G.R. No. L-28400 September 30, 1970
SAMUEL BONIEL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MANASES G. REYES, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO, and the DIRECTOR OF LANDS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Samuel Boniel, along with six others, filed a “petition for review and annulment of original certificate of title No. P-18131” in the Court of First Instance of Davao (Miscellaneous Case No. 2813). They claimed to be bona fide occupants and cultivators of a 46.2877-hectare public agricultural land (Lot No. SI-17618-D). They alleged that the late husband of one co-petitioner had filed a free patent application for the land on October 12, 1965. However, they asserted that on September 11, 1964, one Rafael S. Yap clandestinely filed a sales application for the same land, which was fraudulently approved due to collusion with Bureau of Lands personnel, resulting in Yap being issued a sales patent in December 1965 and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. P-18131 on February 11, 1966. Petitioners prayed for the annulment of Yap’s title and the award of the land to them. No summons were issued as petitioners claimed no adverse parties. The Director of Lands, upon learning of the petition, filed a motion to dismiss on grounds including lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and his person, non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, petitioners’ lack of legal capacity, and lack of cause of action. The respondent court dismissed the petition, ruling that the land was public land and the petition improper. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and their attempt to appeal was disallowed as untimely. Hence, this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review and annulment of title.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The respondent court correctly dismissed the petition as petitioner violated elementary procedural rules by seeking, through a unilateral miscellaneous petition, to annul a certificate of title issued to a third party (Rafael S. Yap) without impleading Yap and the Director of Lands as indispensable parties in an ordinary action. Controversial issues seeking to divest a registered owner of title cannot be raised in summary proceedings. Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, invoked by petitioner, was inapplicable as it applies only when a person claims deprivation of land or interest therein by a court decree in a registration proceeding, and the land here was admittedly public land awarded via sales patent, not private property. Petitioners, having no approved patent in their favor, had no valid cause of action for annulment of Yap’s patent and title. Their claim of fraud should be addressed in proper administrative proceedings before the Director of Lands, who may initiate reversion of the land to the public domain if justified. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the secondary issue regarding the propriety of disallowing the appeal.