7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 1/23

LAND TITLES AND DEED – ASSIGNMENT FOR FEB. 6, 2016

6. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title under C.A. 141

Sec. 2,R.A. 9176

Director of Lands v. IAC, G.R. No. 73002. Decemer 29, 19!6

Director of Lands v. Aairo, G.R. No. L"3#602 $a% 31,

&' C'o v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L"#!321. A()(st 31, 19#6

Re*(+ic v. CA, G.R. No. 10!99! A()(st 2#, 199#

Cadastra+ Act or Act No. 229

7. Administrative Methods

a. Homestead Patent

-a+oa vs. arra+es, 1 /'i+. #9! 192!

 ae4 vs. Intermediate A**e++ate Co(rt, 19# 5CRA 7#3 1991

Ramoso vs. &+i)ado, 70 /'i+. !6 19#0

/amint(an vs. 5an A)(stin, #3 /'i+. 61 1922

b. Free Patent or Administrative Legalization

5ec. ##, /(+ic Land La, as amended % R.A. 7!2

Effects of erroneous grant of Free Patent

c. Free TitleCommonea+t' Act No. 691, as amended % Re*(+ic Act No. 63

IV. Indefeasibility of title through administrative method

eirs of 8en)co v. eirs of A+ia+as, G.R. No. 77#1. Nov. 29, 19!!

Com*re'ensive A)rarian Reform La CARL: or R.A. 667

Indi)eno(s /eo*+es; Ri)'t Act I/RA: or R.A. !371

Cr(4 v. 5ecretar% of <NR, G.R. No. 133!. Decemer 6, 2000, Read se*arate

o*inion % =(stice /(no

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 2/23

G.R. No. L-27059 February 14, 1928

BUENAVENTURA BALBOA, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

E!L!O L. FARRALE", defendant-appellant.

Ernesto Zaragoza for plaintiff-appellant.

 Alejo Labrador for defendant-appellant.

#O$N"ON, J.:

The material facts in this case, as disclosed by the record, may be briefly stated as follows.

(1) Sometime in the year 1913, the plaintiff Benaventra Balboa filled with the Brea of !ands an

application for homestead, "o. 1#$19, nder the provisions of %ct "o. 9&$, coverin' a tract of land

sitated in the barrio of lis, mnicipality of ermosa, *rovince of Bataan, containin' 1+ hectares,

+9 ares and centares.

(&) ive years thereafter, or in 191, Balboa sbmitted proof, showin' his residence pon, and

cltivation of said land, as well as his compliance with all of the other re/irements of section 3 of

said %ct "o. 9&$, which final proof was approved by the 0irector of !ands on ebrary 1, 191

(2hibit 3). 4n 5ly 1, 1919, said %ct "o. 9&$ was repealed by %ct "o. &+.

(3) 4n September 1#, 19&#, or over a year after %ct "o. &+ had 'one into effect, the homestead

patent for said land, otherwise 6nown as certificate of title "o. 91 (2hibit %) was issed n favor of

Benventra Balboa by the 7overnor-7eneral of the *hilippine 8slands.

(+) 4n %'st 11, 19&+, said Benaventra Balboa, for and in consideration of the sm of *9#,sold said land to the defendant ecilio !. arrales (2hibit &) and on 4ctober 1$, 19&+, the latter

secred in his name transfer certificate of title "o. $# of said land (2hibit B).

4n :arch $, 19&$, the plaintiff commenced the present action for the prpose of havin' said sale

declared nll and void on the 'rond of lac6 of consent on his part and frad on the part of the

defendant, and on the frther 'rond that said sale was contrary to, and in violation of the provisions

of section 11$ of %ct "o. &+.

 %fter a carefl consideration of the evidence addced drin' the trial of the case the onorable

!eopoldo ;ovira, <d'e, arrived at the conclsion that the deed of sale in /estion (2hibit &) had

been dly eected by the plaintiff. e held, however, that said deed was nll and void, in view ofthe fact that it was eected before the lapse of five years from the date of the issance of the

certificate of title in favor of Benventra Balboa, in violation of the prohibition contained in section

11$ of %ct "o. &+.

The pertinent parts of the decision read as follows=

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 3/23

omo cestion basica, se discte en el presente asnto la valide> del docmento 2hibit &,

o sea el traspaso hecho por el demandante al demandado referente al terreno en cestion.

2l demandante sostiene /e, ba<o el articlo 11$ de la !ey &+, el traspaso el nlo por

canto tvo l'ar el 11 de a'osto de 19&+, esto es sin haber transcrrido todavia los cinco

anos si'ientas a la fecha en /e fe epedidol el certificado de titlo "o. 91 /e lo fe el

1# de septiembre de 19&# el demandado, por el contrario, sostiene, como pnto dediscsion le'al, /e el docmento de traspaso ehibit & no cae ba<o las disposiciones de la

!ey "o. &+, sino dentro de las disposiciones de la !ey "o. 9&$ y /e ba<o esta !ey no

eistia tal limitacion de venta dentro de los cinco a?os si'ientes a la fecha de la epedicion

del titlo dehomestead , y /e habiendo sido la solicitd de homestead aprobada 1 de

febrero de 191, an contado los cinco anos si'ientes, resltaria /e desde el 1 de

febrero de 191 hasta el 11 de a'osto de 19&+ han transcrrido mas de cinco a?os.

0e lo epesto, el 5>'ado 8le'a a la conclsion de /e el 2hibit & es nlo e inefica>, por

canto /e la venta fe otor'ada fera de lo prescrito en el articlo 11$ de la !ey "o. &+,/e procede declarar nlo dicho docmento 2hibit &1, y, consi'intemente, el certificado de

transferencia de titlo $#.

8n accordance with the fore'oin' conclsion the trial <d'e rendered a <d'ment in favor of the

plaintiff and a'ainst the defendant, orderin' the latter to retrn to the plaintiff the land in /estion,

and the plaintiff to retrn to the defendant the price received for said land, a''re'atin' *$&.$9, with

interest at the rate of 1& per cent. rom the <d'ment both parties appealed.

The principal /estion raised in this appeal is whether the validity of the sale of the land in /estion

shold be determined nder the provisions of %ct "o. 9&$ or nder those of %ct "o. &+. 8n other

words, which of the two %cts @ 9&$ and &+ @ shall be applied in determinin' whether the sale in/estion is valid or notA

The land in /estion was ac/ired by Benventra Balboa as homestead nder the provisions and

prsant to the re/irements of %ct "o. 9&$. e filed his application and complied with all of the

re/isites to the ac/isition of said homestead, in conformity with the provisions of said %ct "o. 9&$.

8n 191 and prior to the repeal of said %ct he sbmitted his final proof, showin' his residence pon,

and cltivation of the land, as well as his compliance with all of the other re/irements of the law,

and said final proof was approved by the 0irector of !ands on ebrary 1, 191. 8n other words,

Benaventra Balboa, had shown, to the satisfaction of the 7overnment, that he had performed all

of the acts re/ired of an applicant for homestead, and, nder the provisions of section 3 of %ct no.

9&$, he became entitled to a homestead patent or certificate of title to the land covered by hisapplication.

Section 3 of %ct "o. 9&$ provides, inter alia, that pon the filin' of final proof by the applicant and the

approval thereof by the 0irector of !ands, he (the applicant) shall be entitled to a patent or

certificate of title. Therefore, on ebrary 1, 191, after Benaventra Balboa had sbmitted his

final proof and after the same had been approved by the 7overnment, and while %ct "o. 9&$ was

still in force, he became the owner of the land and entitled to a patent. %t least on that date his ri'ht

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 4/23

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 5/23

thereby is deemed private property. % perfected homestead, nder the law, is property in the hi'hest

sense, which may be sold and conveyed and will pass by descent. 8t has the effect of a 'rant of the

ri'ht to present and eclsive possession of said land. % valid and sbsistin' perfected homestead,

made and 6ept p in accordance with the provisions of the statte, has the effect of a 'rant of the

present and eclsive possession of the land. 2ven withot a patent, a perfected homestead is a

property ri'ht in the fllest sense, naffected by the fact that the paramont title to the land is in the7overnment. Sch land may be conveyed or inherited.

8n the Dnited States and in each and every State of the Dnion vested ri'hts are safe'arded by the

+th %mendment to the ederal onstittion, which provides that no State shall deprive any person

of life, liberty or property withot de process of law.

The state has no power to divest or to impair vested ri'hts, whether sch an attempt to do so

be made by le'islative enactment, by mnicipal ordinance, or by a chan'e in the constittion

of the estate. This reslt follows from prohibitions contained in the constittion or particlarly

all the states. Before the adoption of the forteenth amendment there was no prohibition in

the onstittion of the Dnited States which wold prevent the states from passin' lawsdivestin' vested ri'hts, nless these laws also impaired the obli'ation of contact, or were e

post facto laws but vested property rights are now protected against state action by the

 provision of the fourteenth amendment that no state "shall deprive any person of life liberty

or property without due process of law . (1& . 5., sec. +$, pp. 9$, 9.)

Section 3, para'ra'h 1, of the 5ones !aw provides=

That no law shall be enacted in said 8slands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property withot de process of law, etc. Ths, in this <risdiction, vested ri'hts are also protected

from impairment by epress constittional provision. Therefore, the ri'ht vested in Benaventra

Balboa by %ct "o. 9&$ cannot be divested, impaired or restricted by section 11$ of %ct "o. &+.Said ri'ht shold be 'overned entirely and eclsively by the provisions of %ct "o. 9&$, which it was

ac/ired.

"ow, the vested ri'ht of Benaventra Balboa to his homestead land necessarily carries with it the

ri'ht to alienate and dispose of the same. The only prohibition contained in %ct "o. 9&$ a'ainst

alienation of homestead ac/ired nder said law, appears in section + thereof, which reads as

follows= "o lands ac/ired nder the provisions of this chapter shall in any event become liable to

the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the issance of a patent therefor. 8t follows, therefore

that the sale of the land in /estion by the plaintiff Benventra Balboa to the defendant ecilio !.

arrales does not infrin'e said prohibition, and conse/ently said sale is valid and bindin', and

shold be 'iven fll force and effect.

Section 11$ of %ct "o. &+, which prohibits the sale of homestead land drin' the period of five

years sbse/ent to the issance of the patent or certificate of title pon which rests the decision of

the cort a /o, cannot be invo6ed to annl the sale in /estion. Said prohibition, if applied in the

present case, wold impair and diminish the vested ri'hts ac/ired nder %ct "o. 9&$, contrary to

the niform doctrine followed in the Dnited States, and in violation of the epress provisions of

section 3 of the 5ones !aw.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 6/23

The ri'ht, title and interest of the appellant havin' become vested nder the provisions of %ct "o.

9&$, his ri'hts cannot be affected by any law passed sbse/ent thereto. The provisions of %ct "o.

&+ cannot be invo6ed for the prpose of defeatin' the vested ri'ht ac/ired by the appellant

before its adoption.

or all of the fore'oin' reasons, the <d'ment appealed from shold be and is hereby reversed, andit is hereby ordered and decreed that the defendant be absolved from all liability nder the

complaint, with costs a'ainst the plaintiff-appellant. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-%8291 &ar'( %, 1991

ARA)!O, &EL*U!A)E", AB)ULA, EUGEN!O, A+OLON!O, a ura/e BAE3, petitioners,

vs.

T$E $ONORABLE !NTER&E)!ATE A++ELLATE OURT a VALENT!N O.OUANO, respondents,

!ominador . #arillo for petitioners.

$ableo %. %aldoza for private respondent.

FERNAN, C.J.:

This petition for certiorari , prohibition and mandamus which this cort treated as a petition for review

on certiorari in its resoltion of %'st &&, 19+ see6s to nllify the decision of the 8ntermediate

 %ppellate ort (now ort of %ppeals) dated 5ne &9, 19+, modifyin' the decision of the ort of

irst 8nstance (now ;e'ional Trial ort) of 0avao 4riental, dated 5ne , 191, orderin' the herein

petitioners to vacate the property in controversy to retrn its possession to private respondent and

to pay *1#,###.## representin' proceeds of the land from 5anary +, 19, and attorneyHs fees.

;ecords show that private respondent Calentin 4ano, a claimant-occpant of !ot "o. 9$, *ls-99-

0 sitated at sitio Ba'sac, barrio of :ani6lin', 7overnor 7eneroso (now San 8sidro), 0avao del

"orte, containin' an area of three (3) hectares, + ares and centares which was srveyed on

:arch 13, 19, as evidenced by the Srvey "otification ard issed in his name, filed on

ebrary &, 199, a homestead application 1 with the Brea of !ands. The said application,

recorded as omestead %pplication "o. &#-1###1, was approved in an order dated :arch 3, 199

issed by the 0istrict !and 4fficer, !and 0istrict "o. &#, for and by athority of the 0irector of !ands.

Three (3) years thereafter, or on September , 19$&, a "otice of 8ntention to :a6e inal *roof was

made by Calentin 4ano to establish his claim to the lot applied for and to prove his residence and

cltivation before !and 8nspector !oren>o Sa>on at the Brea of !ands, 0avao ity at 1#=## oHcloc6

 %.:. appendin' thereto an affidavit attestin' that a copy of his intention to ma6e final proof relative

to his omestead %pplication "o. &#-1##1 was posted at the :nicipal bildin' of the :nicipality

of 7ov. 7eneroso (now San 8sidro), 0avao, on the blletin board of the barrio where the land applied

for is located, and in a conspicos place on the land itself on the th day of %'st, 19$& and

remained so posted for a period of thirty days, ntil September , 19$&. &

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 7/23

4n the said date, or on September , 19$&, Calentin 4ano made his inal *roof before !and

8nspector !oren>o Sa>on prsant to Section 1+, ommonwealth %ct "o. 1+1, as amended.

The followin' year, or on :arch +, 19$3, an order for the issance of patent was issed by the

Brea of !ands.

4n %pril 1, 19$3, an 4ri'inal ertificate of Title "o. *-133 was issed to private respondent

Calentin 4ano over omestead *atent "o. 11&$1 which was transcribed in the ;e'istration

Boo6 for the province of 0avao on 4ctober &, 19$3. 3

4n 5anary +, 19, after 19 years of possession, cltivation and income derived from coconts

planted on !ot "o. 9$, private respondent Calentin 4ano was interrpted in his peacefl

occpation thereof when a certain %rcadio Ibane> and his sons, :el/iades, %bdla, 2'enia

"meriano, %polonio and Cictoriano, forcibly and nlawflly entered the land armed with spears,

canes and bolos.

Becase of the nwarranted refsal of %rcadio Ibane>, et al. to vacate the premises since the timehe was dispossessed in 19, private respondent Calentin 4ano filed on September &+, 19 a

complaint for recovery of possession, dama'es and attorneyHs fees before the then ort of irst

8nstance (now ;T) of 0avao 4riental a'ainst %rcadio :el/iades, %bdla, 2'enia "meriano,

 %polonio, Cictoriano and Servando, all srnamed Ibane>, + doc6eted as ivil ase "o. $1, see6in'

to en<oin the Ibane>es from frther the coconts therefrom and restore to him the peacefl

possession and occpation of the premises. 8n his complaint, Calentin 4ano, then plaintiff therein,

alle'ed that he has been in lawfl and peacefl possession since 19$ of a parcel of land

desi'nated as !ot "o. 9$, *ls-99-0 sitated in Ba'sac, :ani6lin', 7overnor 7eneroso (now San

8sidro), 0avao 4riental, to which an 4ri'inal ertificate of Title "o. *-(l33)-*-393& was issed in

his name that petitioners, then defendants therein, nlawflly entered his land on 5anary +, 19

and started cltivatin' and 'atherin' the coconts, bananas and other frits therein, thereby ille'allydeprivin' him of the possession and en<oyment of the frits of the premises.

*etitioners, on the other hand, alle'ed that plaintiff Calentin 4ano, now private respondent, has

never been in possession of any portion of !ot "o. 9$ as the same has been continosly occpied

and possessed by petitioners since 193# in the concept of owner and have introdced valable

improvements thereon sch as coconts and hoses that !ot "o. 9$ was the sb<ect matter of

administrative proceedin's before the Brea of !ands in :ati, 0avao 4riental which was

conse/ently decided in their favor by the 0irector of !ands on the findin' that Calentin 4ano has

never resided in the land that it was declared by the 0irector of !ands that the homestead patent

issed to private respondent Calentin 4ano was improperly and erroneosly issed, since on the

basis of their investi'ation and relocation srvey, the actal occpation and cltivation was made bypetitioner %rcadio Iba?e> and his children, consistin' of 9.$ hectares which cover the whole of !ot

"o. 9$ and portions of !ot "os. 9, 9 and 99 that based on the oclar inspection condcted, it

was established that Calentin 4ano did not have a hose on the land and cannot locate the

bondaries of his titled land for he never resided therein.

The trial cort, after hearin', rendered on 5ne , 1991 its decision $ in favor of private respondent,

the dispositive portion of which reads as follows=

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 8/23

E2;24;2, in view of all the fore'oin', <d'ment is hereby rendered as follows=

1 @ The defendants are ordered to vacate the premises of !ot 9$, *!S-99-0, sitated at

Sitio Ba'sac, :ani6lin', San 8sidro, 7overnor 7eneroso and to retrn the possession thereof 

to the plaintiff Calentin 4ano to'ether with all the improvements therein

& @ To pay nto the plaintiff the sm of *1&,###.##, the proceeds of the sale of copra from

5anary +, 19 to the present

3 @ To pay attorneyHs fees of *,##.##

+ @ To desist from enterin' the property a'ain after they have trned it over to plaintiff and

@ To pay the costs of this sit.

*etitioners appealed to the 8ntermediate %ppellate ort.

4n 5ne &9, 19+, the 8ntermediate %ppellate ort, irst ivil ases 0ivision proml'ated a

decision,  affirmin' the decision of the trial cort, with the modification that the award of *l&,###.##

representin' the proceeds of the land from 5anary &+, 19 was redced to *1#,###.## and the

amont of *,##.## as attorneyHs fees was fied at *,###.##. 9

ence the instant recorse by petitioners.

 %t the otset, it mst be noted that in assailin' the appellate cortHs decision which affirmed that of

the trial cort, petitioners relied on the 4rder dated 5ly 19, 19 issed by the 0irector of the

Brea of !ands resolvin' the protest filed by them on 5anary 3, 19, later amended on ebrary

$, 19, a'ainst the omestead %pplication "o. &#-1###1 of Calentin 4ano over !ot "o. 9$, *ls-99-0, doc6eted as B.!. laim "o. &#9, 0.!.4. onfect "o. (J8-)1#&.

*etitioners claimed that the complaint for recovery of possession, dama'es and attorneys fees

a'ainst them shold have been dismissed by the trial cort for failre of private respondents, as

patentee-respondent in the protest case before the Brea of !ands, to ehast administrative

remedies which is tantamont to a lac6 of case of action nder Section 1, ;le 1$ of the ;les of

ort that the decision or order on a /estion of fact by the Brea of !ands that *atent "o. 1#1&#1

issed to private respondent was improperly and erroneosly issed shold have been respected by

the trial cort and the appellate cort that the indefeasibility of a certificate of title mst not be a

sword for an offense nor shold it be allowed to perpetrate frad.

Ee find the contentions nmeritorios.

8t was erroneos for petitioners to /estion the Torrens 4ri'inal ertificate of Title issed to private

respondent over !ot "o. 9$ in ivil ase "o. $1, an ordinary civil action for recovery of

possession filed by the re'istered owner of the said lot, by invo6in' as affirmative defense in their

answer the 4rder of the Brea of !ands, dated 5ly 19, 19, 1# issed prsant to the investi'atory

power of the 0irector of !ands nder Section 91 of *blic !and !aw (.%. 1+1 as amended). Sch a

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 9/23

defense parta6es of the natre of a collateral attac6 a'ainst a certificate of title bro'ht nder the

operation of the Torrens system of re'istration prsant to Section 1&& of the !and ;e'istration %ct,

now Section 1#3 of *.0. 1&9. The case law on the matter does not allow a collateral attac6 on the

Torrens certificate of title on the 'rond of actal frad. 11 The rle now finds epression in Section +

of *.0. 1&9 otherwise 6nown as the *roperty ;e'istration 0ecree.

The certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person

whose name appears therein. %fter the epiration of the one (1) year period from the issance of the

decree of re'istration pon which it is based, it becomes incontrovertible. 1& The settled rle is that a

decree of re'istration and the certificate of title issed prsant thereto may be attac6ed on the

'rond of actal frad within one (1) year from the date of its entry and sch an attac6 mst be direct

and not by a collateral proceedin'. 13 The validity of the certificate of title in this re'ard can be

threshed ot only in an action epressly filed for the prpose. 1+

8t mst be emphasi>ed that a certificate of title issed nder an administrative proceedin' prsant

to a homestead patent, as in the instant case, is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issed nder

a <dicial re'istration proceedin', provided the land covered by said certificate is a disposable pblicland within the contemplation of the *blic !and !aw. 1

There is no specific provision in the *blic !and !aw (.%. "o. 1+1, as amended) or the !and

;e'istration %ct (%ct +9$), now *.0. 1&9, fiin' the one (1) year period within which the pblic land

patent is open to review on the 'rond of actal frad as in Section 3 of the !and ;e'istration %ct,

now Section 3& of *.0. 1&9, and clothin' a pblic land patent certificate of title with indefeasibility.

"evertheless, the pertinent prononcements in the aforecited cases clearly reveal that Section 3 of

the !and ;e'istration %ct, now Section 3& of *.0. 1&9 was applied by implication by this ort to

the patent issed by the 0irector of !ands dly approved by the Secretary of "atral ;esorces,

nder the si'natre of the *resident of the *hilippines in accordance with law. The date of issance

of the patent, therefore, corresponds to the date of the issance of the decree in ordinary re'istrationcases becase the decree finally awards the land applied for re'istration to the party entitled to it,

and the patent issed by the 0irector of !ands e/ally and finally 'rants, awards, and conveys the

land applied for to the applicant. 1$ This, to or mind, is in consonance with the intent and spirit of the

homestead laws, i.e. conservation of a family home, and to encora'e the settlement, residence and

cltivation and improvement of the lands of the pblic domain. 8f the title to the land 'rant in favor of

the homesteader wold be sb<ected to in/iry, contest and decision after it has been 'iven by the

7overnment thr the process of proceedin's in accordance with the *blic !and !aw, there wold

arise ncertainty, confsion and sspicion on the 'overnmentHs system of distribtin' pblic

a'ricltral lands prsant to the !and for the !andless policy of the State.

8n the instant case, the pblic land certificate of title issed to private respondent attained the statsof indefeasibility one (1) year after the issance of patent on %pril 1, 19$3, hence, it is no lon'er

open to review on the 'rond of actal frad. onse/ently, the filin' of the protest before the

Brea of !ands a'ainst the omestead %pplication of private respondent on 5anary 3, 19, or 1&

years after, can no lon'er re-open or revise the pblic land certificate of title on the 'rond of actal

frad. "o reasonable and plasible ecse has been shown for sch an nsal delay. The law

serves those who are vi'ilant and dili'ent and not those who sleep when the law re/ires them to

act. 1

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 10/23

8n renderin' <d'ment restorin' possession of !ot "o. 9$ to private respondent 4ano, the dly

re'istered owner thereof, the trial cort merely applied the rle and <risprdence that a person

whose property has been wron'ly or erroneosly re'istered in anotherHs name is not to set aside the

decree, bt, respectin' the decree as incontrovertible and no lon'er open to review, to brin' an

ordinary action in the ordinary cort of <stice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into

the hands of an innocent prchaser for vale, for dama'es.1

 %ltho'h petitioners may still have the remedy of reconveyance, assmin' that they are the

owners and actal occpants of !ot "o. 9$, as claimed by them before the trial cort, this remedy,

however, can no lon'er be availed of by petitioners de to prescription. The prescriptive period for

the reconveyance of fradlently re'istered real property is ten (1#) years rec6oned from the date of

the issance of the certificate of title. 19

Ehile there is no dispte that the 0irector of !ands has the athority to condct an investi'ation of

any alle'ed frad in secrin' a homestead patent and the correspondin' title to a pblic land

notwithstandin' the stats of indefeasibility attached to the certificate of title of private respondent,

and sch investi'ation cannot be en<oined by a writ of prohibition, it mst be observed however, thatwhatever may be the reslt of the factal findin' in this administrative proceedin's nder Section 91

of the *blic !and !aw is not decisive of the isse as to who has a better ri'ht of possession

(possession de jure) over !ot "o. 9$ in ivil ase "o. $1. The action institted by private

respondent before the trial cort parta6es of the natre of an accion publiciana which is basically

intended for the recovery of possession, and is a plenary action in an ordinary civil proceedin'

before a ort of irst 8nstance (now ;T). &#

4n the other hand, in the case of the administrative investi'ation nder Section 91 of the *blic

!and !aw, the sole and only prpose of the 0irector of !ands is to determine whether or not frad

had been committed in secrin' sch title in order that the appropriate action for reversion may be

filed by the 7overnment. &1

 8t is not intended to invalidate the Torrens certificate of title of there'istered owner of the land. Dnless and ntil the land is reverted to the State by virte of a

 <d'ment of a cort of law in a direct proceedin's for reversion, the Torrens certificate of title thereto

remains valid and bindin' a'ainst the whole world.

8n resolvin' the basic isse of an accion publiciana, the trial cort acted within its sphere of

competence and has correctly fond that private respondent 4ano has a better ri'ht of possession

over !ot "o. 9$ than petitioners who claimed to own and possess a total of 1& hectares of land

incldin' that of !ot "o. 9$. ;ecords indicate that petitioners have not ta6en any positive step to

le'itimi>e before the Brea of !ands their self-servin' claim of possession and cltivation of a total

of 1& hectares of pblic a'ricltral land by either applyin' for homestead settlement, sale patent,

lease, or confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title by <dicial le'ali>ation nder Section +(b) ofthe *blic !and !aw, as amended by ;.%. "o. 19+& and *.0. 1#3, or by administrative le'ali>ation

(free patent) nder Section 11 of *blic !and !aw, as amended. &'wphi& Ehat was clearly shown drin' the

trial of the case was that petitioners wrested control and possession of !ot "o. 9$ on 5anary +,

19, or one (1) day after they filed their belated protest on 5anary 3, 19 before the Brea of

!ands a'ainst the homestead application of private respondent, ths castin' serios dobt on their

claim of prior possession and prodctive cltivation.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 11/23

Ehat is more, it was only in 19 that petitioners came to 6now and reali>e that they do not have

actal possession of the so-called 1& hectares becase, as testified by 2rnesto 0omanais, son-in-

law of %rcadio Ibane>, three (3) hectares of their land were fond to be in possession of a certain

;odolfo Bene'ian and that petitioners did not ob<ect when said portion of land was removed from

their occpation thereby redcin' their prported claim of 1& hectares to only nine (9) hectares. && 8t

is relatively easy to declare and claim that one owns and possesses a 1&-hectare pblic a'ricltralland, bt it is entirely a different matter to affirmatively declare and to prove before a cort of law that

one actally possessed and cltivated the entire area to the eclsion of other claimants who stand

on e/al footin' nder the *blic !and !aw (% 1+1, as amended) as any other pioneerin'

claimants.

E2;24;2, the petition is 02"820 for lac6 of merit. The decision of the 8ntermediate %ppellate

ort, now ort of %ppeals, dated 5ne &9, 19+, is hereby affirmed. "o costs.

S4 4;02;20.

G.R. No. 4%548 #ue 21, 1940

AR&E"TO RA&O"O, petitioner,

vs.

#O"E OBL!GA)O, ET AL., respondents.

 Armesto (amoso in his own behalf.

)acario ). $eralta for the respondents.

&ORAN, J.:

 %n appeal by certiorari  from the <d'ment of the ort of %ppeals.

4ne eliciano apinpin was owner of a homestead 'ranted him on September &1, 19&1, and

re'istered in the office of the re'istrar of deeds of "eva 2ci<a nder title "o. 1##. e died, and his

widow, !isa 5ardela, and son by the first marria'e, 7eronimo apinpin, sold the property to

respondent 5an 4bli'ado on :ay 1, 193#. Ehen the cadastral proceedin's were opened in

"eva 2ci<a, the widow, withot the son, claimed the property, and the cort awarded it to her on

0ecember 1#, 19&9, the final decree of re'istration and the ori'inal title havin' been issed on

0ecember , 193#, and 5anary , 1931, respectively. 4n 4ctober &$. 193+, the widow transferred

the property to her lawyer, %rmesto ;amoso, the herein petitioner, in whose favor transfer certificate

of title "o. # was issed. The /estion now is whether %rmesto ;amoso, nder his transfer

certificate of title, is entitled to the property as a'ainst the first transferee, 5an 4bli'ado.

 % homestead patent, once re'istered nder the ;e'istration %ct, becomes as indefeasible as a

Torrens title and cannot thereafter be the sb<ect of an investi'ation for determination or <d'ment in

a cadastral case. %ny new title which the cadastral, cort may order to be issed is nll and void and

shold be cancelled. %ll that the cadastral cort may do is to ma6e corrections of technical errors in

the description of the property contained in its title, or to proceed to the partition thereof if it is owned

by two or more coowners. (*amintan vs. San %'stin et al., +3 *hil., 2l o'ar ilipino vs.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 12/23

4lvi'a et al., $# *hil., 1, 1.) %ccordin'ly, the order of re'istration issed by the cadastral cort in

favor of the widow is nll and void, and, conse/ently, no valid transfer cold have been made by

her in favor of the petitioner, %rmesto ;amos. 8n other words, the latter has no ri'ht to the property.

8t is ar'ed, however, that, if in a cadastral proceedin', the cort may order the partition of the

property already re'istered, then it may also validly award the property in favor of the spposed soleheir of the person in whose favor the title was issed. This conclsion is wron'. %wardin' the

property to a spposed sole heir is not orderin' its partition. 8f, accordin' to the re'istered title, the

property belon's to several owners, the cadastral cort may order partition amon' them. Bt when

the re'istered title belon's to only one person, the cadastral cort cannot, if that person is dead,

order the re'istration of the property in favor of the heirs or its partition amon' them, for that wold

presppose a declaration of heirs, a fnction which devolves pon probate corts. Ee do not mean

to say that the cadastral cort cannot do so in connection with ndersi'ned lands, the actal

ownership of which it mst determine. Bt when the ownership has already been determined and a

re'istered title has already been issed, the cadastral cort cannot ad<dicate anew the ownership

of the property and order the issance of an ori'inal title to sccessors in interest. Sch sccessors

in interest, either by inheritance or by contract, are entitled only to a transfer certificate of title whichcan be issed in proceedin's that are not proper in a cadastral cort. The issance of an ori'inal title

to the sccessors in interest is in fact e/ivalent to settin' aside the ori'inal title issed in favor of

their predecessor in interest. %nd this cannot be done by the cadastral cort.

8t is tre that this is a /estion of <risdiction of the cadastral cort, which the ort of %ppeals may

not entertain. Bt there is no showin' that the petitioner has challen'ed the <risdiction of the ort

of %ppeals on this matter and has ta6en, the proper steps to have the case certified to this ort.

Dnder this circmstance, this cort will confine itself to reviewin' the prononcement of the ort of

 %ppeals on the /estion of <risdiction and sch other /estions of law as have been properly raised

by the petitioner.

8n the <d'ment rendered by the ort of %ppeals, it is held that the herein petitioner acted in bad

faith in ac/irin' the property from !isa 5ardela, for, prior to the ac/isition, he 6new that the

property had already been sold to 5an 4bli'ado. This is a /estion of fact which we will not review.

 %nd the findin' of the ort of %ppeals on this matter is another 'rond for holdin' that the petitioner 

has no ri'ht to the property.

5d'ment is affirmed, with costs a'ainst petitioner.

G.R. No. L-1794 #ue 22, 1922

FLORENT!NO +A&!NTUAN, petitioner,

vs.

$oorabe +R!&!T!VO "AN AGU"T!N, Au66ary #ue o (e "e'o #u6'6a )6r6', (e"$ER!FF OF +A&+ANGA,N!O&E)E" E"+!NO"A, RO"A E"+!NO"A, EU"EB!A E"+!NO"A, a FRAN!"A)AV!), respondents.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 13/23

#avanna Aboitiz and Agan for petitioner.

eli* %autista for respondents.

O"TRAN), J.:

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari , re/irin' the respondent <d'e of the ort of irst 8nstanceto certify to this cort the record in land re'istration case "o. 113&, and as mch of the record of

cadastral case "o. 13&, as pertains to lot "o. $&, of the cadaster of :abalacat, *rovince of

*ampan'a. The petitioner frther prays that pon said records bein' so certified, all proceedin's

had in said cadastral case in relation to said lot "o. $&, be declared nll and void. By order of this

cort dated "ovember 3#, 19&#, a preliminary in<nction was issed, directin' the respondents to

retrn the possession of the land in /estion to the petitioner and nder another order dated %'st

&9, 19&1, the records mentioned were certified to this cort.

 %n eamination of the records before s shows that in land re'istration case "o. 113&, and nder

the date of %pril 19, 191, the aforesaid lot "o. $&, was decreed in favor of lorentino *amintan,

the petitioner herein, by the ort of irst 8nstance of *ampan'a, and that certificate of title "o. +#coverin' the said lot was therepon issed to him in 5ne, 191.

8n the meantime cadastral case "o. 13&, was institted. This case embraced the district in which the

lot in /estion was sitated and the lot was 'iven its cadastral nmber in the proceedin's and was

mar6ed on the plans as land in re'ard to which re'istration proceedin's were pendin' nder %ct.

"o. +9$. lorentino *amintan inadvertently failed to claim the lot of trial of the cadastral case, and

the ort of irst 8nstance in a decision dated %pril &9, 1919, awarded it to the respondents

"icomedes, :aria, :ercedes, ;ose and 2sebia 2spinosa, and ordered the cancellation of

certificate of title "o. +#. The person to whom the land had been ad<d'ed sbse/ently conveyed

their interest to the respondent rancisca 0avid, in favor of whom the ort of irst 8nstance issed

a writ of possession, placin' her in possession of the land. The possession was restored to thepetitioner by virte of the preliminary in<nction issed by this cort on "ovember 3#, 19&#. 8t may

be noted that no final decree has as yet been issed in the cadastral case in re'ard to the lot.

lorentino *amintan 6new nothin' abot the ad<dication of the land in favor of the 2spinosa ntil

the cler6 of the ort of irst 8nstance of *ampan'a re/ired him to srrender his certificate of title

for cancellation. e then presented a motion to the ort of irst 8nstance, as6in' that the decision

of the cort in re'ard to the lot in the cadastral case be set aside and that the writ of possession

issed by virte of said decision be recalled. This motion was denied by the cort on "ovember 1$,

19&#.

Ee are of the opinion that the cort below eceeded its <risdiction in nderta6in' to decree in acadastral case land already decreed in another land re'istration case. adastral proceedin's are

athori>ed and re'lated by %ct "o. &&9. The scope and prpose of this %ct is epressed in its title=

%n %ct providin' of land titles. Ehat is nderstood by settlement and ad<dication is very clearly

indicated in section 11 of the %ct, which reads as follows=

S2. 11. The trial of the case may occr at any convinient place within the province in which

the lands are sitated or at sch other place as the cort, for reasons stated in writin' and

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 14/23

filed with the record of the case, may desi'nate, and shall be condcted in the same manner 

as ordinary trials and proceedin's in the ort of !and ;e'istration, and shall be 'overned

by the same rles. 4rders of defalt and confession shall also be entered in the same

manner as in ordinary cases in the same cort and shall have the same effect. %ll conflictin'

interest shall be ad<dicated by the cort and decrees awarded in favor of the person entitle

to the lands or the varios parts thereof, and sch decrees, when final, shall be the basis forori'inal certificates of title in favor of said persons, which shall have the same effect as

certificates of title 'ranted on application for re'istration of land nder the !and ;e'istration

 %ct, and ecept as herein otherwise provided all of the provisions of said !and ;e'istration

 %ct, as now amended, and as it hereafter may be amended, shall be applicable to

proceedin's nder this %ct, and to the titles and certificate of title 'ranted or issed

herender.

 %s will be seen the settlement and ad<dication of a land title nder the adastral %ct is eactly that

provided for in the land ;e'istration %ct "o. +9$, i.e., a proceedin' clminatin' in the issance of a

final decree and a Torrens certificate of title in favor of the owner of the land.

The title to the land is therefore flly as well settled and ad<dicated, within the meanin' of the

adastral %ct, by a final decree in an ordinary land re'istration case as it wold be by a similar

decree in cadastral case and, obviosly, it cannot have been the intention of the !e'islatre to

provide a special proceedin' for the settlement and ad<dication of titles already settled and

ad<dicated. 8t is, indeed, more than dobtfl if the !e'islatre. wold have the power to enact sch

a provision had it so desired the landholder who possesses a settled and ad<dicated title to his land

cannot be deprived of that title thro'h another settlement and ad<dication of a similar character.

The intention of the !e'islatre to eclde land already re'istered form the operation of the

adastral %ct is frther indicated by the provision of section 1 of the %ct to the effect that, no

apportionment of any part of the costs and epenses of cadastral proceedin's can be made a'ainstsch lands.

Ee hold that in cadastral case the <risdiction of the cort over lands already re'istered is limited to

the necessary correction of technical errors in the description of the lands, provided, sch

corrections, do not impair the sbstantial ri'hts of the re'istered owner, and that sch <risdiction

cannot operate to deprive a re'istered owner of his title.

The petition is 'ranted, and the proceedin's in the cort below in re'ard to lot "o. $& of the

cadaster of :abalacat are declared nll and void, with costs a'ainst the respondents "icomedes

2spinosa, :aria :ercedes 2spinosa, 2sebia 2spinosa, and rancisca 0avid, <ointly and severally.

So ordered.

G.R. No. 77541 No:e/ber 29, 1988

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 15/23

$E!R" OF GREGOR!O TENGO, petitioners,

vs.

$E!R" OF #O"E a V!TOR!A AL!;ALA" a OURT OF A++EAL", respondents.

+orge A. $ascua for petitioners.

$erpetuo #. ,ravino for private respondents.

!aniel #. lorida collaborating counsel for private respondents.

 

ORTE", J.:

The instant case stemmed from an action to /iet title institted by the late Cictoria !. Cda. de

 %liwalas a'ainst the eirs of 7re'orio Ten'co, the 0irector of !ands and the ;e'ister of 0eeds of

*ampan'a.

The facts as fond by the ort of irst 8nstance of San ernando, *ampan'a, Branch C8, in ivil

ase "o. +3#, are as follows=

The evidence addced by the parties in this case shows that !ot "o. 3$3 of the

 %rayat adastre was ori'inally a part of the pblic domain and it was so declared on

4ctober 1&, 1933 (2h. %-&). Thereafter, 0r. 5ose %liwalas applied with the Brea

of !ands for the issance of a homestead patent coverin' this lot. 4n 0ecember 1&,

193$, the 0irector of !ands 'ranted this application and issed in favor of 5ose

 %liwalas omestead *atent "o. 3 (2h. 2). This patent was dly re'istered in

the ;e'ister of 0eeds of *ampan'a on %pril , 193 after the correspondin' feesthereon were paid (2hs. 0- and 0-$). 4n the same day, the ;e'ister of 0eeds

of *ampan'a issed 4T "o. 19 (2h. 0) in the name of 5ose %liwalas. rom that

time on, 0r. %liwalas did the correspondin' land taes thereon (2h. 8, 8-1 to 8-

&) after havin' declared the land for taes (sic) prposes in his name (2h. , 7

and ).

 %s owner of this property, 5ose %liwalas, thr his overseer 2spiridion :anal, had

this parcel fenced and ve'etables were planted in some portions thereof. 4ther

portions were dedicated initially to cattle raisin' ntil the last war bro6e ot.

 %fter the war, palay was planted on some. portions of this land, by the tenants of5ose %liwalas who 'ave the ownerHs share to him, thr his careta6er and overseer

2spiridion :anal. 4ther crops were also planted on the land as well as ipil-ipil trees

for firewood prposes. There were also planted man'o trees which ltimately bore

frit which were harvested by the careta6er of %liwalas in this property and who

delivered them to 5ose %liwalas ntil he died in 19$& when the administration and

mana'ement was assmed by 5ose %liwalas, 5r., a son of 0r. %liwalas.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 16/23

Ehen the properties left by 0r. 5ose %liwalas were petitioned amon' his srvivin'

heirs, the lot in /estion was alloted in favor of the plaintiff Cictoria !. Cda. de

 %liwalas as indicated in the amended pro<ect of partition (2h. B) eected by her

mind her nine children, one of whom is 5ose %liwalas, 5r.

 %fter this amended pro<ect of partition was approved (2h. ) and re'istered withthe ;e'ister of 0eeds of *ampan'a, 4T "o. &&$-; (2h. %) was issed in the

name of the plaintiff on "ovember 1+, 19$$ (2h. %-1). Thereafter, the ta

declaration pertainin' to this parcel of land was also transferred to her name (2hs.

4, * and %). She also paid the real estate taes thereon (2hs. ", "-1 to "-

1+, 2hs. ;-1 to ;-3).

4n the other hand, the evidence frther show that on 4ctober 31, 193, the

defendant *onciano Ten'co in representation of the defendants eirs of 7re'orio

Ten'co filed an application with the Brea of !ands, thr its 0istrict !and 4ffice here

in San ernando, *ampan'a. %mon' other thin's, he alle'ed in his application that

this parcel of land had been occpied and cltivated ori'inally and continoslythereafter by 7re'orio Ten'co. %fter bein' 'iven de corse, this application was

approved by the 0irector of !ands who issed ree *atent "o. $9& coverin' this

lot on ebrary , 19+ (2h. 3 Ten'co 2h. $ 0ir. of !ands).

This free patent issed in favor of the eirs of 7re'orio Ten'co was predicated on

the assmption that the lot still formed part of the pblic domain and on the findin's

of the *blic !and 8nspector ;omeo Benaventra who condcted an investi'ation

thereon and who also reported that the land in /estion was possessed and

occpied by the applicant, eirs of 7re'orio Ten'co (2h. &-Ten'co and 2h. -

0ir of !ands ) who had planted different 6inds of trees on the land aside from rice

and corn.

The defendants eirs of 7re'orio Ten'co also addced evidence tendin' to show

that their late 'randfather 7re'orio Ten'co had occpied this parcel of land

eclsively years before the last (sic) and after he died in 193+, his children

scceeded him in its possession and en<oyin' the frits from the different trees

planted thereon, and that the possession of 7re'orio Ten'co and his sccessors-in-

interest have not been distrbed by anyone incldin' the %liwalas family.

4n rebttal, the plaintiff addced evidence showin' that the prewar records of the

Brea of !ands pertainin' to pblic land applications were brned drin' the war as

indicated in the certification issed by the hief of the ;ecords :ana'ement 0ivisionof the Brea of !ands. This is to eplain why the Brea has no more record

pertainin' to the omestead *atent issed in favor of 5ose %liwalas in i93$ which

'ave rise to the issance of 4T "o. 19 of the ;e'ister of 0eeds of *ampan'a on

 %pril , 193. The certification also attests that what is now fond in the files of the

Brea of !ands is ree *atent C-$9& issed on ebrary , 19+ in favor of the

eirs of 7re'orio Ten'co pertainin' to !ot "o. 3$3. (;ollo, pp. 1&#.)

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 17/23

4n the basis of the evidence, the trial cort rendered <d'ment as follows=

E2;24;2, and in view of all the fore'oin', <d'ment is hereby rendered=

1. 0eclarin' the herein plaintiff Cictoria Cda. de %liwalas as the tre

owner of !ot "o. 3$3 of %rayat adastre embraced in TT "o.&&$-; of the ;e'ister of 0eeds of *ampan'a in her name

&. 4rderin' the ;e'ister of 0eeds of *ampan'a to cancel TT "os.

13&&$3-;, 13&&$+-; and 13&3+9-; in the name of ipriano Ten'co,

*onciano Ten'co, et al., and 2'enia Ten'co, respectively, coverin'

portions of this !ot "o. 3$3

3. 4rderin' the herein defendants-eirs of 7re'orio Ten'co to vacate

the land in /estion and to pay the amont of * ,###.## a year to

the plaintiff be'innin' from the year 19+ ntil the land is vacated by

them and trned over to the plaintiff and

+. 4rderin' the defendants-eirs of 7re'orio Ten'co to pay the

plaintiff the sm of * &,###.## as attorneyHs fees, pls costs. F;ollo, p.

1-1.G

0issatisfied with the trial cortHs <d'ment, the eirs of 7re'orio Ten'co interposed an appeal to the

ort of %ppeals, doc6eted as %-7. ;. C "o. $9#$. The appellate cort, adoptin' the trial cortHs

findin's of fact, affirmed the latterHs <d'ment F;ollo, pp. 1-&+.G *etitioners moved for

reconsideration bt their motion was denied F;ollo, pp. &-&$.G ence, the instant petition.

*rivate respondents filed a comment to the petition, to which petitioners replied. 4n September 1$,19, the ort resolved to 'ive de corse to the petition and the parties were re/ired to sbmit

their respective memoranda. %fter the petitioner filed a reply to private respondentHs memorandm,

the case was deemed sbmitted for decision.

8n their petition the eirs of 7re'orio Ten'co have ascribed several errors to the ort of %ppeals,

which involved mied /estions of fact and law F;ollo, p. +.G Bt, as stated in their memorandm, the

isses may be limited to the followin'=

(a) Ehether or not the cort of ori'in andKor, sbse/ently, the

respondent onorable ort of %ppeals, had <risdiction to ta6e

co'ni>ance of, and pass pon, the instant case

(b) Ehether or not the claim or contention of the private respondents

will hold tre and prosper before a proper form and

(c) Ehether or not the private respondents, assmin' for the sa6e of

ar'ment, that they have proprietary ri'hts on and to the land in

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 18/23

/estion, have not lon' lost sch ri'hts by laches andKor prescription.

F:emorandm for *etitioners, p. $.G

1. *etitioners contend that the trial cort (and, conse/ently, the ort of %ppeals) had no

 <risdiction to ta6e co'ni>ance of and pass pon the instant case as private respondents have failed

to ehast administrative remedies. They point ot that instead of brin'in' her case to the Brea of!ands, Cictoria Cda. de %liwalas went directly to the cort.

4n the other hand, private respondents ar'e that since a homestead patent and an ori'inal

certificate of title had already been issed to their predecessor-in-interest, the land had ceased to be

part of the pblic domain and, hence, the Brea of !ands had no <risdiction over the controversy.

*rivate respondents add that since an ori'inal certificate of title had been issed prsant to the

homestead patent, their title to the property had become conclsive, absolte, indefeasible and

imprescriptible.

8n rebttal, petitioner contend that private respondentsH title had not ac/ired said /alities as it was

derived from a homestead patent. *etitioners advanced the view that only titles based pon a <dicial declaration can be vested with the attribtes of conclsiveness, indefeasibility and

imprescriptibility.

*etitionersH theory is not spported by the <risprdence on the matter. The rle is well-settled that

an ori'inal certificate of title issed on the stren'th of a homestead patent parta6es of the natre of a

certificate of title issed in a <dicial proceedin', as lon' as the land disposed of is really part of the

disposable land of the pblic domain, and becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible pon the

epiration of one year from the date of the proml'ation of the order of the 0irector of !ands for the

issance of the patent. F;epblic v. eirs of arle, 1# *hil. 1&& (199) 8n'aran v. ;amelo 1#

*hil. +9 (19$#) !ope> v. *adilla, 7.;. "o. !-&9, :ay 1, 19&, + S;% ++.G % homestead

patent, once re'istered nder the !and ;e'istration %ct, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title.F*amintan v. San %'stin, +3 *hil. (19&) 2l o'ar ilipino v. 4lvi'a, $# *hil. 1 (193+) 0ran

v. 4liva, 113 *hil. 1++ (19$1) *a<omayo v. :anipon, 7.;. "o. !-33$$, 5ne 3#, 191, 39 S;%

$$.G

The contention of non-ehastion of administrative remedies, on the theory that the case shold

have been bro'ht before the 0irector of !ands, had already been re<ected by the ort in earlier

decisions. Ths, while the 0irector of !ands has the power to review homestead patents, he may do

so only so lon' as the land remains part of the pblic domain and contines to be nder his

eclsive control bt once the patent is re'istered and a certificate of title is issed, the land ceases

to be a part of pblic domain and becomes private property over which the 0irector of !ands has

neither control nor <risdiction FSmail v. 5d'e of ort of irst 8nstance, 9$ *hil. 9+$ (19);epblic v. eirs of arle, supra.G

&. %nent the second isse, petitioners contend that petitionersH title to the property was defective for

the followin' reasons= (a) 0r. 5ose %liwalas was not /alified to be a homesteader bein' a rich

landed person and (b) private respondents and their predecessors-in-interest have never been in

actal or physical possession of the property, nli6e petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest who

have been in continos and open possession of the property since 191. Ths, petitioners rely on a

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 19/23

report prepared by a certain !ibrado B. !na, hearin' officer of the Brea of !ands, attestin' to

sch facts F:emorandm for *etitioners, p. 13.G

Bt, as correctly pointed ot by the respondent ort of %ppeals, 0r. %liwalasH title to the property

havin' become incontrovertible, sch may no lon'er be collaterally attac6ed. 8f indeed there had

been any frad or misrepresentation in obtainin' the title, an action for reversion institted by theSolicitor 7eneral wold be the proper remedy FSec. 1#1, .%. "o. 1+1 0irector of !ands v. 5'ado,

7.;. "o. !-1+#&, :ay &1, 19$1, & S;% 3& !ope> v. *adilla, supra.G

3. inally, petitioners contend that private respondent have lost their title to the property thro'h

laches and prescription. They assert that private respondents and their predecessors-in-interest

have never actally possessed the property while petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest have

been in actal, open, ninterrpted and adverse possession of the property since 191.

Bt as stated above, title ac/ired thro'h a homestead patent re'istered nder the !and

;e'istration %ct is imprescriptible. Ths, prescription cannot operate a'ainst the re'istered owner.

:oreover, as fond by the ort of %ppeals=

... The alle'ation of defendants-appellants (petitioners herein) that plaintiff-appellee

(Cictoria !. Cda. de %liwalas) and her predecessor-in-interest slept on their ri'hts for

over +# years, since 193$ when the patent was issed to %liwalas is ntenable. 8t

has been established that 5ose %liwalas thro'h his overseer 2spiridion :anal

planted the sb<ect land to ve'etables and raised cattle therein ntil the last war

bro6e ot. %fter the war, the land was planted with palay, seasonal crops, ipil-ipil

trees and man'o trees. Ehen 5ose %liwalas died in 19$&, the administration and

mana'ement of the farm was assmed by his son, 5ose %liwalas, 5r. Dpon the

partition of the properties left by the late 5ose %liwalas, the sb<ect property wasallotted to and re'istered in the name of plaintiff-appellee. 8t was in 19+ when the

defendants-eirs of 7re'orio Ten'co wrested possession of the sb<ect land from

plaintiff-appelleeHs careta6er and deprived her of its prodce. 4n 4ctober 1+, 19$,

the plaintiff filed her second amended complaint. The fore'oin' facts show that

plaintiff-appellee and her predeccessor-in-interest occpied, possessed and

eercised ri'hts of ownership over the sb<ect land prior to the filin' of the instant sit

F;ollo, pp. &3-&+.G

The ort finds no co'ent reason to distrb the appellate cortHs findin's, in the absence of a clear

showin' that the facts have been misapprehended.

E2;24;2, findin' no reversible error, the petition is 02"820 and the decision of the ort of

 %ppeals in %-7.;. C "o. $9#$ is %8;:20.

!"AGAN! RU3 a E"AR EURO+A, petitioners 

vs.

"ERETAR OF ENV!RON&ENT AN) NATURAL RE"OURE",

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 20/23

PER CURIAM:

*etitioners 8sa'ani r> and esar 2ropa bro'ht this sit for prohibition and mandams as

citi>ens and tapayers, assailin' the constittionality of certain provisions of ;epblic %ct "o. 31

(;.%. 31), otherwise 6nown as the 8ndi'enos *eoples ;i'hts %ct of 199 (8*;%), and its

8mplementin' ;les and ;e'lations (8mplementin' ;les).

8n its resoltion of September &9, 199, the ort re/ired respondents to comment.1 8n compliance,

respondents hairperson and ommissioners of the "ational ommission on 8ndi'enos *eoples

("8*), the 'overnment a'ency created nder the 8*;% to implement its provisions, filed on 4ctober 

13, 199 their omment to the *etition, in which they defend the constittionality of the 8*;% and

pray that the petition be dismissed for lac6 of merit.

4n 4ctober 19, 199, respondents Secretary of the 0epartment of 2nvironment and "atral

;esorces (02";) and Secretary of the 0epartment of Bd'et and :ana'ement (0B:) filed

thro'h the Solicitor 7eneral a consolidated omment. The Solicitor 7eneral is of the view that the

8*;% is partly nconstittional on the 'rond that it 'rants ownership over natral resorces to

indi'enos peoples and prays that the petition be 'ranted in part.

4n "ovember 1#, 199, a 'rop of intervenors, composed of Sen. 5an lavier, one of the athors

of the 8*;%, :r. *onciano Benna'en, a member of the 19$ onstittional ommission, and the

leaders and members of 11& 'rops of indi'enos peoples (lavier, et. al), filed their :otion for

!eave to 8ntervene. They <oin the "8* in defendin' the constittionality of 8*;% and prayin' for the

dismissal of the petition.

4n :arch &&, 1999, the ommission on man ;i'hts (;) li6ewise filed a :otion to 8ntervene

andKor to %ppear as %mics riae. The ; asserts that 8*;% is an epression of the principle of

parens patriae and that the State has the responsibility to protect and 'arantee the ri'hts of those

who are at a serios disadvanta'e li6e indi'enos peoples. or this reason it prays that the petition

be dismissed.

4n :arch &3, 1999, another 'rop, composed of the 86alahan 8ndi'enos *eople and the aribon

ondation for the onservation of "atral ;esorces, 8nc. (aribon, et al.), filed a motion to

8ntervene with attached omment-in-8ntervention. They a'ree with the "8* and lavier, et al. that

8*;% is consistent with the onstittion and pray that the petition for prohibition and mandams be

dismissed.

The motions for intervention of the aforesaid 'rops and or'ani>ations were 'ranted.

4ral ar'ments were heard on %pril 13, 1999. Thereafter, the parties and intervenors filed their

respective memoranda in which they reiterate the ar'ments addced in their earlier pleadin's and

drin' the hearin'.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 21/23

*etitioners assail the constittionality of the followin' provisions of the 8*;% and its 8mplementin'

;les on the 'rond that they amont to an nlawfl deprivation of the StateLs ownership over lands

of the pblic domain as well as minerals and other natral resorces therein, in violation of the

re'alian doctrine embodied in Section &, %rticle J88 of the onstittion=

(1) Section 3(a) which defines the etent and covera'e of ancestral domains, and Section 3(b)which, in trn, defines ancestral lands

(&) Section , in relation to section 3(a), which provides that ancestral domains incldin' inalienable

pblic lands, bodies of water, mineral and other resorces fond within ancestral domains are

private bt commnity property of the indi'enos peoples

(3) Section $ in relation to section 3(a) and 3(b) which defines the composition of ancestral domains

and ancestral lands

(+) Section which reco'ni>es and enmerates the ri'hts of the indi'enos peoples over the

ancestral domains

() Section which reco'ni>es and enmerates the ri'hts of the indi'enos peoples over the

ancestral lands

($) Section which provides for priority ri'hts of the indi'enos peoples in the harvestin',

etraction, development or eploration of minerals and other natral resorces within the areas

claimed to be their ancestral domains, and the ri'ht to enter into a'reements with nonindi'enos

peoples for the development and tili>ation of natral resorces therein for a period not eceedin'

& years, renewable for not more than & years and

() Section which 'ives the indi'enos peoples the responsibility to maintain, develop, protectand conserve the ancestral domains and portions thereof which are fond to be necessary for critical

watersheds, man'roves, wildlife sanctaries, wilderness, protected areas, forest cover or

reforestation.&

*etitioners also content that, by providin' for an all-encompassin' definition of ancestral domains

and ancestral lands which mi'ht even inclde private lands fond within said areas, Sections 3(a)

and 3(b) violate the ri'hts of private landowners.3

8n addition, petitioners /estion the provisions of the 8*;% definin' the powers and <risdiction of the

"8* and ma6in' cstomary law applicable to the settlement of disptes involvin' ancestral

domains and ancestral lands on the 'rond that these provisions violate the de process clase ofthe onstittion.+

These provisions are=

(1) sections 1 to 3 and 9 which detail the process of delineation and reco'nition of

ancestral domains and which vest on the "8* the sole athority to delineate ancestral

domains and ancestral lands

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 22/23

(&) Section &FiG which provides that pon certification by the "8* that a particlar area is

an ancestral domain and pon notification to the followin' officials, namely, the Secretary of

2nvironment and "atral ;esorces, Secretary of 8nterior and !ocal 7overnments,

Secretary of 5stice and ommissioner of the "ational 0evelopment orporation, the

 <risdiction of said officials over said area terminates

(3) Section $3 which provides the cstomary law, traditions and practices of indi'enos

peoples shall be applied first with respect to property ri'hts, claims of ownership, hereditary

sccession and settlement of land disptes, and that any dobt or ambi'ity in the

interpretation thereof shall be resolved in favor of the indi'enos peoples

(+) Section $ which states that cstomary laws and practices shall be sed to resolve

disptes involvin' indi'enos peoples and

() Section $$ which vests on the "8* the <risdiction over all claims and disptes

involvin' ri'hts of the indi'enos peoples.

inally, petitioners assail the validity of ;le C88, *art 88, Section 1 of the "8* %dministrative 4rder

"o. 1, series of 199, which provides that the administrative relationship of the "8* to the 4ffice of 

the *resident is characteri>ed as a lateral bt atonomos relationship for prposes of policy and

pro'ram coordination. They contend that said ;le infrin'es pon the *residentLs power of control

over eective departments nder Section 1, %rticle C88 of the onstittion.$

*etitioners pray for the followin'=

(1) % declaration that Sections 3, , $, , , &F8G, , , 9, $3, $ and $$ and other related

provisions of ;.%. 31 are nconstittional and invalid

(&) The issance of a writ of prohibition directin' the hairperson and ommissioners of the

"8* to cease and desist from implementin' the assailed provisions of ;.%. 31 and its

8mplementin' ;les

(3) The issance of a writ of prohibition directin' the Secretary of the 0epartment of

2nvironment and "atral ;esorces to cease and desist from implementin' 0epartment of

2nvironment and "atral ;esorces irclar "o. &, series of 199

(+) The issance of a writ of prohibition directin' the Secretary of Bd'et and :ana'ement

to cease and desist from disbrsin' pblic fnds for the implementation of the assailed

provisions of ;.%. 31 and

() The issance of a writ of mandams commandin' the Secretary of 2nvironment and

"atral ;esorces to comply with his dty of carryin' ot the StateLs constittional mandate

to control and spervise the eploration, development, tili>ation and conservation of

*hilippine natral resorces.

 %fter de deliberation on the petition, the members of the ort voted as follows=

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 2-5-16.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ltd-cases-2-5-16docx 23/23

Seven () voted to dismiss the petition. 5stice Mapnan filed an opinion, which the hief 5stice

and 5stices Bellosillo, Nismbin', and Santia'o <oin, sstainin' the validity of the challen'ed

provisions of ;.%. 31. 5stice *no also filed a separate opinion sstainin' all challen'ed

provisions of the law with the eception of Section 1, *art 88, ;le 888 of "8* %dministrative 4rder

"o. 1, series of 199, the ;les and ;e'lations 8mplementin' the 8*;%, and Section of the

8*;% which he contends shold be interpreted as dealin' with the lar'e-scale eploitation of natralresorces and shold be read in con<nction with Section &, %rticle J88 of the 19 onstittion. 4n

the other hand, 5stice :endo>a voted to dismiss the petition solely on the 'rond that it does not

raise a <sticiable controversy and petitioners do not have standin' to /estion the constittionality

of ;.%. 31.

Seven () other members of the ort voted to 'rant the petition. 5stice *an'aniban filed a

separate opinion epressin' the view that Sections 3 (a)(b), , $, (a)(b), , and related provisions

of ;.%. 31 are nconstittional. e reserves <d'ment on the constittionality of Sections , 9,

$, and $$ of the law, which he believes mst await the filin' of specific cases by those whose ri'hts

may have been violated by the 8*;%. 5stice Cit' also filed a separate opinion epressin' the view

that Sections 3(a), , and of ;.%. 31 are nconstittional. 5stices :elo, *ardo, Bena,7on>a'a-;eyes, and 0e !eon <oin in the separate opinions of 5stices *an'aniban and Cit'.

 %s the votes were e/ally divided ( to ) and the necessary ma<ority was not obtained, the case

was redeliberated pon. owever, after redeliberation, the votin' remained the same. %ccordin'ly,

prsant to ;le $, Section of the ;les of ivil *rocedre, the petition is 08S:8SS20.

 %ttached hereto and made inte'ral parts thereof are the separate opinions of 5stices *no, Cit',

Mapnan, :endo>a, and *an'aniban.

S4 4;02;20.