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.

FACTS

On September 29, 1969, a homestead patent was issued to the heirs of Mauricio Merlas, the private respondents. The patent was registered on September 15, 1970, and Original Certificate of Title No. P-4579 was issued. Subsequently, on May 11, 1970, a verified protest was filed by Francisco Torres with the District Land Officer (DLO) of Bukidnon, alleging the patent was obtained through deceit and misrepresentation. Pursuant to Section 91 of the Public Land Act, Regional Land Director Isidro Nery directed DLO Macario Ycaro to investigate the protest.
The Merlas heirs objected to the investigation, arguing that the DLO had no jurisdiction because the land was already registered under the Torrens system. The DLO overruled the objection and set the case for hearing. The heirs then filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of First Instance, which ruled in their favor. The trial court permanently enjoined the land officials from proceeding with the investigation, relying on the doctrine that once a patent is granted and a certificate of title issued, the land becomes private property and the Director of Lands loses control and jurisdiction.

ISSUE

After the issuance of a homestead patent and the corresponding original certificate of title, may the Director of Lands conduct an administrative investigation to determine if the patent was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, as a basis for filing a court action for reversion?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the trial court’s decision. The Court clarified that the power of the Director of Lands to investigate under Section 91 of the Public Land Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 141 ) is distinct from the power to cancel a title. Section 91 explicitly authorizes the Director to conduct investigations to ascertain the truth of material facts in an application, even after a concession or title is granted, and presumes bad faith upon the grantee’s refusal to comply with the investigative process.
The Court distinguished the cited case of Sumail v. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato. Sumail correctly states that the Director of Lands cannot himself revoke or cancel a patent and title once issued, as the land ceases to be public domain. However, it does not preclude the Director from conducting a prior administrative investigation to gather facts. Such an investigation is a necessary precursor to filing the appropriate court action for reversion of the land to the state if fraud is found. The Court cited precedents like Cebedo v. Director of Lands and Gamao v. Calamba, which affirm that it is not only a right but a duty of the Director to investigate and, if warranted, institute a court action for cancellation. The trial court’s ruling was based on a misconception that the loss of administrative jurisdiction over the land equated to a loss of investigative power for purposes of judicial reversion, which is incorrect.