Carquelo Omandam and Rosito Itom, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Blas Trabasas and Amparo Bonilla, respondents Case Digest (349 SCRA 483)

This petition for review seeks for reversal of the decision dated October 29, 1996, of the Court of Appeals reversing and setting aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23, dated November 15, 1996, and the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated February 21, 1997, denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

FACTS:

On January 29, 1974, the Bureau of Lands issued a homestead patent in favor of Camilo Lasola for a certain land in Sagrada, Tambuling, Zamboanga del Sur. The Register of Deeds also issued an Original Title Certificate in his name.

On April 28, 1983, Blas Trabasas bought the land from a certain Dolores Sayson who claimed to be the owner. In 1984, Trabasas discovered that petitioners Carquelo Omandam and Rosito Itom had occupied the land. Meanwhile, on July 19, 1987, Omandam protested Lasola's homestead patent before the Bureau of Lands and prayed for the cancellation of the OCT. Upon Sayson's advice, Trabasas repurchased the land from Lasola, who executed a Deed of Sale dated September 24, 1987. On August 9, 1989, Trabasa acquired a new Transfer Certificate of Title.

On April 16, 1990, Blas Trabasas and Amparo Bonilla filed a complaint for the recovery of possession and/or ownership of the land with the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Sur. They alleged that they are the true owners of the land and that the petitioners should vacate it. 

Petitioners, on the other hand, alleged that they purchased the land from one Godofredo Sela who have been in possession for almost twenty years. After the parties were duly heared, the RTC issued a decision on November 15, 1993, declaring that neither Trabasas and Bonilla, nor their predecessor-in-interest were ever in possession of the land. The court ordered the Trabasas and Bonilla to reconvey the title of the land in the name of the petitioners.

The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals. Pending appeal, the DENR dismissed Omandam's protest previously filed with the Bureau of Lands. It said that Omandan failed to prove that Lasola committed fraud and misrepresentation in acquiring the patent, hence there is no ground for the revocation and cancellation of its title.

On October 29, 1996, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC and ordered the petitioners to vacate the subject land and surrender it to Blas Trabasas and Amparo Bonilla. The Court of Appeals declared that the collateral attack on the homestead title to defeat private respondents' accion publiciana, was not sanctioned by law; that the patent had already become indefeasible since April 28, 1977; and that petitioners' action for reconveyance in the nature of their protest with the Bureau of Lands and counterclaim in their answer to the complaint for recovery of possession, already prescribed. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but was subsequently denied.

Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUES:

What is the effect of the trial court's decision in a possessory action on the order of the Bureau of Lands regarding a homestead application and decision of the DENR on the protest over homestead patent?

RULING:

Commonwealth Act 141 as amended, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, gives in its Section 3 and 4 to the Director of Lands primarily and to the Secretary of the DENR ultimately the authority to dispose public lands. In this regard, the courts have no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the decree of registration issued by the Director of Lands. Only the Secretary of the DENR can review, on appeal, such decree. Thus, reversal of the RTC of the award given by the Director of Land to Lasola was in error.

DENR's jurisdiction over public lands does not negate the authority of the courts of justice to resolve questions of possession and their decisions stand in the meantime that the DENR has not settled the respective rights of public land claimants. But once DENR has decided, particularly with the grant of homestead patent and issuance of an OCT and then TCT later, its decision prevails.

Petition was denied and the decision of the CA was affirmed.

Garingan vs. Garingan Case Digest (455 SCRA 480)

FACTS:

Hadji Munib Saupi Garingan, et al., herein respondents, alleged that their grandfather Sauri Moro owned an agricultural lot, fully panted with coconut and other fruit bearing trees, containing an area of 11.3365 hectares. Saupi Moro acquired the land through purchase from Gani Moro. Saupi Moro then donated the land to his daughter Insih Saupi, mother of Hadji Munib, et al. and petitioner Haymaton S. Garingan.

After the death of Saupi Moro in 1954, Haymaton and and husband Pawaki, who was also known as Djayari Moro, herein petitioners, took over the administration of the land. Later, petitioners declared the land, then still untitled, in their names for taxation purposes. Petitioners refused to share with the respondents the income from the sale of fruits from the land. Petitioners claimed that on 22 September 1969, Pawaki alleged that he bought the land from Jikirum M. Adjaluddin (Jikirum) and a TCT was issued in the name of Djayari Moro. Pawaki took possession of the land in the concept of an owner in the same year. He declared the land for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 1675.

Respondents filed an action for Partition and Injunction with prayer for Preliminary Injunction against petitioners with the Shari'a District Court, Third Shari'a Judicial District, Zamboanga City. The Shari'a District Court then ordered to partition the land in equal shares among the respondents and their sister petitioner. Each of them was entitled to one-fourth share of the aforesaid property. The TCT in the name of Djayari Moro was ordered annulled and cancelled, and, in lieu thereof the Office of the Register of Deeds of Basilan City was ordered to issue a new TCT in the names of the respondents and their sister petitioner. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in an order dated 19 July 2000.

Hence, the present petition.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the Shari'a District Court erred in ordering the partition of the subject property and annulment of the Transfer Certificate of Title on the basis alone of respondents' claim that Saupi Moro, their predecessor-in-interest, was the one who owned the said parcel of land during his lifetime, thereby disregarding the protection accorded to the persons dealing with property registered under the Torrens system.

RULING:

The petition is meritorious. The first stage in an action for partition is the settlement of the issue of ownership, and the action will not lie if the claimant has no rightful interest in the property in dispute. In the case at bar, Hadji Munib, et al., herein respondents, failed to prove their right to the land in dispute.

The subject property originally belonged to Gani Moro and was acquired through sale by Saupi Moro. After Gani Moro's death, his heirs, including Andaang, offered to repurchase the land, but Saupi Moro refused. The heirs instituted a civil case for Unlawful Detainer but was dismissed by the court. Despite the dismissal, Andaang filed for a homestead patent over the said property. It was approved on 17 February 1955 and he was issued Letters of patent. On 6 December 1955, an Original Certificate of Title was issued in Andaang's name. In July 1956, the brothers and sisters of Saupi Moro filed a civil case for the annulment of the OCT and damages against Andaang. Again, the case did not prosper. The plaintiffs did not revive the case and it was considered abandoned.

Andaang died intestate in 1959. On 13 April 1960, Andaang's widow and sole heir, Cristeta Santiago vda. de Gani, executed an Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale adjudicating to herself the land in dispute and at the same time selling it to Jikirum. Consequently, a TCT was issued in the name of Jikirum.

CA 141 requires the applicant for a homestead patent, to enter in possession of, improve and cultivate the land. Petitioners, insist that Andaang did not comply with these requirements. A person deprived of the land, estate, or interest therein by virtue of a decree of registration may avail of the remedy provided under Section 38 of Act 496. Section 38, however, contemplates of an external fraud. In the case of Libudan vs. Gil, the Court explained the scope of external or collateral fraud as any fraudulent scheme executed by a prevailing litigant "outside the trial of the case against the defeated party, or his agents, attorneys or witnesses, whereby said defeated party is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his side of the case". The fraud being attributed to Andaang is not extrinsic and collateral.

Granting that Andaang committed extrinsic and collateral fraud, respondents failed to avail of the remedy provided under Section 38 of Act 496 within the prescribed period. In Nelayan, et al. vs. Nelayan, et al., this Court ruled that in the case of public land grants (patents), the one-year period under Section 38 counted from the issuance of the patent by the government.

Upon registration, the land in dispute falls under the operation of Act 496 and becomes a registered land. A homestead patent, once registered, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title. Instead of availing the remedy of Section 38 of Act 496, respondents filed an action for partition, which must fail because a Torrens title is not susceptible to collateral attack.

In any event, the respondents are not the proper parties to file the action for reconveyance of the land in dispute. In the civil cases, respondents did not claim that the land was privately owned and thus not proper for homestead application. They only alleged continuous possession of the land. The respondents acknowledged that the Illegal Detainer case filed by the heirs of Gani Moro, only confirmed Saupi Moro's physical possession of the land. This, however, did not settle the issue of ownership of the land.

Evidently, the land was not privately owned by Gani Moro from whom Saupi Moro acquired it. The land in dispute was part of public domain before the issuance of OCT in the name of Andaang. If it were otherwise, there would be no need for Andaang to file a homestead application.

Respondents' action for partition effectively seeks to cancel the homestead patent and the corresponding certificate of title. However, even if the homestead patent and the certificate of title were cancelled, respondents will not acquire the land in the concept of an owner. The land will revert to the government and will again form part of the public domain. The proper party to bring such action of patent cancellation is the Government. This is provided for in Section 101 of CA 141.

Considering the foregoing, the respondents is not the proper party to file an action to recover possession of the land in dispute. Further, they failed to timely avail of whatever remedy available to them to protect whatever interest they had over the land.

The decision of the Shari'a District Court is set aside and another one is entered dismissing the said complaint.