AMBROCIO MUYCO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND SERGIO SAGA, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision* of the CA in CA-G.R. No. 14152 affirming the
decision of the RTC, Branch 39, of Dumaguete City.

The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:

On November 22, 1935, Eugenio Saga filed an application for a homestead patent over a portion
of Lot No. 5164 located in Pamplona, Negros Oriental. Sometime thereafter, the Bureau of Lands subdivided the said lot
into two smaller lots, described as Lot Nos. 5956 and 6331, Pls-147. Eugenio Saga’s application was approved on
July 10, 1937, and on July 6, 1939, he was issued a Homestead Patent over said
portion of Lot 5164 by the Director of Lands.

On February 2, 1952, Eugenio Saga sold his rights over the
homestead to his son Sergio Saga, respondent herein. On the same date, Sergio Saga filed a homestead application over
Lot No. 5956, Pls-147. On October 23,
1954, an OCT was issued to
Sergio Saga over the said lot.

On the other hand, on March 4, 1946, Leon Tolabing filed a
homestead application over Lot No. 5956. This application was approved on October 5 of the same year, and on
April 11, 1955, he sold his homestead rights to Ambrocio Muyco. On the same date, Muyco filed his homested
application over the said lot. He was
not issued a certificate of title as his application covered the same Lot 5956, over which an OCT had
been issued to Sergio Saga.

On May 7, 1955, the Public Land Inspector of Negros Oriental
conducted an investigation of the matter and found that Sergio Saga was
occupying and cultivating Lot No. 6331; that Sergio had not occupied or
cultivated Lot No. 5956; that the one who was occupying and cultivating Lot No.
5956 was Leon Tolabing. Accordingly, it
was recommended that the title issued to Sergio Saga be recalled and modified
to cover Lot No. 6331. These findings
were questioned by Sergio Saga.

A subsequent report on December 5, 1957 by the Office of the Public Land Inspector
reiterated the above findings and that there had been an error in recording the
lot number of Sergio Saga.

In the meantime, Sergio Saga filed a case for “Recovery of
Possession” against Ambrocio Muyco. The main thrust of his complaint was anchored on the fact that he was
the holder of a Certificate of Title covering the lot in question. The case dragged on for years until February
16, 1987 when the trial court rendered a decision adverse to Ambrocio Muyco, to
wit:

“It cannot be denied that Sergio Saga was able to obtain a
patent over Lot No. 5956, which is now covered by Original Certificate of Title
No. H-V-795 (a xeroxed copy thereof presented). (p. 52, Rollo)

x x x

‘Thus, an original certificate of title issued on the strength of a
homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issued in a judicial
proceeding and become indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of
one year from the date of the issuance thereof. (Ingaran v. Ramelo, 107 Phil. 498; Ramirez
v. Court of Appeals, L­-28591, October 31, 1969, 30
SCRA 297).

x x x”

(p. 52, Rollo)

Ambrocio Muyco then
brought the case by appeal to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the lower
court’s ruling.

Hence, this petition for review based on the following assignment
of errors:

“1. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in
concluding that there was no mistake in the issuance of a Certificate of Title
to respondent Sergio Saga for Lot No. 5956 despite the fact that what was
applied for in Homestead
Application No. 211844 (E­-121405) (over a portion of Lot No. 5164, Cad. No.
119) was Lot No. 6331.

‘2. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not
holding that Leon Tolabing (petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest) already
acquired a vested right over Lot No. 5956 under Application No. V-666
(E-V-705), PLS 147 when the Director of Lands ordered on October 5, 1946 the
approval of said application.

‘3. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not
ordering the reconveyance of Lot No. 5956 to petitioner Ambrocio Muyco.”
(p. 7, Rollo)

The petition is not impressed with merit. We quote with approval the observation and
ruling of the appellate court that:

“We do not perceive any error here. It is clear that as early as 1939 Eugenio Saga already became the
owner of the lot in question by
virtue of a patent granted to him by the Director of Lands.

x x x

‘If any error had been committed, it was in the acceptance of homestead
applications over the parcel of land which was already covered by an earlier
application. What we also see as
erroneous and unnecessary was the re-application by Sergio Saga for a homestead
patent over lot no. 5956 which, as discussed, had already been granted to
Eugenio Saga under the latter’s homestead application.” (p. 18, Rollo)

Hence, it will readily be seen that it was Eugenio Saga who
acquired a vested right over the lot in question, and not Leon Tolabing. It was this vested right which Sergio Saga
likewise acquired by virtue of the sale on February 2, 1952 involving the
homestead.

Even if we were to regard otherwise, x x x “it appears that
the application of Leon Tolabing was denied as it was the application of Sergio
Saga that was granted and given due course, patent no. V-36170 having been
issued to him. Aside from this, an OCT
covering the lot in question was issued to Saga on October 23, 1954, thereby
creating an indefeasible and incontrovertible title in his favor (Ramirez vs.
CA, 30 SCRA 297).” (p. 18, rollo)

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated September 12, 1990 is hereby AFFIRMED and this petition for review is
DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Associate Justice
Alfredo L. Benipayo and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo L. Pronove,
Jr. and Salome A. Montoya.