G.R. No. L-6614 November 29, 1954
BENITO AYSON, recurrente-apelante, vs. REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS, recurrida-apelada.

FACTS

The case involves Lot No. 4025 in Labuan, Zamboanga City. Lorenzo Ayzon acquired parcels of land from Subanos years before 1924, which were later surveyed and consolidated into Lot No. 4025. Lorenzo applied for a homestead (Application No. 31690) over this lot, which he had already been occupying and planting with coconut trees. In August 1927, Lorenzo transferred his rights to the lot and its improvements to his son, defendant Benito Ayzon, who continued possession, paid real estate taxes, and also filed his own homestead application, which was not acted upon. Benito leased a portion of the lot to Pura Enriquez. On March 15, 1937, the Director of Lands issued an ex-parte order cancelling Lorenzo Ayzon’s homestead application upon a finding that Lorenzo was not directly interested in the land and that it was actually occupied by a Chinese citizen, Lee Sah, who was benefiting from the improvements with Lorenzo’s consent. This cancellation order was formalized on January 22, 1938. The Director of Lands, through a complaint, sought to recover possession of the lot. Benito Ayzon appealed, contending the cancellation was invalid.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Director of Lands abused his discretion in cancelling the homestead application without notifying the interested party.
2. Whether Lot No. 4025 is public land under the administration and control of the Director of Lands.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant. The cancellation of Lorenzo Ayzon’s homestead application was null and void. Section 16 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 requires that before cancellation, the homestead applicant must be notified. The ex-parte investigation conducted by the land inspector without notifying Lorenzo Ayzon or his heirs violated this express legal provision and the fundamental principle of due process. The irregular investigation misled the Director of Lands. The Court cited analogous cases where actions by the Bureau of Lands were questioned due to the improper conduct of land inspectors. The nullity of the cancellation order is not cured by the failure to appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Consequently, Homestead Application No. 31690 must continue its ordinary course, and any further action by the Bureau of Lands must be taken with prior notice to Lorenzo Ayzon’s heirs. The complaint for recovery of possession was dismissed.