G.R. No. L-14722; May 25, 1960
IGNACIO MESINA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. EULALIA PINEDA VDA. DE SONZA, ET AL., defendants. EULALIA PINEDA VDA. DE SONZA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff Ignacio Mesina filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija seeking the cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. P-1137 issued in the defendants’ names. He alleged ownership in fee simple of Lot No. 3259, claiming actual, public, open, peaceful, and exclusive possession since 1914. The lot was also the subject of pending registration proceedings (Registration Case No. N-372). Mesina contended that the Director of Lands, without due care and despite knowledge that defendants had not complied with Commonwealth Act No. 141, issued a homestead patent in their favor on or about September 12, 1953, leading to the issuance of a certificate of title on September 16, 1953. He asserted this was procured through fraud, deception, and misrepresentation, as the defendants knew the lot belonged to him, and that the Director of Lands had no jurisdiction to issue the patent since the land was already his private property. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, having been filed on March 25, 1958, more than four years after the decree and title were issued, rendering the title indefeasible. The trial court sustained the motion and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription (statute of limitations) without allowing the plaintiff to prove his claim that the land was already private property and thus the homestead patent and title issued were null and void.

RULING

Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court set aside the appealed order and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court held that the trial court’s dismissal, predicated on the theory that a decree of registration can no longer be impugned on the ground of fraud after one year, was improper under the circumstances alleged. Citing the doctrine in Susi vs. Razon, the Court ruled that if a person has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of agricultural land of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least thirty years, he is deemed by operation of law to have acquired not only a right to a grant but a grant from the Government, and the land ceases to be public domain and becomes private property. Plaintiff Mesina’s allegations—that he had been in such possession since 1914 and that the land was subject to pending registration proceedings—if proven, would mean the land was already private property when the homestead patent was issued. Consequently, the Director of Lands would have had no control over it, and any patent and title issued would be null and void. Therefore, the action for cancellation would not be barred by the ordinary one-year period for reviewing decrees of registration, as the title was allegedly void ab initio. The trial court should have denied the motion to dismiss, as its grounds were not indubitable, and allowed the plaintiff to present evidence.