Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > November 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-33243 November 29, 1983 - ISIDRO C. NERY, ET AL. v. BERNARDO TEVES, ET AL.

211 Phil. 278:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-33243. November 29, 1983.]

ISIDRO C. NERY, as Regional Land Director of Northern Mindanao, and MACARIO D. YCARO, as District Land Officer of Bukidnon, Petitioners, v. HON. BERNARDO TEVES, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Branch IV, and CELSA, MANUEL, MAURICIO, JR., RODOLFO and NORMA, all surnamed MERLAS, Respondents.

The Solicitor General, for Petitioners.

Quimpo, Willkon & Berber Apepe for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; SECTION 91 OF THE PUBLIC LAND ACT (C.A. 141, AS AMENDED); POWER OF THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AND TO FILE THE CORRESPONDING REVERSION PROCEEDINGS AS THE FACTS SO WARRANT. — Sec. 91 of the Public land Act (C.A. No. 141, as amended) speaks, inter alia, of the "cancellation of the concession, title, or permit granted" (Italics supplied) in respect of which the Director of Lands can conduct an investigation. This Court has confirmed such power. It is not only the right but the duty of the Director of Lands to conduct the investigation complained of and to file the corresponding court action for the reversion of the properties to the State, if the facts disclosed in the course of the investigation so warrants." (Cebedo v. Director of Lands, L-12777, May 23, 1961, 2 SCRA 25, 29; Gamao v. Calamba, L-13349, 109 Phil. 542, 546 [1960]; Nieto v. Quines, L-14643, September 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 74, 81.)

2. ID.; ID.; SUMAIL CASE; RULING THEREIN DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING AN ACTION FOR REVERSION. — The trial court’s decision is based on a misconception of Sumail. That case simply means that once a patent is granted and the corresponding certificate of title is issued the Director of Lands has no power to revoke or cancel them. It does not follow that the Director of Lands cannot conduct an investigation for the purpose of filing an action for reversion in court.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


This is a petition to review a decision of the defunct Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental in Civil Case No. 3512.

On September 29, 1969, homestead patent No. 128020 was issued to the heirs of Mauricio Merlas, the private respondents herein. On September 15, 1970, the patent was registered with the Register of Deeds of Bukidnon and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. P-4579 was issued to the aforesaid heirs.

On May 11, 1970, Francisco Torres filed a verified letter-protest with the District Land Officer (DLO) of Bukidnon, alleging that homestead patent No. 128020 was obtained thru deceit and misrepresentation. On August 17, 1970, Regional Land Director Isidro Nery directed DLO Macario Ycaro to investigate the protest pursuant to Sec. 91 of the Public Land Act.

The Merlas siblings objected to the investigation. They claimed that the DLO had no power to conduct an investigation because the land had been registered under Act No. 496. DLO Ycaro overruled the objection and set the case for hearing on October 20, 1970. The siblings filed a petition for prohibition in the Court below which rendered the following judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for petitioners, ordering respondents Regional Land Director Isidoro C. Nery and District Land Officer Macario D. Ycaro to desist absolutely and perpetually from proceeding with the investigation in question."cralaw virtua1aw library

The legal issue was well stated by the trial court as follows: "After the issuance of the Homestead Patent and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title thereto, may the Director of Lands conduct an investigation to determine whether or not said Patent had been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, as a basis, if warranted, for bringing the appropriate action before the courts of Justice?" chanrobles law library

The petitioners assert that the answer is in the affirmative. Upon the other hand, the respondents, both public and private, insist on a negative answer. They invoke Sumail v. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, 96 Phil. 946, 952 (1955) which states that "once the patent was granted and the corresponding certificate of title was issued, the land ceased to be part of the public domain and became private property over which the Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petition is highly impressed with merit.

Sec. 91 of the Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141, as amended) provides the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 91. The statements made in the application shall be considered as essential conditions and parts of any concession, title, or permit issued on the basis of such application, and any false statement therein or omission of facts altering, changing, or modifying the consideration of the facts set forth in such statements, and any subsequent modification, alteration, or change of the material facts set forth in the application shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession, title, or permit granted. It shall be the duty of the Director of Lands, from time to time and whenever he may deem it advisable, to make the necessary investigations for the purpose of ascertaining whether the material facts set out in the application are true, or whether they continue to exist and are maintained and preserved in good faith, and for the purposes of such investigation, the Director of Lands is hereby empowered to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum and, if necessary, to obtain compulsory process from the courts. In every investigation made in accordance with this section, the existence of bad faith, fraud, concealment, or fraudulent and illegal modification of essential facts shall be presumed if the grantee or possessor of the land shall refuse or fail to obey a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum lawfully issued by the Director of Lands or his authorized delegates or agents, or shall refuse or fail to give direct and specific answers to pertinent questions, and on the basis of such presumption an order of cancellation may issue without further proceedings."cralaw virtua1aw library

It should be noted that the foregoing provision speaks, inter alia, of the "cancellation of the concession, title, or permit granted" (Italics supplied) in respect of which the Director of Lands can conduct an investigation. This Court has confirmed such power in the following cases:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is not only the right but the duty of the Director of Lands to conduct the investigation complained of and to file the corresponding court action for the reversion of the properties to the State, if the facts disclosed in the course of the investigation so warrants." (Cebedo v. Director of Lands, L-12777, May 23, 1961, 2 SCRA 25, 29.)

"The mere fact that a patent and a title have already been issued to defendant Calamba does not preclude administrative investigation by the Director of Lands, who, if he finds that there was fraud in obtaining the same, may himself or in representation of the Republic of the Philippines file an appropriate action for the cancellation of the patent and title or for the reversion of the land to the public domain, as the case may be." (Gamao v. Calamba, L-13349, 109 Phil. 542, 546, [1960].)

"Furthermore, a certificate of title based on a patent, even after the expiration of one year from the issuance thereof, is still subject to certain conditions and restrictions. As a matter of fact, in appropriate cases and after prior administrative investigations by the Director of Lands, proper actions may be instituted by said officials which may lead to the cancellation of the patent and title, and the consequent reversion of the land to the Government." (Nieto v. Quines, L-14643, September 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 74, 81.)

The trial court’s decision is based on a misconception of Sumail. That case simply means that once a patent is granted and the corresponding certificate of title is issued the Director of Lands has no power to revoke or cancel them. It does not follow that the Director of Lands cannot conduct an investigation for the purpose of filing an action for reversion in court.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the judgment under review is hereby set aside with no costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero and Escolin, JJ., concur.

De Castro, J., took no part.




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






November-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-65366 November 9, 1983 - JOSE B.L. REYES v. RAMON BAGATSING

    210 Phil. 457

  • G.R. Nos. L-58011 & L-58012 November 18, 1983 - VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 482

  • G.R. Nos. L-33822-23 November 22, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 499

  • G.R. No. L-47282 November 23, 1983 - CONSTANCIO ABAPO v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 529

  • G.R. No. L-57091 November 23, 1983 - PAZ S. BAENS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    210 Phil. 535

  • G.R. No. L-23625 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO TERRADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28255 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN C. MAGTIRA

    211 Phil. 7

  • G.R. No. L-28298 November 25, 1983 - ROSITA SANTIAGO DE BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. VICTORIA DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 26

  • G.R. No. L-30309 November 25, 1983 - CLEMENTE BRIÑAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 37

  • G.R. No. L-32312 November 25, 1983 - AURELIO TIRO v. AGAPITO HONTANOSAS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 46

  • G.R. No. L-32573 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO ELEFAÑO, JR., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 50

  • G.R. No. L-33277 November 25, 1983 - JORGE C. PACIFICAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-44412 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME V. SAMBANGAN

    211 Phil. 72

  • G.R. No. L-49656 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO S. QUINTAL

    211 Phil. 79

  • G.R. No. L-51223 November 25, 1983 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 97

  • G.R. No. L-54242 November 25, 1983 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. RENE NIETO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 101

  • G.R. No. L-55436 November 25, 1983 - NICASIO BORJE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 106

  • G.R. No. L-55463 November 25, 1983 - ROBERTO V. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57518 November 25, 1983 - LUCAS BARASI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 138

  • G.R. No. L-58630 November 25, 1983 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 145

  • G.R. No. L-60744 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE A. LUCES

    211 Phil. 152

  • G.R. No. L-62032 November 25, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DUMLAO

    211 Phil. 159

  • G.R. No. L-62050 November 25, 1983 - JOSE "PEPITO" TIMONER v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 166

  • G.R. No. L-62283 November 25, 1983 - CARIDAD CRUZ VDA. DE SY-QUIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 171

  • G.R. Nos. L-62845-46 November 25, 1983 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 176

  • G.R. No. L-63318 November 25, 1983 - PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, INC. v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 180

  • G.R. Nos. L-64207-08 November 25, 1983 - CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 187

  • G.R. No. L-40884 November 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CHAVEZ

    211 Phil. 194

  • G.R. No. L-48273 November 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN PAMINTUAN, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 197

  • G.R. Nos. L-62617-18 November 28, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO A. COLANA

    211 Phil. 216

  • G.R. No. L-63564 November 28, 1983 - JOB QUIAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 220

  • G.R. No. L-64013 November 28, 1983 - UNION GLASS & CONTAINER CORP., ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 222

  • A.M. No. 1812-CTJ November 29, 1983 - STEPHEN L. MONSANTO v. POMPEYO L. PALARCA

    211 Phil. 237

  • B.M. No. 44 November 29, 1983 - EUFROSINA YAP TAN v. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL

    211 Phil. 251

  • G.R. No. L-27873 November 29, 1983 - HEIRS OF JOSE AMUNATEGUI v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY

  • G.R. No. L-30965 November 29, 1983 - G.A MACHINERIES, INC. v. HORACIO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 267

  • G.R. No. L-33243 November 29, 1983 - ISIDRO C. NERY, ET AL. v. BERNARDO TEVES, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 278

  • G.R. No. L-34036 November 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO ESTRADA, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 282

  • G.R. No. L-35250 November 29, 1983 - MINERVA C. GUERRERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 295

  • G.R. No. L-41971 November 29, 1983 - ZONIA ANA T. SOLANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 307

  • G.R. No. L-44063 November 29, 1983 - VICTORIANO F. CORALES v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 321

  • G.R. No. L-45461 November 29, 1983 - PONCIANO L. ALMEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 342

  • G.R. No. L-50259 November 29, 1983 - FLORENTINO SALINAS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL R. NAVARRO, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 351

  • G.R. No. L-51533 November 29, 1983 - PAZ L. MAKABALI v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 357

  • G.R. Nos. L-51813-14 November 29, 1983 - ROMULO CANTIMBUHAN, ET AL. v. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

    211 Phil. 373

  • G.R. No. L-55160 November 29, 1983 - INOCENTES L. FERNANDEZ v. MANUEL S. ALBA

    211 Phil. 380

  • G.R. No. L-57131 November 29, 1983 - ESTELITA GRAVADOR v. JESUS M. ELBINIAS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 386

  • G.R. No. L-57314 November 29, 1983 - TEODORO SANCHEZ v. CARLOS R. BUENVIAJE, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 389

  • G.R. No. L-62023 November 29, 1983 - G & S CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 392

  • G.R. No. L-63277 November 29, 1983 - PETRA VDA. DE BORROMEO v. JULIAN B. POGOY, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 396

  • G.R. No. L-64809 November 29, 1983 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    211 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-65004 November 29, 1983 - PERFECTO DEL ROSARIO, JR. v. ALFREDO A. ROSERO

    211 Phil. 406