Garcia et.al vs. Aportadera (GRNo.

L-34122)
Facts:
Marcela Garcia, father of the petitioner filed an application for homestead patent on the Bureau of Lands.
After the death of Marcelo, Fructuoso Garcia renewed the application under in his name. Due to the
failing health of Fructuoso, he requested Borres to cultivate the land to which the latter hired other
persons including the private respondent herein, Ampig. Ampig allegedly surreptituously and fraudulently
filed in his own name on May 1955 over the land. On October 25, 1965, Homestead Patent was issued to
Ampig after compliance to the legal requirements. Such portion of the land subject to the application of
Garcia was later on transferred to Suerte who also transferre it to Sablay. Both are co-petitioners in this
case. Petitioners seek for the annulment of the patent and cancellation of Patent title issued under the
name of Ampig.

Issue: Whether or not the case involves an action for reversion.

Whether or not petitioners can initiate the action.

Ruling:
Respondent Judge was correct in holding that petitioners' action was in effect an action for reversion of a
homestead under Section 101 of the Public Land Act which provides:
Sec. 101.All actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of public domain or
improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in
his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
The action should be in the name of the Government for even if Ampig's homestead patent were annulled
for fraud, it would not necessarily follow that the court may award the land to the petitioner. The courts
have no authority to do that for, as provided in the Public Land Act, the Director of Lands is the official
vested with direct executive control of the disposition of the lands of the public domain.
This action may not be treated as an action for reconveyance for that is the remedy of an owner whose
land has been erroneously registered in the name of another. The petitioner is not the owner of the
homestead in question. He is only an applicant for a homestead patent.
The petition for certiorari is denied for lack of merit.

Director of Lands vs. Jugado, et al. (GRNo. L-14702)

Facts:
On November 26, 1956, the Director of Lands filed with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental a
petition seeking to annul and cancel Homestead Patent No. V-28407 covering a parcel of land identified
as Lot No. 2644. Named respondent in the petition was Lelita Jugado to whom the homestead patent was
issued on May 4, 1954, and the ground relied upon was that the patent aforesaid was fraudulently issued
in favor of said respondent because the land is covered by a prior and subsisting approved homestead
application of one Conrada Villavera.
On October 25, 1957, the Philippine National Bank, claiming to be a mortgagee in good faith of the
property subject of the petition, moved to intervene in the proceedings and after its motion was granted,
the said entity filed an answer. This was soon followed by a motion to dismiss filed by the same
intervenor, alleging as ground therefor that inasmuch as the petition to cancel was filed on December 5,
1956, more than one year had already elapsed since the issuance of the patent and the certificate of title
in favor of respondent, and that, therefore, the said title had already become perfect, absolute and
indefeasible.
Issue: Whether or not the appellants petition to cancel or annul Homestead Patent issued to Jugado
could prosper under the circumstances.
Ruling:
Yes. Well settled is the rule that once the patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is
issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property over which the
Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction. And a public land patent, when registered, is a
veritable torrens title and becomes indefeasible as a torrens title upon the expiration of one year from the
date of issuance thereof. As such it can no longer be cancelled and annulled.
There is, however, a section in the Public Land Law, which affords a remedy whereby lands of the public
domain fraudulently awarded may be recovered or reverted back to its original owner, the Government.
But the provision requires that all such actions for reversion shall be instituted by the Solicitor General or
the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. As the
party in interest in this case is the Director of Lands and not the Republic of the Philippines, the action
cannot prosper in favor of the appellant.
In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, but without prejudice to the
Government's right to institute the proper action for reversion.