actual occupants of the controverted
land; that the Free Patent Application filed on 11 October 1963 had been
falsified, the patentee having died in 1962; and that the land in question had
been sold to other parties before the expiration of five (5) years.  Simultaneously, the Association also filed a
Sales Application over the same property on the same date.

In a 2nd Indorsement dated 11 July 1973 the District Land
Officer Buenaventura M. Gonzales recommended “that the case be considered closed and dropped
from the records” since the
subject land was already titled property (Exhibits “3”, “3-A,
“3-B”, Serranillo).

Notwithstanding, in a 1st Indorsement
of 15 August 1974, the
Director of Lands ordered the investigation of the Protest (Exhibit
“A”).  Land Inspector Francisco
del Rosario was assigned as Investigator.  After hearings conducted by him, he
recommended the annulment of the Patent on the principal grounds that neither
Nicolas Felisilda nor his heirs had continuously
occupied or cultivated the land; that the application filed by them appears to
have been falsified; and that Section 118 of the Public Land Law, had been
violated (Exhibit “F”).

 Adopting that
recommendation, on 18 June 1976, the Director of Lands rendered a Decision
declaring that Free Patent No. 326416 granted to Nicolas Felisilda
was null and void as it had been fraudulently issued, and recommending the
judicial cancellation of said patent and title pursuant to Section 91 of the
Public Land Law (C.A. No. 141).  The
Ministry of Natural Resources dismissed the appeal to it on 24 June 1980 and denied a Motion for
Reconsideration on 30 March 1981.

In the meantime also, the widow, Catalina Felisilda,
and Land Inspector Vicente Gal Cejas were jointly
indicted for Falsification of Public Document in Criminal Case No. 732 before
the Court of First Instance of General Santos. 
On 8 July 1976, said
Court found the totality of the evidence wanting on the charge of falsification
and absolved both accused from any criminal liability.

It likewise appears that even as early as 23 March 1972, the
Provincial Fiscal of General Santos City, in a Joint Resolution, had dismissed I.S. Case No. 155 filed by one Melquiades Hilaga against the
Heirs of Nicolas Felisilda for Falsification of
Public Document and Reversion of the controverted
property, and denied I.S. Case No. 362 filed by the Sta. Cruz Homeowners
Association against the same Heirs, Manuel Serranillo
and Francisco Laiz for Reversion of the same
property.  The Complaint for
Falsification was dropped for lack of basis, Nicolas Felisilda
having been found to have perfected his rights to the land; while the complaint
for reversion was denied, the Association being without personality to seek
said remedy.

On 1 December 1980,
the Republic, as petitioner,
apparently acting upon the recommendation of the Director of Lands, filed a
Complaint for cancellation of Free Patent No. 326416, Original Certificate of
Title No. P-29004, and Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-12335 and T-12416
with the then Court of First Instance of General
Santos City
(Civil Case No. 3003).  Named as
defendants were the Heirs of Nicolas Felisilda; the
Spouses Serranillo; the Spouses Laiz,
and the Register of Deeds of Koronadal, South
Cotabato.  Essentially, the Republic claimed that actual
fraud and deception was practiced on the Director of Lands considering that the
Application for Free Patent and the Notice of Application for Free Patent were
accomplished after the death of the applicant Nicolas Felisilda,
in violation of Section 91 of the Public Land Law; and that the land was sold
within the prohibitory period of five (5) years contrary to Section 118 of the
same law.

Traversing the Complaint, the defendants denied the commission of
any fraud stating that the application had been filed by Nicolas Felisilda during his lifetime but was acted on officially
only after his death; that the sale of the controverted
property was made after the five-year prohibitory period; that the Patent and Titles derived therefrom are valid and binding against the whole world;
that Serranillo and Laiz
were purchasers in good faith; and that majority of the protestants were mere
lessees while the rest had entered the land later as plain squatters, the place being near the DOLE cannery site.

After trial, the lower Court dismissed the Complaint on 3
September 1985, declared the Free Patent as valid against the whole world and
the corresponding Original and Transfer Certificates of Title as legal and
binding, no fraud having been proven; that the property had become private land
by virtue of the titling thereof and, therefore, the Director of Lands no
longer had jurisdiction over the same; and that there was no violation of
Section 91 nor 118 of the Public Land Law. 
An appeal was made to the Court of Appeals which affirmed said judgment in
toto on 13 August 1987 except as to costs against the Government.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari, urging
that:

1.       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO FALSIFICATION IN THE APPLICATION FOR FREE PATENT
CONSIDERING THAT THE ALLEGED APPLICANT, NICOLAS FELISILDA, DIED ALREADY ON OCTOBER 10, 1962.

2.       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT THE POWER OF THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS TO INVESTIGATE LAND
CONFLICTS PERTAINS ONLY TO CONFLICTS OVER PUBLIC LANDS, HENCE, HIS DECISION,
INCLUDING THAT WHICH WAS RENDERED BY THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ARE
NULL AND VOID; CONSEQUENTLY, AFTER A FREE PATENT IS GRANTED, AND THE
CORRESPONDING TITLE ISSUED, THE LAND CEASES TO BE PART OF THE PUBLIC LAND
DOMAIN AND BECOMES PRIVATE PROPERTY OVER WHICH THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS LOSES
CONTROL AND JURISDICTION.

3.       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT THE TITLE HAS ATTAINED THE STATUS OF IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY, AND
INDEFEASIBILITY, THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM ITS REGISTRATION HAVING LONG
LAPSED.

4.       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 118 OF THE
PUBLIC LAND LAW CONSIDERING THAT THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE IN FAVOR OF THE
DEFENDANTS WAS EXECUTED BEYOND THE PROHIBITORY PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE
ISSUANCE OF THE PATENT.

5.       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE
DIRECTOR OF LANDS AS AFFIRMED BY THE MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES IS
CONCLUSIVE UPON THE COURTS UNLESS THERE IS A SHOWING OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN A PROPER COURT PROCEEDING.

We resolved to give due course.

The Issue of Falsification

The Solicitor General maintains that the falsification lies in
the fact that although Nicolas Felisilda died on 10 October 1962 (Exhibit
“H”), when the Application for Free Patent was filed on 11 October 1963, or one year after
his death, somebody appeared before the Lands Inspector with Residence
Certificate No. A-4968202, issued at Polomolok, Cotabato on 18
February 1963 and signed and swore to the truth of the entries in
the Application (Exhibits “G”, G-1″
to “G-5”).  Nicolas Felisilda himself is also said to have appeared, signed and
sworn to the truth of the fact that notices regarding his filing of an
application had been posted at the required places (Exhibits “J”,
“J-1” and “J-2”). 
Those false entries, therefore, according to the Solicitor General, ipso fact of produced the cancellation of the patent and
title emanating therefrom pursuant to Section 91 of
the Public Land Act.^[3]

Like the Courts below, we are not persuaded that falsification
attended the filing of the Application for Free Patent.  It should be recalled that in a Second Indorsement of the District Land Office, dated 11 July
1973, its Officer, Buenaventura M. Gonzales, stated that the lot in question
was applied for by Nicolas Felisilda under Free
Patent No. 37-175, on 11 October 1960 (Exhibit “3″).  That was during his lifetime.  The Application was not acted on, however,
until much later.  In fact, it was
formally considered only on 11
October 1963 and bore the same number, Free Patent No. 37-175.  It was only upon the entreaties of Nicolas Felisilda’s widow, Catalina, that Lands Inspector Cejas acted upon and processed the Application.  While inefficiency was apparent, it cannot be equated with irregularity for,
pursuant to Section 105 of the Public Land Law,^[4]
the heirs of an applicant are entitled to have the Patent issued to them if
they show compliance with requirements. 
They are subrogated to all the rights and obligations of their
predecessor-in-interest who, in this case, had perfected his rights as a settler prior to his death as shown
by: the Certificate of Permanent Assignment dated 24 December 1949 by the Farm
Administrator of the Polomolok Settlement District (Exhibit “1”); the Status
Report of 19 March 1954 by the Public Land Inspector Bienvenido
M. Abrea confirming compliance with possession and
cultivation requirements of a settler (Exhibit “2”); and the
Certification of District Land Officer Buenaventura M. Gonzales on 11 July 1973
(Exhibit “3”).  Collusion
cannot justifiably be claimed among the said officials and the widow of
Nicolas, the dates of execution of the documents being far apart.  On the contrary, the presumption that
official duties were regularly performed must be upheld.

Authority of
Director of Lands

to
investigate conflicts over

public lands.

The authority of the Director of Lands to investigate conflicts
over public lands is derived from Section 91 of the Public Land Act, reading:

“x x x.  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.”

In fact, it is not merely his right but his specific duty to
conduct investigations of alleged fraud in securing Free Patents and the
corresponding titles thereto.

“In the light of the facts disclosed in the foregoing
stipulation, We reiterate Cebede vs. Director of
Lands, G.R. No. L-12777, May 22, 1961, 2 SCRA 25, wherein We held that it is
not only the right but the duty of the Director of Lands to conduct the
investigation of any alleged fraud in securing a free patent and the
corresponding title to a public land and to file the corresponding court action
for the reversion of the same to the State, if the facts disclosed in the
course of such investigation should so warrant. 
Consequently, prohibition cannot be issued to enjoin such an
investigation despite the existence of a Torrens
title” (cited in Pinero, Jr. vs. Director of
Lands, L-36507, June 14, 1974,
57 SCRA 386)

Indefeasibility and imprescriptibility
of title

It is true that under Section 122 of the Land Registration Act^[5]
a title issued on the basis of a
Free Patent is as indefeasible as one
judicially secured.  That
indefeasibility, however, is not a
bar to an investigation by the
Director of Lands as to how such title had been acquired, if the purpose of
such investigation is to determine whether or not fraud had been committed in
securing such title in order that the appropriate action for reversion may be
filed by the Government.  The rationale therefor has been explained, thus:

“It is true that under Section 122 of the Land Registration
Act, a Torrens title issued on the basis of a free patent or a homestead patent
is as indefeasible as one judicially secured. 
And in repeated previous decisions of this Court that indefeasibility
has been emphasized by Our holding that not even the Government can file an
action for annulment, but at the same time, it has been made clear that an
action for reversion may be instituted by the Solicitor General, in the name of
the Republic of the Philippines (Director vs. De Luna, 110 Phil. 28; Republic
vs. The Heirs of C. Carle, 105 Phil. 1228; Panimdim
vs. Director, 11 SCRA 628; and the cases therein cited).  It is to the public interest that one who
succeeds in fraudulently acquiring title to a public land should not be allowed
to benefit therefrom, and the State should,
therefore, have an ever existing authority, thru its duly authorized officers,
to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the issuance of any such title,
to the end that the Republic, thru the Solicitor General or any other officer
who may be authorized by law, may file the corresponding action for the
reversion of the land involved to the public domain, subject thereafter to
disposal to other qualified persons in accordance with law.  In other words, the indefeasibility of a
title over land previously public is not a bar to an investigation by the
Director of Lands as to how such title has been acquired, if the purpose of
such investigation is to determine whether or not fraud had been committed in
securing such title in order that the appropriate action for reversion may be
filed by the Government” (Pinero vs. Director of
Lands, supra).

And in so far as the timeliness of the action of the Government
is concerned, it is basic that prescription does not run against the State
(Article 1108, Civil Code; Republic vs. Rodriguez, L-18967, January 31, 1966,
16 SCRA 53).  The case law has also been:

“When the government is the real party
in interest, and is proceeding mainly to assert its own rights and recover its
own property, there can be no defense on the ground of laches
or limitation” (Government of the U.S. vs. Judge of First Instance of Pampanga, 49 Phil.
495, 500; Republic vs. Grijaldo, L-20240, December
31, 1965, 15 SCRA 681).

“Public land fraudulently included in patents or certificates
of title may be recovered or reverted to the State in accordance with Section 101 of the Public Land Act. 
Prescription does not lie against the State in such cases for the
Statute of Limitations does not run against the State.  The right of reversion or reconveyance
to the State is not barred by prescription” (Republic vs. Hon. Animas,
L-37682, March 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 499).

Barter and sale of the land in 1970

Section 118 of the Public Land Act^[6]
provides that lands acquired under Free Patent shall not be subject to
encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and
for a term of five years from and after the date of the issuance of the patent.

In the case at bar, the Free Patent was issued on 14 April 1967.  And yet, barely three (3) years after its
issuance, or in 1970, Catalina Vda. de Felisilda had bartered a portion thereof with Serranillo, as she herself had declared in the investigation
proceedings covering the land in question (Exhibit “E-1-1”).  The records likewise indicate that after
respondent Serranillo had acquired the property he
caused the same to be subdivided into small lots and announced himself as owner (Exhibits “K”,
“K-1″ to”K-4”).  In
fact, on 29 September 1970
in a Contract to Sell, he sold
Lot No. 18, Block 2, with an area of 192 sq. ms., a portion of Lot 2198, covered by Original
Certificate  No. P-29004 (the
original title) in favor of one Nena B. Jamila (Exhibits “K”; “K-2”).  Another lot was sold on 9 November 1970 in favor of Pablo Poliquit (Exhibits “K”, “K-9” to “K-12”). 
In other words, he was already exercising acts of ownership.

The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, that Felisilda’s
widow had disposed of the land within the prohibitory period because as she herself stated she needed money
to finance her medical expenses (Exhibit “E”, p.3).  The provision of the law which prohibits the
sale or encumbrance of the homestead within five years after the grant of the
patent is mandatory, the purpose of the law being to promote a definite public
policy, which is to preserve and keep in the family of the patentee that
portion of the public land which the State has gratuitously given to them.

The Deeds of Sale executed by Felisilda’s
widow only on 14 June 1972 in favor of Serranillo
(Exhibit “4”) and Laiz (Exhibit
“5”) cannot overcome the fact that as early as 1970 Serranillo was already exercising acts of
ownership over the land in question.  Indications
are that the sales were actually perfected within the prohibitory period but
the Deeds of Sale were made to appear as executed only on 14 June 1972 or five
(5) years and two (2) months after the issuance of the Patent on 14 April 1967.  The 1972 Deeds were evidently merely
confirmatory documents designed to circumvent the prohibition against
alienation within a period of five (5) years.

“The law prohibiting any transfer or alienation of homestead
land within five years from the issuance of the patent does not distinguish
between executory and consummated sales; and it would
hardly be in keeping with the primordial aim of this prohibition to preserve
and keep in the family of the homesteader the piece of land that the state had
gratuitously given to them.  To hold
valid a homestead sale actually perfected during the period of prohibition but
with the execution and the delivery of possession of the land sold to the buyer
deferred until after the expiration of the prohibitory period, purposely to circumvent
the very law that prohibits and declares invalid each transaction to protect
the homesteader and his family (Mansano vs. Ocampo, L-14778, February 28, 1961, 1 SCRA 691, 697).

The
Conclusiveness of the

Decision
of the Director

of Lands

The authority of the Director of Lands to investigate
circumstances leading to the issuance of the patent after the same had been
issued is beyond question as heretofore discussed.  Ordinarily, too, his decision as to questions
of fact, when approved by the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources
is conclusive (Vda. de Calibo
vs. Ballesteros, L-17466, September 18, 1965, 15 SCRA
37; Ramirez vs. CA, L-28591, October 31, 1969, 30 SCRA 297).  However, it has also been held that a Court
may review a decision of the Director of Lands in a direct proceeding therefor, as in this case, and not collaterally (Firmelo vs. Tutaan, L-35408,
October 27, 1972, 53 SCRA 505).  Thus it
is that we find ourselves in disagreement with his finding that the Patent had
been fraudulently issued and that there was falsification.  In fact, the charge of Falsification of
Public Document was rejected twice in succession by the Resolution of the
Provincial Fiscal of General Santos City on 23 March 1972 (Exhibit
“8”-Laiz), and by the Court of First Instance of General Santos in Crim. Case No. 732 on 8 July 19 6 (Exhibit
“7”-Laiz).

Reversion Allowed

In  fine, while we affirm  the finding of non-falsification by both the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court, we are allowing reversion to the State on
the ground that the Disputed Property was disposed of within the prohibitory
period, following the explicit provisions of Section 124 of the Public Land
Act, reading:

“Sec. 124.  Any
acquisition, conveyance, alienation, transfer, or other contract made or executed
in violation of any of the provisions of sections 118, 120, 121, 122 and 123 of
this Act shall be unlawful and null and void from its execution and shall
produce the effect of annulling and cancelling the
grant, title, patent, or permit originally issued, recognized or confirmed,
actually or presumptively, and cause the reversion of the property and its
improvement to the State.”

WHEREFORE, the judgment under review promulgated on 13
August 1987 by respondent Appellate Court is hereby SET ASIDE and we hereby
order the cancellation of: (1) Free Patent No. 326416 and Original Certificate
of Title No. P-29004, issued to Nicolas Felisilda;
(2) TCT No. T-12335, together with all the 307 derivative titles, namely TCT
Nos. T-28975 to T-29281 all issued in favor of respondent-appellee
Serranillo; and (3) TCT No. T-12416, issued in favor
of Francisco Laiz. 
The lands covered thereby are hereby ordered reverted to the mass of the
public domain.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento,
and Regalado,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Justice Jorge S. Imperial and concurred in by Justices Vicente V.
Mendoza and Manuel C. Herrera.

^[2]
Presided over by Judge Marcelino R. Valdez.

^[3]
“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.

^[4]
Sec. 105.  If at any time the applicant
or grantee shall die before the issuance of the patent or the final grant of
the land, or during the life of the lease, or while the applicant or grantee
still has obligations pending towards the government in accordance with this
Act, he shall be succeeded in his rights and obligations with respect to the
land applied for or granted or leased under this Act by his heirs in law, who
shall be entitled to have issued to them the patent or final concession if they
show that they have complied with the requirements therefor,
and who shall be subrogated in all his rights and obligations for the purposes
of this Act.

^[5]
Sec. 122.  Whenever public lands in the
Philippine Islands belonging to the Government of the United
States or to the Government of the Philippines
Islands are alienated, granted, or
conveyed to persons or to public or private corporations, the same shall be
brought forthwith under the operation of this Act and shall become registered
lands.  It shall be the duty of the
official issuing the instrument of alienation, grant, or conveyance in behalf
of the Government to cause such instrument, before its delivery to the grantee,
to be filed with the register of deeds for the province where the land lies and
to be there registered like other deeds and conveyances, whereupon a
certificate shall be entered as in other cases of registered land, and an
owner’s duplicate certificate issued to the grantee.  The deed, grant, or instrument of conveyance
from the Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but
shall operate only as a contract
between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the
clerk or register of deeds to make registration.  The act of registration shall be the
operative act to convey and affect the lands, and in all cases under this Act
registration shall be made in the office of the register of deeds for the
province where the land lies.  The fees
for registration shall be paid by the grantee. 
After due registration and issue of the certificate and owner’s duplicate such
land shall be registered land for all purposes under this Act.

^[6]
Sec. 118.  Except in favor of the Government or
any of its branches, units, or institutions, or legally constituted banking
corporations, land acquired under free patent or homestead provisions shall not
be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the
application and for a term of
five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent on grant, not
shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to
the expiration of said period; but the improvements or crops on the land may be
mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations.

x x x .”