Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The decision in Cadastral Case No. 41 does not constitute a bar to the
application of respondent Manuela Pastor; because a decision in a cadastral
proceeding declaring a lot public land is not the final decree contemplated in
Sections 38 and 40 of the Land Registration Act. A judicial declaration that a
parcel of land is public, does not preclude even the same applicant from
subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land,
provided he thereafter complies with the provisions of Section 48 of
Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, and as long as said public land
remains alienable and disposable (now sections 3 and 4, P.D. No. 1073).
With respect to Cadastral Case No. 43, the evidence on record is too scanty to
sustain the view of the petitioner that the decision rendered
therein constitutes res adjudicata, or in the absence of finality thereof, litis
pendentia. On the contrary, private respondent has amply shown that no final
decree whatsoever was issued in connection with said cadastral case, even as it
is not known in whose favor said decision was rendered. Morevoer, Manuela
Pastor has performed and complied with all the conditions essential to entitle
her to a confirmation of her imperfect title over the thirteen cranad(13) lots
subject of her application.
QRATIO: All defenses therefore not interposed in a motion to dismiss or in an
answer are deemed waived.
FACTS:
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY VS. BASA, Jr. GR No. 149121. April 20, 2010
Spouses Basa loaned from NHA secured by a real estate mortgage over their
properties. Spouses Basa did not pay the loan despite repeated demands. To
collect its credit, the NHA filed a verified petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of
mortgage before the Sheriffʼs Office in Quezon City.
After notice and publication, the properties were sold at public auction where
NHA emerged as the highest bidder. On April 16, 1991, the sheriffʼs certificate of
sale was registered and annotated only on the ownerʼs duplicate copies of the
titles in the hands of the respondents, since the titles in the custody of the
Register of Deeds were among those burned down when a fire gutted the City
Hall of Quezon City on June 11, 1988.
On April 16, 1992, the redemption period expired, without respondents having
redeemed the properties. Shortly thereafter, on April 24, 1992, NHA executed an
Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership over the foreclosed properties, and the
same was inscribed by the Register of Deeds on the certificates of title in the
hand of NHA.
NHA moved for the issuance of an alias writ of possession. Before the RTC could
resolve the motion for the issuance of an alias writ of possession, respondents,
filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and Petition in Intervention.
Respondents theorized that the instrument is deemed registered only upon
actual inscription on the certificate of title in the custody of the civil registrar.
Since the sheriffʼs certificate was only inscribed on the ownerʼs duplicate
certificate of title, and not on the certificate of title in the possession of the
Register of Deeds, then there was no effective registration and the one-year
redemption period had not even begun to run. Thus, respondents asked the
RTC, among others, to declare the foreclosure sale null and void, to allow the
respondents to redeem the mortgaged properties.
NHA maintained that respondentsʼ right of redemption had long expired on April
15, 1992 since the certificate of sale was inscribed on their TCT Nos. 285413
and 287008 a year earlier, or on April 16, 1991.
RTC issued an Order admitting the Petition in Intervention and treating the same
as the petition to set aside sale.
NHA filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of
Appeals.
The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision in favor of the NHA. Respondents
filed a motion for reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals, in its Amended Decision, reconsidered its earlier stance.
It declared that the period of redemption had not expired as the certificate of
sale had not been registered or annotated in the original copies of the titles
supposedly kept with the Register of Deeds since said titles were earlier razed
by fire.
ISSUE: Whether or not the annotation of the sheriffʼs certificate of sale in the
primary entry book of the register of deeds and on the ownerʼs duplicate title is
sufficient compliance with the requirement of law on registration.
HELD:
The prevailing rule is that there is effective registration once the registrant has
fulfilled all that is needed of him for purposes of entry and annotation, so that
what is left to be accomplished lies solely on the register of deeds.
NHA followed the procedure in order to have its sheriffʼs certificate of sale
annotated in the transfer certificates of title. It was not NHAʼs fault that the
certificate of sale was not annotated on the transfer certificates of title which
were supposed to be in the custody of the Registrar, since the same were
burned. Neither could NHA be blamed for the fact that there were no
reconstituted titles available during the time of inscription as it had taken the
necessary steps in having the same reconstituted as early as July 15, 1988. NHA
did everything within its power to assert its right.
Since entry of the certificate of sale was validly registered, the redemption
period accruing to respondents commenced therefrom, since the one-year
period of redemption is reckoned from the date of registration of the certificate
of sale.
FACTS:
10. PANGANIBAN VS DAYRIT GR No. 151235, 28 July 2005
Petitioners alleged that they are the possessors and owners of Lot 1436 which
they inherited from the late Juan and Ines, the owner of the subject land in
question covered by OCT No. 7864. However, the said ownerʼs duplicate copy
of OCT No. 7864 covering the said lot had been lost and upon
The ownerʼs duplicate copy of OCT No. 7864 covering Lot 1436 had been lost
but upon petition with the trial court in 1977 by Erlinda B. Pacursa (Erlinda), one
of the heirs of Ines and a petitioner herein, the trial court granted the petition.[9]
Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Misamis Oriental issued an ownerʼs
duplicate certificate of OCT No. 7864 to Erlinda.[10]
Petitioners further alleged that unknown to them, a certain Cristobal Salcedo
(Salcedo) asserted ownership over Lot 1436 and believing that it was
unregistered, sold a portion of it to respondent. The latter subsequently
discovered that what she had bought was registered land. Unable to annotate
the deed of sale at the back of OCT No. 7864, respondent fraudulently filed a
petition for issuance of the ownerʼs copy of said title, docketed as Misc. Case
No. 90-018 in March 1990. This petition of the respondent alleged that the copy
issued to Erlinda was lost in the fire that razed Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City in
1981. While the petition mentioned Erlinda as the last one in possession of the
alleged lost ownerʼs duplicate copy of the title, she was not notified of the
proceedings.[11]
The petition in Misc. Case No. 90-018 was subsequently granted and the
Register of Deeds of Misamis Oriental issued an ownerʼs duplicate certificate of
OCT No. 7864 to respondent.[12] This second duplicate certificate issued to
respondent contained Entry No. 160180, the annotation of a Notice of Adverse
Claim filed by Erlinda.[13] The Notice of Adverse Claim[14] dated 24 February
1992 alleged in part that Erlinda is one of the lawful heirs of Juan and Ines, the
registered owners of the property, and as such, she has a legitimate claim
thereto.
Petitioners further alleged that the newly issued ownerʼs duplicate certificate of
OCT No. 7864 to respondent was prejudicial to their previously issued title
which is still
in existence. Thus, they prayed among others that they be declared as the
rightful owners of the property in question and that the duplicate certificate of
OCT No. 7864 in their possession be deemed valid and subsisting.[15]
In her answer to the amended complaint, respondent denied all the material
allegations of the complaint and set up affirmative and special defenses. She
alleged that Lot 1436 was actually sold sometime in 1947 by the petitioners
themselves and their father, Mauricio Baconga. The sale was purportedly
covered by a Deed of Definite Sale. Salcedo then came into ownership,
possession and enjoyment of the property in question.[16] On 14 February 1978,
Salcedo sold a portion of Lot 1436 with an area of two thousand twenty- five
(2,025) square meters, more or less, to respondent. From then on, the property
in question has been in her actual and physical enjoyment, she added.[17]
Respondent further alleged that the complaint was barred by the principles of
estoppel and laches by virtue of the sales executed by petitioners themselves
and their father. The complaint, according to her, also failed to include as
defendants, the heirs of Salcedo who are indispensable parties.[18]
On 10 August 1992, upon motion duly granted, respondent filed a third-party
complaint against the heirs of Salcedo alleging that as such heirs, they carry the
burden of warranting that their predecessors in interest were the true, legal and
rightful owners of the property in question at the time of the sale. Hence, she
prayed therein that she be maintained in peaceful and legal ownership,
possession and enjoyment of the questioned property.[19]
Answering the third-party complaint, the heirs of Salcedo effectively admitted
the existence of the 1978 deed of sale in favor of respondent by their parents
and considered the sale as within the personal and legal right of their parents
and an act outside their control.[20]
After due trial and consideration of the documentary and testimonial evidence
adduced by both parties, the trial court rendered a decision against petitioners
and in favor of respondent. The dispositive portion of the decision provides:
It was only in 1992 or forty-five (45) years from the time Salcedo took
possession of the property that petitioners made an attempt to claim it as their
own. Petitioners declared the property for tax purposes, registered their adverse
claim to respondentʼs title, and filed the instant case all in 1992.[38] These
actuations of petitioners point to the fact that for forty-five (45) years, they did
nothing to assert their right of ownership and possession over the subject
property.
Given the circumstances in the case at bar, the application of the equitable
defense of laches is more than justified.
Petitioners claim that prescription and adverse possession can never militate
against the right of a registered owner since a title, once registered cannot be
defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession.[39]
They are right in that regard. But their cause is defeated not by prescription and
adverse possession, but by laches.
This Court had occasion to distinguish laches from prescription in the case of
Heirs of Batiog Lacamen v. Heirs of Laruan.[40] It was held therein that:
“Laches” has been defined as “such neglect or omission to assert a right, taken
in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to
an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity.” It is a delay in the assertion
of a right “which works disadvantage to another” because of the “inequity
founded on some change in the condition or relations of the property or parties.”
It is based on public policy which, for the peace of society, ordains that relief will
be denied to a stale demand which otherwise could be a valid claim. It is
different from and applies independently of prescription. While prescription is
concerned with the fact of delay, laches is concerned with the effect of delay.
Prescription is a matter of time; laches is principally a question of inequity of
permitting a claim to be enforced, this inequity being founded on some change
in the condition of the property or the relation of the parties. Prescription is
statutory; laches is not. Laches applies in equity, whereas prescription applies at
law. Prescription is based on a fixed time, laches is not. [41] (Footnotes are
omitted.)
Thus, it is the effect of delay in asserting their right of ownership over the
property which militates against petitioners, not merely the fact that they
asserted their right to the property too late in the day.
All the four (4) elements of laches prescribed by this Court in the case of Go Chi
Gun, et al. v. Co Cho, et al.[42] and reiterated in the cases of Mejia de Lucas v.
Gamponia,[43] Miguel v. Catalino[44] and Claverias v. Quingco[45] are present
in the case at bar, to wit:
(1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims,
giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made for which the complaint
seeks a remedy;
(2) delay in asserting the complainantʼs rights, the complainant having had
knowledge or notice, of the defendantʼs conduct and having been afforded an
opportunity to institute a suit;
(3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the
complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and
(4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to
the complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.[46]
Petitionersʼ inaction for forty-five (45) years reduced their right to recover the
subject property into a stale demand.
In Mejia,[47] the Court held in essence that the principle of laches is one of
estoppel because it prevents people who have slept on their rights from
prejudicing the rights of third parties who have placed reliance on the inaction of
the original patentee and his successors in interest.[48] The following
pronouncement in the case of Claverias v. Quingco[49] is therefore apropos to
the case at bar:
...Courts cannot look with favor at parties who, by their silence, delay and
inaction, knowingly induce another to spend time, effort and expense in
cultivating the land, paying taxes and making improvements thereon for 30 long
years, only to spring from ambush and claim title when the possessorʼs efforts
and the rise of the land values offer an opportunity to make easy profit at his
expense.[50]
FACTS:
The original complaint in Civil Case No. 615, an action instituted by
petitioner against private respondents for annulment of title and reconveyance
with damages involving more than fifteen (15) hectares designated as Lot No.
737 of the Himamaylan Cadastre located at Himamaylan, Negros Occidental. It
is alleged therein that Lot No. 737 was originally decreed and registered in the
names of petitioner Teodora Claverias and her brother Federico. The latter died
unmarried and without any issue, leaving Sinforosa as his only heir. They also
alleged that the owner's copy of the original certificate of title was lost during
the last world war. However, after the war, private respondent Adoracion
Quingco, taking advantage of plaintiff's illiteracy, had the original title
reconstructed in the name of petitioner Claverias and her deceased brother.
Thereafter, through fraud, Quingco had the said title cancelled and obtained a
new certificate in her name. Subsequently, in connivance with private
respondent Tongson, she executed a fictitious and simulated deed of sale of Lot
No. 737 in favor of the latter and, by virtue thereof, a new transfer certificate of
title was issued in Tongson's name. Subsequently, through force and
intimidation, Tongson succeeded in evicting petitioner and her mother from the
premises which they had been occupying until then. The trial court overruled
the theory of fraud relied upon by petitioner on the ground that the facts
established do not support it. It then held that the petitioner and her mother had
in fact twice sold the property in question to Venancia Alarcon de Quingco,
mother of respondent Adoracion Quingco, as evidenced by Exhibits "17" and
"18" Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The latter sustained the trial
court and affirmed its decision. The motion for reconsideration of the foregoing
decision having been denied for lack of merit in the 17 February 1987 Resolution
of the Court of Appeals, petitioner took this present recourse. He contended
that respondent court erred by not finding that exhibits. "17" and "18" being
merely true copies of the alleged original and under the law the documents are
not admissible as evidence.
ISSUE:
Whether exhibits "17" and "18" being merely true copies of the alleged
original, not the best evidence, and under the law the documents are not
admissible as evidence?
RULING:
Yes. Exhibits “17” and “18” are not the best evidence and under the law
the documents are not admissible as evidence. Exhibit "17" is not the best
evidence and should have been rejected because the grounds for non-
production of the original deed of sale under Section 3, in relation to Section 5,
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, were not duly established. Said sections provide:
Private respondents failed to present the original deed of sale and do not claim
that they did. No justification has been adduced to show why they could not
produce the original or the duplicate originals thereof. Indeed, serious doubts
surrounds the existence of said deed of sale. Moreover, there is no showing that
the same had been registered. The reconstituted Original Certificate of Title No.
RO-7111 (17502) does not carry any entry regarding the said sale.
On the other hand, Exhibit "18" is not a deed of sale. It is but a certification of an
entry in the notarial register of notary public Vallejera. The certification states
that "no copy of the above-mentioned document has been received by this
office for file." It was, therefore, erroneous for both the trial and the respondent
appellate courts to declare that it is a deed of sale. While the certification may
be taken as evidence that sometime in the past the notary public did make that
entry in his notarial book, the entry is neither a substitute for the document, nor
the best evidence thereof. In this regard, private respondents again failed to
show why they could not produce the best evidence. The testimony of the
notary public that the document was acknowledged before him was insufficient
to prove the contents thereof. We also note that aside from the fact that this so-
called sale was not registered, no entry relating thereto appears in the
reconstituted Original Certificate of Title.
ANTONIO, J:
Appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Palawan in an accion
publiciana filed by plaintiff-appellee Venancia B. Magay, assisted by her
husband, Victoriano R. Magay, against the defendant-appellant Eugenio L.
Estiandan in Civil Case No. 518, finding plaintiff-appellee as the registered
owner of the land in question under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2004,
ordering defendant-appellant to vacate the property within fifteen (15) days
after the decision has become final, and to pay plaintiff-appellee the amount of
Ten Pesos (P10.00) monthly as rentals on the land from October 1965 until he
vacates the premises, and to pay the amount of Six Hundred Pesos (P600.00)
by way of attorney's fees and the costs of the suit.
The facts of the case as found by the trial court are as follows:
During the hearing of this case, the Court gathered from the evidence of the
plaintiff, that the plaintiff Venancia B. Magay bought the land. in question. from
her mother-in-law, Soledad de los Reyes. The land was formerly titled in the
name of Soledad de los Reyes under Original Certificate of Title No. E-2020
which was subsequently cancelled and transferred in the name of the herein
plaintiff under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2004, Exhibit 'A'. The area bought
by the plaintiff from Soledad de los Reyes was resurveyed, Exhibit Al Exhibit
'A-1-a' is lot No. 1 of Exhibit Al which is the land in question: The defendant has
constructed two houses in the land in question: Exhibit 'A-1-a-1' which is an old
house and Exhibit 'A-1-a-2' which is a new house. Before this property was old
by Soledad de los Reyes to the plaintiff, the former sent two letters, Exhibits 'C'
and 'D' to the defendant telling him to vacate the premises. After the plaintiff
has acquired the property in question, she sent other letters to the defendant
advising him to vacate the premises, Exhibits 'E' and F The plaintiff has declared
the property in question for purposes of taxation, Exhibit 'G' and has paid the
real estate taxes, Exhibit 'H'. Due to the refusal of the defendant to vacate the
premises in question, the plaintiff was obliged to hire the services of a lawyer
and spent P600.00 for attorney's fees.
On the other hand, the defendant testified that he has filed a miscellaneous
sales application, Exhibit '6' over the land in question. said application,
according to him, is now pending in the Bureau of Lands and it has neither-been
rejected nor approved. The defendant bases his application on the decision
rendered by Judge Bartolome Revilla in the case of El Gobierno de las Islas
Filipinos contra Antonio Aborot y otros Exhibit '5' adjudicating the land in
question in favor of the Government of the Philippines. Moreover, the defendant
questions the validity of the title issued to Soledad de log Reyes, alleging that
the issuance and reconstitution thereof was done under anomalous
circumstances.
Appellants brought this case on appeal directly to this Court on the
representation that only questions of law are involved. After a careful analysis of
the issues raised, it appears that the principal question to be resolved is whether
appellant can question in this proceedings the validity of Original Certificate No.
E-2020 issued to Soledad de los Reyes, now d and of the subsequent issuance
of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2W4 by the Register of Deeds to plaintiff-
appellee as a consequence of the registration of the deed of sale executed by
Soledad de los Reyes in favor of plaintiff-appellee dated June 26, 1963, on the
ground that Original Certificate of Title No. E-2020 was allegedly "fraudulently
issued" to the late Soledad de los Reyes in 1948.
It is well-settled that a torrens title cannot be co attacked. The issue on the
validity of the title can only in action expressly instituted for that purpose. 1 Even
assuming that the land in question is still part of the public domain, then the
appellant is not the proper party to institute the reversion of the land but it must
be the Solicitor General in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. 2
Finally, We also find no merit in appellant's contention that the lower Court erred
in assuming jurisdiction over the case. As clearly emphasized by Justice Fred
Ruiz Castro (now Chief Justice of this Court) in Serrano v. Munoz Hi Motors,
Inc.," 3 jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of
the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover
upon all or some of the claims asserted therein-a matter that can be resolved
only after and as a result of the trial. Nor may the jurisdiction of the court be
made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to
dismiss, for, were we to be governed by such rule, the question of jurisdiction
could depend almost entirely upon the defendant." The lower court did not
commit any am in declaring that plaintiff-appellee's complaint is actually an
accion publiciana rather than one for unlawful detainer, within the intendment of
Section 1, Rule 70 of the procedural law.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino and Jr., JJ., concur.
1.
G.R. No. 152440. January 31, 2005
FELICITACION B. BORBAJO,
petitioner, vs
. HIDDEN VIEW
HOMEOWNERS, INC., SPS. MARCELINA A. SARCON, ELY D.
SARCON, ROBERTO ALVAREZ, CORAZON NOMBRADO, and
GILBERT ANDRALES, in their personal
capacities,
respondents.
FACTS:
Jose C. Bontuyan (Bontuyan), Lucy Solon, Georgina
Solon, Helen Solon and Vicente Solon, Jr. (the Solons) were
the registered owners of a parcel of agricultural land (Lot
10183-A), covering an area of 13,910 square meters as
evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 73709 of
the Register of Deeds of Cebu City. At the instance of
Bontuyan, the property was surveyed on 19 May 1991 to
convert it into a subdivision. Meanwhile, in his own behalf
and as attorney-in-fact of the Solons and following the
subdivision scheme in the plan, Bontuyan sold the resulting
lots to different individuals,as evidenced by the
Deed of
Absolute Sale
dated 18 June 1991. Among the lots sold are
the ones which later became the subject of this case, the
three (3) road lots. The road lots were sold to petitioner
Felicitacion B. Borbajo. Using the advance payments of his
lot purchasers, Bontuyan proceeded to develop a
subdivision which was later named
Hidden View
Subdivision I
by its residents and homeowners. Later, he
applied for and secured from the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) a
License to Sell
.
The residents and homeowners of
Hidden View
Subdivision
I
heard reports to the effect that Borbajo had
purchased the entire subdivision from Bontuyan through
an oral agreement. They also heard that they have no
right to use the road lots, since the lots have already been
registered in Borbajos name. As a consequence, the
Hidden View Homeowners, Inc. invited Borbajo to a
meeting. When confronted by the homeowners about her
claim that she had bought the subdivision from Bontuyan,
Borbajo confirmed her claim of ownership over the
subdivision and the road lots. She also told them that they
have no right regarding the road right-of-way.
[12]
On 10
August 1997, the homeowners caused the construction of
a guardhouse at the entrance of
Hidden View Subdivision
I
and hired the services of a security guard to prevent
unauthorized persons and construction vehicles from
passing through their subdivision. The measures adversely
affected the residents of the subdivisions at the back, as
well as Borbajo herself since her delivery trucks and heavy
equipment used in the construction of her housing projects
then on-going had been effectively prevented from
passing through the road lots
.
[15]
The trial court issued a TRO effective for seventy-two (72)
hours. After due hearing, it also granted Borbajos
application for a writ of preliminary injunction. It denied
respondents motion to dismiss on the ground that it is the
HLURB which has jurisdiction over the case.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court
decision
ISSUE:
Whether respondents may legally prevent Borbajo from
using and passing through the three (3) road lots
within
Hidden View Subdivision I
RULING:
No. As a registered co-owner(Petitioner) of the road
lots, Borbajo is entitled to avail of all the attributes of
ownership under the Civil Code
jus utendi, fruendi,
abutendi, disponendi et vindicandi
.
[32]
Article 428 of the
New Civil Code is explicit that the owner has the right to
enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than
those established by law. A co-owner, such as Borbajo, is
entitled to use the property owned in common under
Article 486 of the Civil Code. Therefore, respondents
cannot close the road lots to prevent Borbajo from using
the same.
The trial court, after hearing, rendered its decision 6 in favor of private
respondent.
Petitioners appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court.
The Intermediate Appellate Court, First Civil Cases Division promulgated a
decision, 8 affirming the decision of the trial court, with modification.
Hence the instant recourse by petitioners.
Issue:
WON Valentine Ouano is the rightful owner of the questioned parcel of land.
Held:
Affirmative;
The public land certificate of title issued to private respondent attained the
status of indefeasibility one (1) year after the issuance of patent on April 15,
1963, hence, it is no longer open to review on the ground of actual fraud.
Consequently, the filing of the protest before the Bureau of Lands against the
Homestead Application of private respondent on January 3, 1975, or 12 years
after, can no longer re- open or revise the public land certificate of title on the
ground of actual fraud. No reasonable and plausible excuse has been shown for
such an unusual delay. The law serves those who are vigilant and diligent and
not those who sleep when the law requires them to act.
The trial court merely applied the rule and jurisprudence that a person whose
property has been wrongly or erroneously registered in another's name is not to
set aside the decree, but, respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no
longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice
for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value, for damages. 18
The prescriptive period for the reconveyance of fraudulently registered real
property is ten (10) years reckoned from the date of the issuance of the
certificate of title. 19
private respondent Ouano has a better right of possession over Lot No. 986
than petitioners who claimed to own and possess a total of 12 hectares of land
including that of Lot No. 986. Records indicate that petitioners have not taken
any positive step to legitimize before the Bureau of Lands their self-serving
claim of possession and cultivation of a total of 12 hectares of public agricultural
land by either applying for homestead settlement, sale patent, lease, or
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title by judicial legalization under
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Law, as amended by R.A. No. 1942 and P.D.
1073, or by administrative legalization (free patent) under Section 11 of Public
Land Law, as amended.1âwphi1 What was clearly shown during the trial of the
case was that petitioners wrested control and possession of Lot No. 986 on
January 4, 1975, or one (1) day after they filed their belated protest on January
3, 1975 before the Bureau of Lands against the homestead application of private
respondent, thus casting serious doubt on their claim of prior possession and
productive cultivation.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
The certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property
in favor of the person whose name appears therein. After the expiration of the
one (1) year period from the issuance of the decree of registration upon which it
is based, it becomes incontrovertible. 12 The settled rule is that a decree of
registration and the certificate of title issued pursuant thereto may be attacked
on the ground of actual fraud within one (1) year from the date of its entry and
such an attack must be direct and not by a collateral proceeding. 13 The validity
of the certificate of title in this regard can be threshed out only in an action
expressly filed for the purpose. 14
There is no specific provision in the Public Land Law (C.A. No. 141, as amended)
or the Land Registration Act (Act 496), now P.D. 1529, fixing the one (1) year
period within which the public land patent is open to review on the ground of
actual fraud as in Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, now Section 32 of
P.D. 1529, and clothing a public land patent certificate of title with indefeasibility.
Nevertheless, the pertinent pronouncements in the aforecited cases clearly
reveal that Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, now Section 32 of P.D. 1529
was applied by implication by this Court to the patent issued by the Director of
Lands duly approved by the Secretary of Natural Resources, under the signature
of the President of the Philippines in accordance with law. The date of issuance
of the patent, therefore,
corresponds to the date of the issuance of the decree in ordinary registration
cases because the decree finally awards the land applied for registration to the
party entitled to it, and the patent issued by the Director of Lands equally and
finally grants, awards, and conveys the land applied for to the applicant.
If the title to the land grant in favor of the homesteader would be subjected to
inquiry, contest and decision after it has been given by the Government thru the
process of proceedings in accordance with the Public Land Law, there would
arise uncertainty, confusion and suspicion on the government's system of
distributing public agricultural lands pursuant to the "Land for the Landless"
policy of the State.
l
..