G.R. No. L-19122 October 19, 1966
PEDRO DE LA CONCHA, MARIO DE LA CONCHA, JOSE C. LOPEZ, J. LEON GONZALES, CONSUELO S. GONZALEZ-PRECILLA, JUANA F. GONZALES-DE LEON, MARIA C. GONZALES-HILARIO, FRANCISCO F. GONZALES and CONCEPCION A. GONZALEZ-VIRATA, plaintiffs and appellees, vs. IRINEO MAGTIRA, defendant and appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiffs are the heirs of Francisco de la Concha and Francisco J. Gonzalez. The property in litigation is Lot No. 2716 of the San Miguel (Bulacan) cadastre, covered by Free Patent No. V-2309 and Original Certificate of Title No. P-89 issued to defendant Irineo Magtira on October 20, 1952. The plaintiffs filed an action to declare the free patent and certificate of title null and void, for cancellation, reconveyance, damages, and attorney’s fees. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts. It was agreed that the land was declared by the court as the private property of plaintiffs’ predecessors in a 1929 decision in “El Director de Terrenos vs. Francisco de la Concha,” which had become final. Defendant’s title was issued by virtue of his free patent application. The land was also the subject of an administrative investigation in the Bureau of Lands, decided in favor of plaintiffs in 1959, with defendant’s appeal pending. Plaintiffs paid real estate taxes until 1950, and defendant paid from 1952 onward. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the land as their private property, ordering the nullification of the patent and title, awarding damages, and requiring defendant to pay attorney’s fees. Defendant appealed, arguing the judgment violated the doctrine of indefeasibility of title.

ISSUE

Whether the certificate of title issued pursuant to a free patent is indefeasible and thus not subject to nullification, given that the land was previously declared private property in a 1929 final judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The doctrine of indefeasibility of a Torrens title issued pursuant to a homestead or free patent applies only to lands that are part of the public domain (“disposable” lands). The Director of Lands has no authority to grant a free patent for land that has already become private property. Since the 1929 decision had already declared the land as the private property of the plaintiffs’ predecessors, the land was no longer public domain when the patent was issued to the defendant in 1952. Consequently, the free patent and the certificate of title derived from it are null and void. The plaintiffs were not guilty of laches, as they were in possession and paying taxes until dispossessed, promptly filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands upon discovery, and initiated the court action while the administrative appeal was pending.