GR L 12485; (July, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12485; July 31, 1959
Republic of the Philippines (represented by the Director of Lands), petitioner-appellant, vs. Heirs of Ciriaco Carle, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Ciriaco Carle filed a homestead application over a parcel of land in Pola, Oriental Mindoro, which was approved on August 30, 1930. After Carle’s death in 1942, Homestead Patent No. 71852 was issued to his heirs on April 26, 1944. This patent was duly transmitted to and recorded by the Register of Deeds pursuant to Section 122 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act). Consequently, Original Certificate of Title (O.C.T.) No. 4648 was issued in favor of the heirs on May 11, 1946. Seven years later, on August 31, 1953, the Director of Lands, acting on an opposition from Meynardo Ilagan, declared the homestead patent inoperative insofar as it covered a specific portion (area A-2) and adjudged that portion in favor of the oppositor, finding its inclusion in the patent to be erroneous. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources affirmed this order on appeal. Subsequently, on December 2, 1955, the Director of Lands filed a petition (later amended) with the Court of First Instance of Mindoro, seeking to declare Homestead Patent No. 71852 null and void and to order the heirs to surrender the patent and certificate of title for cancellation. The respondents moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the action was barred by prescription as more than one year had elapsed from the issuance of the certificate of title. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the petition on March 2, 1957, holding that the action was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. The Director of Lands appealed.
ISSUE
Whether an action by the Director of Lands to annul a homestead patent and the corresponding certificate of title, filed more than one year after the issuance and registration of the certificate of title, is barred by prescription.
RULING
Yes, the action is barred by prescription. The order of dismissal is affirmed.
The Supreme Court held that once a homestead patent is registered in accordance with Section 122 of Act No. 496 and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property. It automatically comes under the operation of the Land Registration Act, including the safeguard provided in Section 38, which establishes a one-year prescriptive period from the date of issuance of the certificate of title within which to assail its validity or correctness. The Court reiterated established doctrine that a homestead patent, once registered, becomes a veritable Torrens title and enjoys the same indefeasible and incontrovertible character as a title issued in ordinary registration proceedings upon the expiration of one year. The Director of Lands’ authority under Section 91 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (the Public Land Act) to review a patent exists only as long as the land remains part of the public domain and under his executive control. After registration and issuance of the certificate of title, he loses such control and jurisdiction. The proper remedy for a party aggrieved by a fraudulent or erroneous registration is an action for reconveyance, not a direct annulment by the Director of Lands after the one-year period has lapsed.