Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1935 > May 1935 Decisions > G.R. No. 42228 May 21, 1935 - EL MONTE DE PIEDAD v. JORGE VELASCO, ET AL.

061 Phil 467:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 42228. May 21, 1935.]

EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JORGE VELASCO ET AL., Defendants. SIMEON MANUEL, ANGELO MANUEL, JORGE VELASCO, and FRANCISCA PANTIG, Appellants.

Jose Gutierrez David for appellant S. Manuel.

M. S. Banson for other appellants.

Feria & La O for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. TORRENS TITLE AND HOMESTEAD PATENTS; SUPERIORITY OF TITLE. — The Torrens title issued by virtue of a decree entered in a registration proceeding is superior to the homestead patents granted subsequent to such decree. "It is settled conclusively in this jurisdiction that the titles issued by virtue of final decrees of the Court of Land Registration or of the Courts of First Instance in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) are conclusive and binding upon all the world." (De los Reyes v. Razon, 38 Phil., 480, 482.) On the other hand, "the proceedings by which titles to portions of the public domain are granted to homesteaders in accordance with the provisions of the Public Land Act, on the contrary, are purely administrative." (De los Reyes v. Razon, supra.)

2. ID.; ID.; CLAIM FOR IMPROVEMENTS; ACT NO. 2874, SECTION 102, NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. — The defendants’ claim for improvements cannot be accepted. After the decision was rendered in the registration proceeding in favor of plaintiff’s grantor, defendants cannot be said to be possessors in good faith. The contention of appellants that this case should be considered under section 102 of Act No. 2874 is without merit. That Act was approved in April, 1919, long after the registration case and the homesteads had become established facts. By the very terms of the Act itself, it could have no application to this case. Moreover, we think that they were amply compensated by the benefits derived from their possession.


D E C I S I O N


HULL, J.:


This action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Bataan by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, later substituted by El Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros, for the purpose of recovering certain parcels of land situated in the municipality of Dinalupihan, Province of Bataan. After answers by the several defendants trial was had, and the lower court rendered judgment the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"En vista de las consideraciones arriba expuestas, el Juzgado cree que la demandante es dueña exclusiva de los terrenos objeto de los titulos de los demandados; que dichos titulos no pueden prevalecer contra el titulo Torrens de la demandante. Por tanto, se declara que las parcelas de terrenos cubiertas por los Titulos de homestead de los demandados son de la propiedad de la demandante; que los certificados de titulo expedidos para los mismos son nulos y de ningun valor, y que deben ser cancelados; y se ordena a los demandados que entreguen la posesion de los homesteads a la demandante. Se absuelve a la demandante de las reconvenciones, con costas a los demandados Jorge Velasco, Francisca Pantig, Angelo Manuel y Simeon Manuel."cralaw virtua1aw library

The legal question presented in this appeal arises from the following facts: The parcels in question are portions of a larger tract commonly known as the Dinalupihan Rice Estate. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila acquired ownership over this hacienda on November 7, 1894, by virtue of a composition title with the State, and the same was duly adjudicated to said owner in 1914 in a registration proceeding (G. L. R. O. Record No. 9271). In that registration case the Government of the Philippine Islands had interposed an opposition, which was overruled. Thereafter, in 1922, a Torrens certificate of title was issued pursuant to the decision in the registration case. The interest of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila was subsequently conveyed to the present plaintiff, El Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros, which now holds Torrens Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1301 to the hacienda which includes the parcels in controversy. In the meantime, however, the several defendants had filed with the Bureau of Lands homestead applications covering the portions which are sought to be recovered in this action, and the homestead patents were issued in favor of Mateo Penaflor on June 5, 1917, in favor of Anacleto Manuel and Simeon Manuel on July 23, 1918, and in favor of Jorge Velasco on January 22, 1919. We are called upon to decide which of the two sets of title ought to prevail.

We agree with the trial court that plaintiff’s title is superior to those of defendants. It is true that the Torrens title of plaintiff’s grantor was not issued until May 20, 1922, but the decision in pursuance of which the same was issued was rendered on May 15, 1914. And when the homestead patents were handed down, the Government had notice of said decision. We hold, as did the trial court, that the Torrens title issued by virtue of a decree entered in a registration proceeding is superior to the homestead patents granted subsequent to such decree. "It is settled conclusively in this jurisdiction that the titles issued by virtue of final decrees of the Court of Land Registration or of the Courts of First Instance in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) are conclusive and binding upon all the world." (De los Reyes v. Razon, 38 Phil., 480, 482.) On the other hand, "the proceedings by which titles to portions of the public domain are granted to homesteaders in accordance with the provisions of the Public Land Act, on the contrary, are purely administrative." (De los Reyes v. Razon, supra.)

The defendants’ claim for improvements cannot be accepted. After the decision was rendered in the registration proceeding in favor of plaintiff’s grantor, defendants cannot be said to be possessors in good faith. The contention of appellants that this case should be considered under section 102 of Act No. 2874 is without merit. That Act was approved in April, 1919, long after the registration case and the homesteads had become established facts. By the very terms of the Act itself, it could have no application to this case. Moreover, we think that they were amply compensated by the benefits derived from their possession.

Although we are not unmindful of the fact that this decision will spell hardships on the part of appellants, it would be departing from the established law if we should not give recognition to the superior title of plaintiff.

The judgment appealed from will therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs against appellants.

Abad Santos, Vickers and Diaz, JJ., concur.

Malcolm, J., concurs in the merit.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1935 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 41487 May 2, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DE LA CRUZ

    061 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 43456 May 6, 1935 - CATALINO BATACLAN v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, ET AL.

    061 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 42974-76 May 7, 1935 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. FRANCISCO CRUZ

    061 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 41481 May 8, 1935 - VALENTIN A. FERNANDO v. CARLOS DE LA CRUZ

    061 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. 43358 May 8, 1935 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    061 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 43291 May 11, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO LIZARTE

    061 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 42109 May 13, 1935 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JOSE BENARES FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    061 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 43399 May 16, 1935 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    061 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 43592 May 17, 1935 - JUAN L. ALCANTARA v. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

    061 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 42228 May 21, 1935 - EL MONTE DE PIEDAD v. JORGE VELASCO, ET AL.

    061 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 42538 May 21, 1935 - WILLAMETTE IRON & STEEL WORKS v. A. H. MUZZAL

    061 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 43066 May 23, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. KERBA N.

    061 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 42323 May 27, 1935 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ESTEBAN ABAD, ET AL.

    061 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 43347 May 27, 1935 - ANTONIO UY LIM v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    061 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 41718 May 29, 1935 - GABRIEL TEJEDOR, ET AL. v. MONSERRAT PALET, ET AL.

    061 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. 41820 May 29, 1935 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. ETHEL M. KANE

    061 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 43575 May 31, 1935 - JUAN TAÑADA v. JOSE YULO

    061 Phil 515