Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > May 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6669 May 3, 1954 - PEDRO DAQUIS v. MAXIMO BUSTOS

094 Phil 913:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6669. May 3, 1954.]

PEDRO DAQUIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAXIMO BUSTOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Santos K. Maranan for Appellant.

Ignacio Lugtu for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. HOMESTEAD; SALE BEFORE EXPIRATION OF FIVE YEARS FROM ISSUANCE OF PATENT BUT APPROVED BY COURT; ACTION TO ANNUL AFTER TWENTY YEARS. — Where a homestead was sold before the expiration of five years from issuance of patent and such sale was approved by the court in a decision rendered to that effect, action to annul the latter brought twenty years after the decision became final, would no longer prosper.

2. JUDGMENT; ERRONEOUS DECISION NOT BEING JURISDICTIONAL COULD BE CORRECTED ONLY BY APPEAL. — When a decision is erroneous and such error not being jurisdictional the same could have been corrected only by a regular appeal. Decisions, erroneous or not, become final after the period fixed by law; litigations would be endless; no questions would be finally settled; and titles to property would become precarious if the losing party were allowed to reopen them any time in the future.


D E C I S I O N


JUGO, J.:


This is an appeal from a final order of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, in which the appellant raises only questions of law. From said order, we gather the following facts, which are not disputed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On September 21, 1921, Homestead Patent No. 3236 was issued to Pedro Daquis, plaintiff in Civil Case No. 1032 of said court, and appellant herein, covering Lot No. 1662 of the Cadastral Survey of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija. This patent was filed and registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of said province, who, on November 6, 1921, issued to Pedro Daquis the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. 1073.

On January 19, 1922, Daquis filed with said court in the cadastral proceeding of Muñoz an answer in which he alleged that he had acquired said lot by virtue of the homestead patent above mentioned and prayed that same be adjudicated to him and his wife Feliciana Quiambao.

On March 9, 1922, Daquis filed another answer of the same tenor.

On September 6, 1926, Daquis, in an instrument acknowledged before Notary Public Ignacio Castelo, conveyed by way of absolute sale said lot to Maximo Bustos, defendant in said case and appellee herein, for the sum of P4,450.00.

On the next day, September 7, 1926, Bustos filed with the court of first instance of Nueva Ecija his cadastral answer claiming ownership of the lot in question by virtue of the purchase evidenced by said document, and prayed that the lot be adjudicated to him and his wife Elvira Buenaventura.

On the same day, Bustos, with the approval of Daquis, declared for tax purposes said property in his name by means of an affidavit of transfer of real property of the same date.

On June 23, 1934, the Chief of the General Land Registration Office in Manila issued an order directing the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija to cancel Original Certificate of Title No. 1073, and in lieu thereof issued a new Transfer Certificate of Title to Maximo Bustos and Elvira Buenaventura, pursuant to the order of Judge Enrique V. Filamor of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, dated November 18, 1932, in the cadastral proceedings.

On June 30, 1934, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8310 was issued by the Register of Deeds to the spouses Bustos and Buenaventura.

On September 24, 1952, Daquis filed a complaint with the court of first instance of Nueva Ecija, presided over by Judge L. Pasicolan, praying that the transferor’s affidavit, dated September 7, 1926, and the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8310 be canceled, and he, the plaintiff, be declared the owner of said Lot No. 1662, and that the defendants, the spouses Bustos and Buenaventura, be sentenced to pay jointly and severally plaintiff Daquis the sum of P20,000.00 as damages, plus the costs of suit.

The defendants, Bustos and his wife, filed a motion to dismiss, based on the ground that the cause of action was barred by a prior judgment and by the statute of limitations.

The court of first instance dismissed the complaint. Daquis appealed to this Court, and in his brief makes the following assignment of errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

"I


"The lower court erred in dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that the present action is barred by a prior judgment.

"II


"The lower court erred in holding that the sale of lot No. 1662 covered by Homestead Patent No. 3236 and Original Certificate of Title No. 1073, which is now being assailed and impugned as null and void, was clearly settled in the cadastral case and that the matter must now be regarded to all intents and purposes as res adjudicata.

"III


"The lower court erred in holding that in the determination of the conflicting claims to the land in question the court had no occasion or need to inquire into the validity of the first title No. 1073, as the issue was not the indefeasibility of a Torrens Title acquired under the homestead patents."cralaw virtua1aw library

The theory of the appellant is that, in the cadastral proceedings, the court of first instance could not nullify or cancel the certificate of title issued as a consequence of the homestead patent and order the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in favor of the Bustos spouses, for the reason that said certificate of title issued to the homestead patentee was just as indefeasible as any other Torrens Certificate of Title. The only defect of this theory is that the court did not order the cancellation or nullification of either the patent or the corresponding certificate of title, but based the issuance of the transfer certificate of title in favor of the Bustos spouses on the sale of the land made by Daquis to said spouses, as evidenced by the transferor’s affidavit and the declaration in favor of the Bustos spouses made with the consent of Daquis. The court below, far from annulling the patent and the certificate of title of Daquis, impliedly but necessarily recognized them, for Daquis could not have sold the property to Bustos without possessing the patent and the Torrens Certificate of Title.

However, Daquis contends that said sale was made four years, eleven months, and fifteen days after the issuance of the patent and the certificate of title, or, in other words, fifteen days short before the expiration of the five-year period after the issuance, in violation of Section 116 of Act No. 2874, which read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SEC. 116. Land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent of grant, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period; but the improvements or crops on the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the first place, the decision of Judge Filamor in favor of the Bustos spouses was rendered on November 18, 1932, but the complaint in the present case (Civil Case No. 1032 of the court of first instance of Nueva Ecija) was filed on November 24, 1952, or more than twenty years after the rendition of the decision of Judge Filamor. Needless to say, the decision of Judge Filamor had become final for more than nineteen years before the complaint seeking its annulment was filed.

Even assuming that Judge Filamor’s decision erroneously declared the sale valid, such error, not being jurisdictional, could have been corrected only by a regular appeal. Decisions, erroneous or not, become final after the period fixed by law; litigations would be endless; no questions would be finally settled; and titles to property would become precarious if the losing party were allowed to reopen them at any time in the future.

In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is affirmed with costs against the appellant. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Bautista, Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6669 May 3, 1954 - PEDRO DAQUIS v. MAXIMO BUSTOS

    094 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-6736 May 4, 1954 - ISABEL GABRIEL, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    094 Phil 917

  • G.R. No. L-6220 May 7, 1954 - MARTINA QUIZANA v. GAUDENCIO REDUGERIO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 922

  • G.R. No. L-5773 May 10, 1954 - CASIMIRO, ET AL. v. FABIAN SOBERANO

    094 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-6538 May 10, 1954 - PABLO BURGUETE v. JOVENCIO Q. MAYOR, ET AL.

    094 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-5694 May 12, 1954 - PAMBUJAN SUR UNITED MINE WORKERS v. SAMAR MINING CO., INC.

    094 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-6666 May 12, 1954 - GORGONIO PANDES v. JOSE TEODORO SR., ET AL.

    094 Phil 942

  • G.R. No. L-6765 May 12, 1954 - FULGENCIO VEGA, ET AL. v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-4918 May 14, 1954 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LEON GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-5689 May 14, 1954 - JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. AURELIO MONTINOLA, ET AL.

    094 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-5900 May 14, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO FRANCISCO

    094 Phil 975

  • G.R. No. L-5942 May 14, 1954 - R.F.C. v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    094 Phil 984

  • G.R. No. L-6313 May 14, 1954 - ROYAL SHIRT FACTORY, INC. v. CO

    094 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. L-6444 May 14, 1954 - MUN. OF CALOOCAN v. MANOTOK REALTY, INC. ET AL.

    094 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-6572 May 14, 1954 - MAX CHAMORRO & CO. v. PHIL. READY-MIX CONCRETE CO., INC., ET AL.

    094 Phil 1005

  • G.R. No. L-6792 May 14, 1954 - FAUSTO D. LAQUIAN v. FILOMENA SOCCO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-6921 May 14, 1954 - EUGENIO CATILO v. GAVINO S. ABAYA

    094 Phil 1014

  • G.R. No. L-6481 May 17, 1954 - JESUS GUIAO v. ALBINO L. FIGUEROA

    094 Phil 1018

  • G.R. No. L-7045 May 18, 1954 - BENIGNO C. GUTIERREZ v. LAUREANO JOSE RUIZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1024

  • G.R. No. L-5378 May 24, 1954 - CO TIONG SA v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    095 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6408 May 24, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO CARULASDULASAN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-6522 May 24, 1954 - LUIS B. UVERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    095 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-6807 May 24, 1954 - JESUS SACRED HEART COLLEGE v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    095 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-6870 May 24, 1954 - ELENA AMEDO v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.

    095 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-6988 May 24, 1954 - U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. STO. TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

    095 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-4817 May 26, 1954 - SILVESTRE M. PUNSALAN v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5682 May 26, 1954 - ANASTACIO N. ABAD v. CANDIDA CARGANILLO VDA. DE YANCE

    095 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-5807 May 26, 1954 - BASILIA CABRERA, ET AL. v. FLORENCIA BELEN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-5906 May 26, 1954 - ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORIA VDA. DE TENGCO

    095 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-5953 May 26, 1954 - EX-MERALCO EMPLOYEES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    095 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-6246 May 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX RIPAS

    095 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-6260 May 26, 1954 - HERMOGENES TARUC v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO.

    095 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. L-6306 May 26, 1954 - FORTUNATO HALILI v. MARIA LLORET, ET AL.

    095 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-6353 May 26, 1954 - DANIEL CABANGANGAN v. ROBERTO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-6463 May 26, 1954 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MARCIANO DE LA PAZ

    095 Phil 90

  • G.R. Nos. L-6675-81 May 26, 1954 - BIENVENIDO E. DOLLENTE v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    095 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-7024 May 26, 1954 - ROMAN TOLSA v. ALEJANDRO J. PANLILIO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-4935 May 28, 1954 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. QUIRINO BOLAÑOS

    095 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-6462 May 28, 1954 - BELEN JOVE LAGRIMAS v. TITO LAGRIMAS

    095 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-6967 May 28, 1954 - JOSE PONCE DE LEON v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-7042 May 28, 1954 - CLOTILDE MEJIA VDA. DE ALFAFARA v. PLACIDO MAPA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3663 May 31, 1954 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARIA VELASCO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-4510 May 31, 1954 - MARC DONNELLY & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-4633 May 31, 1954 - GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    095 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-5824 May 31, 1954 - PAZ PAREJA v. JULIO PAREJA

    095 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-5837 May 31, 1954 - CRISTOBAL BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. JAIME HERNANDEZ

    095 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-6018 May 31, 1954 - EMILIANO MORABE v. WILLIAM BROWN

    095 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-6122 May 31, 1954 - AURELIA DE LARA, ET AL. v. JACINTO AYROSO

    095 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-6461 May 31, 1954 - PILAR ARAULLO MACOY v. CARMEN VASQUEZ TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    095 Phil 192

  • G.R. Nos. L-7403 & L-7426 May 31, 1954 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GAVINO S. ABAYA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 205