G.R. No. L-5452; April 30, 1953
FLORENTINO KIAMKO, JULIAN ESTELLES and GUILINGAN (ATA), petitioners, vs. CIRILO C. MACEREN, as judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, and ARCOY (MORO), respondents.

FACTS

Marisa (Ata) filed a homestead application for a parcel of public land in 1932. She died in 1946 before receiving a patent. Petitioners Guilingan and Abas, claiming to be her brothers and that she died without issue, entered the homestead, adjudicated it to themselves under summary settlement procedures, and sold portions to petitioners Florentino Kiamko and Julian Estelles. Respondents Arcoy and his siblings, claiming to be Marisa’s grandchildren and legal heirs, filed an action (Civil Case No. 504) in the Court of First Instance of Davao to recover possession of the homestead. Respondent Judge Maceren, after hearing, found that respondents were indeed Marisa’s grandchildren and legal heirs, and rendered judgment in their favor, ordering petitioners to vacate and deliver possession. Petitioners did not appeal, and the judge ordered execution of the judgment. Meanwhile, Kiamko’s homestead application for his portion was initially approved by the Bureau of Lands, but upon protest by respondents invoking the court’s decision, the Bureau ordered an investigation, recognizing the judicial declaration of heirship. Petitioners filed this prohibition case to restrain the judge from executing his judgment, arguing that the land being public land under a homestead application, jurisdiction over its possession lies exclusively with the Director of Lands.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to hear and decide Civil Case No. 504, which involved determining the legal heirs of a deceased homestead applicant and their right to possession of the homestead, or whether such matter falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Director of Lands.

RULING

The Court of First Instance had jurisdiction. While the Director of Lands has executive control over the concession and disposition of public lands under the Public Land Act, the transmission by operation of law of rights acquired over a homestead upon the death of the applicant is governed by Section 105 of the same Act. This section provides that the deceased applicant shall be succeeded by “his heirs in law.” The determination of who these “heirs in law” are is a question governed by the civil law and is peculiarly for judicial determination by the courts. The Director of Lands himself, in acting on the protest, recognized the propriety of the judicial determination of Marisa’s heirs. Therefore, respondent judge had jurisdiction to determine the legal heirs of Marisa and who had a better right to the homestead. The petition for prohibition was denied and the preliminary injunction dissolved.