Cabuay vs. Malvar

Disposition of disposable public land is vested exclusively in the Director of Lands, now the Lands Management Bureau, subject to the control of the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, and factual findings made in the exercise of that power are conclusive upon the courts. Applied to conflicting final rulings over the same tract, the Bureau's award to the actual occupants, affirmed in G.R. No. 110900, prevailed over the earlier inter partes judicial declaration of ownership in G.R. No. 90380.

Colonel Pedro R. Cabuay, Jr., Group Commander of the Intelligence and Security Group of the Philippine Army, occupied a portion of a 19.4888-hectare tract in Barrio dela Paz, Antipolo, Rizal and erected military communications structures thereon by right derived from the Heirs of Elino Adia. Respondents Marcelino Lopez for the Heirs of Hermogenes Lopez, Primex Corporation, and Dr. Potenciano Malvar claimed the same tract through Hermogenes Lopez's Homestead Application No. 138612 and certificates of title derived therefrom. Commonwealth Act No. 141, the Public Land Act, governed the initial determination of who had the better right to acquire the land while it was still disposable public land.

On April 15, 1981, the Regional Trial Court in Pasig, Rizal, Branch 161 decided Civil Case No. 24873, Ambrosio Aguilar vs. Heirs of Fernando Gorospe, et al., in favor of Aguilar, declaring him true owner, voiding Original Certificate of Title No. 637 and derivatives, and awarding damages and fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed in full on August 1, 1989 in CA-G.R. CV No. 07475, and after denial of reconsideration on October 5, 1989, Eduardo V. Santos elevated the case in G.R. No. 90380. On September 13, 1990, the Supreme Court affirmed, ruling the land was never brought under the Torrens system, that Fernando Gorospe filed no application and showed no compliance with homestead requirements, that Hermogenes Lopez's successor Aguilar presented extensive Bureau of Lands documents and testimony proving a homestead patent in Lopez's favor, and that two OCTs No. 537 existed for different lots, persons, and municipalities, with Gorospe's free-patent-based title spurious. The judgment became final on November 29, 1990.

During pendency of that litigation, on September 10, 1985, the Heirs of Elino Adia protested Plan H-138612 of Hermogenes Lopez before the Lands Management Bureau over the same land, equivalent to Lot 7546, Cad. 29 Extension, Antipolo Cadastre. According to the Adias, Elino Adia occupied and cultivated the land continuously, adversely, publicly, and peacefully from 1929 to July 1943, introduced improvements, declared it for taxation and paid taxes, and after his death Emiliano and Juliana Adia continued possession. The Heirs of Hermogenes Lopez countered that ownership had been exhaustively settled judicially in their favor, that the protest lacked legal and factual basis, and that Francisco R. Cruz's May 18, 1981 quitclaim from Hermogenes Lopez was simulated because Lopez had conveyed to Aguilar in 1959. Intervenor Cruz claimed as Lopez's successor-in-interest, while the Overlooking Storeowners and Planters Association, Inc. intervened on July 7, 1989 to allege non-residence and non-occupation by Lopez or heirs. After hearings and memoranda, the Bureau on December 10, 1990 corrected Plan H-138612 to the name of Elino Adia, now his heirs, dismissed all rival claims, ordered reconstitution or new homestead applications for the Adias, and expressly found the land definitely public land under Department of Environment and Natural Resources administration.

The Lopezes' reconsideration was denied January 29, 1992, their certiorari petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 27602 was dismissed February 26, 1993 on findings that only the Adias submitted substantial testimonial and documentary evidence, including a certified tracing cloth of Plan H-138612 surveyed for Elino Adia approved February 7, 1939, boundary plans showing Elino Adia as eastern owner, and testimony of former Director of Lands Nicanor Jorge that the plan was not originally surveyed for Hermogenes Lopez. Their petition for review in G.R. No. 110900 was denied August 11, 1993 with a statement that no reversible error was committed, reconsideration denied November 3, 1993, final December 6, 1993. Pursuant thereto, on November 25, 1994 the Adia heirs filed eight new applications over the 19.4888 hectares, eight land patents were issued December 14, 1994, and Original Certificates of Title Nos. P-819 to P-826 were issued January 26, 1995 in the name of the Heirs of Elino Adia represented by Juliana Adia.

Meanwhile, while Civil Case No. 24873 was on appeal, the Lopezes sued to cancel Hermogenes Lopez's July 31, 1959 deed of absolute sale to Aguilar in Civil Case No. 463-A before RTC Antipolo, Branch 71, which on February 5, 1985 voided the deed, ordered Aguilar to vacate, declared the Lopez plaintiffs true and absolute owners, and awarded fees, affirmed by the Court of Appeals August 18, 1987 in CA-G.R. CV No. 06242. On motion, that court ordered cancellation of TCT No. 72439 in Santos's name and issuance of TCT No. N-104422 to the Lopezes on April 19, 1985, but on Santos's petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 06096 the Court of Appeals on December 23, 1985 voided the ownership declaration and April 19, 1985 order and restored TCT No. 72439. The Lopezes again obtained cancellation of TCT No. 72439 on January 28, 1991, with TCT No. 196256 issued February 8, 1991, then secured orders on June 24, 1991 and October 8, 1992 directing cancellation of OCT No. 537, conversion of TCT No. 196256 into an original certificate, and transcription of Homestead Patent No. 54072, resulting in thirteen transfer certificates TCT Nos. 207990-208000, 208002 and 208358 in Lopez names, with a portion later sold to Primex Corporation and on April 20, 1995 by Marcelino Lopez to Dr. Potenciano Malvar. Their January 4, 1994 appeal to the Environment Secretary was dismissed January 5, 1995, reconsideration denied December 4, 1995 with advice to pursue claims in court. On February 21, 1995 Branch 71 issued a writ of execution against ISG structures standing on about 1,650 square meters purchased from the Adia heirs, followed by an alias writ December 11, 1995 despite the commander's invocation of G.R. No. 110900, prompting the present petition. The trial courts factually found Adia occupation from 1929 to 1943 with continuation by heirs, and the Bureau and DENR found the tract public land subject to their disposition.

• Conflicting Final Decisions: Petitioner maintained that two final and executory but conflicting Supreme Court decisions existed in G.R. No. 90380 and G.R. No. 110900, creating injustice through impending execution against ISG buildings and structures.
• Superior Adia Right: Petitioner and intervenors argued that the ISG's right to occupy part of the land and erect military structures derived from the Heirs of Elino Adia, whose right was recognized in CA-G.R. SP No. 27602 and the Resolution in G.R. No. 110900.

• Validity of Lopez Title: Respondents insisted on the validity of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 196256 registered in the names of respondents' predecessors-in-interest, relying on pronouncements in G.R. No. 90380.
• Judicial Settlement of Ownership: Respondents, as applicants-respondents before the Bureau, averred that ownership had been exhaustively settled judicially in favor of deceased Hermogenes Lopez, that protestants' claim had no legal and factual basis as finally settled, and that the assignment to Francisco Cruz was simulated because Lopez had previously conveyed to Aguilar in 1959.

• Jurisdiction Over Public Land: Whether administration and disposition of the disputed disposable public land belonged exclusively to the Lands Management Bureau subject to DENR control, making its award conclusive on courts.
• Prevalence of Conflicting Decisions: Whether the ruling in G.R. No. 110900 prevailed over the disposition in G.R. No. 90380.
• Law of the Case: Whether G.R. No. 90380, decided ahead, barred G.R. No. 110900 under the doctrine of law of the case.
• Validity of Lopez Titles and RTC Orders: Whether certificates of title issued to the Heirs of Hermogenes Lopez and successors, and the RTC Antipolo Orders of June 24, 1991 and October 8, 1992, were void.
• Writ of Demolition: Whether the writ of demolition issued by Branch 71 in Civil Case No. 463-A against ISG structures should be set aside.

• Jurisdiction Over Public Land: Yes. Disposition of public land fell under exclusive Bureau of Lands, now LMB, supervision and control, with factual findings conclusive when approved by the Secretary absent fraud or mistake.
• Prevalence of Conflicting Decisions: The ruling in G.R. No. 110900 prevailed over G.R. No. 90380, the land being disposable public land under Bureau administration.
• Law of the Case: No. The doctrine did not bar the later case for lack of identity of parties and causes of action, the Adias and LMB not being parties to G.R. No. 90380.
• Validity of Lopez Titles and RTC Orders: All Lopez and successor titles were null and void, and the June 24, 1991 and October 8, 1992 RTC Orders were void for lack of legal basis.
• Writ of Demolition: Yes. The writ of demolition in Civil Case No. 463-A was set aside, with possession ordered surrendered to the Heirs of Elino Adia.

• Jurisdiction Over Public Land: Under Commonwealth Act No. 141 the Director of Lands, subject to the Secretary, had direct executive control over survey, classification, lease, sale, concession, disposition, and management of public domain, with decisions on fact conclusive when approved. Courts were not to interfere with that administration, as reiterated in De Buyser vs. Director of Lands and Francisco vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Bureau expressly found the tract definitely public land, and DENR found actual Adia occupation from 1929 to 1943 continued by heirs, findings conclusive absent taint.
• Prevalence of Conflicting Decisions: The Court of Appeals and the Court in G.R. No. 110900 passed upon the land's nature and upheld the Bureau disposition to the Adias, noting the presumption that lands form part of public domain and absence of positive private ownership evidence except heirship to Hermogenes Lopez. Judicial determinations between private claimants in cases culminating in G.R. No. 90380 did not bind the government because the Bureau was neither impleaded nor party and those cases were in personam between conflicting private claimants. Depriving the Bureau of direct executive control or divesting State title by judicial declaration was improper.
• Law of the Case: The doctrine means what is once irrevocably established as controlling rule between same parties in same case continues while predicate facts continue, applying only when a case returns a second time after appellate ruling. Here subject matter was the same but parties and causes differed: G.R. No. 90380 involved only possession anchored on alleged homestead application between Santos and Aguilar, while the Bureau case in G.R. No. 110900 squarely put in issue validity of the Lopez homestead patent as tainted with fraud. Hence the earlier ruling could not control the later.
• Validity of Lopez Titles and RTC Orders: Because the Bureau award and DENR approval, culminating in OCT Nos. P-819 to P-826, were upheld, all certificates issued to Lopez heirs and successors and derivatives, including TCT Nos. 207990, 207991, 207992, 207993, 207994, 207995, 207996, 207997, 207998, 207999, 208000, 208001, 208002, 208358 and TCT No. 216876 to Primex, were declared void. The RTC orders converting TCT No. 196256 and transcribing a homestead patent lacked legal basis where disposition belonged to the executive.
• Writ of Demolition: Since title and preferential right to apply resided in the Adia heirs and ISG derived occupancy from them, enforcement of Civil Case No. 463-A against ISG improvements could not stand. Lopez heirs, Primex, Dr. Malvar, Overlooking members, assignees and successors were ordered to remove improvements on areas covered by OCT Nos. P-819 to P-826 and surrender possession to the Adia heirs.

• Exclusive executive jurisdiction over public lands — Administration, survey, classification, lease, sale, concession, disposition, and management of lands of the public domain are entrusted not to courts but to the Director of Lands, now the Lands Management Bureau, subject to control of the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources. Applied here to sustain the Bureau award to the Adias over contrary judicial declarations between private parties in Group Commander, Intelligence and Security Group, Philippine Army vs. Malvar.
• Conclusiveness of Lands Bureau findings of fact — Decisions and findings of fact by the Director of Lands as approved by the Secretary are conclusive and not subject to judicial review absent showing of fraud or mistake. Applied to treat as conclusive the findings that the tract was public land and that the Adias actually occupied it from 1929 to 1943 with continuation by heirs.
• Law of the case — Whatever is once irrevocably established as controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues as law of the case while predicate facts continue, applying only when a case is before a court a second time after appellate ruling. Held inapplicable between G.R. No. 90380 and G.R. No. 110900 for lack of identity of parties and causes of action.
• Torrens title no bar to inquiry into fraud in public-land patent — Even a Torrens title does not bar the Director of Lands from investigating fraud leading to issuance of a free patent, the State retaining ever-existing authority to inquire into circumstances of issuance in the public interest. Cited to support executive power despite outstanding certificates derived from the assailed patent.

• "Since the land is admittedly property of public dominions, its disposition falls under the exclusive supervision and control of the Bureau of Lands." — States the jurisdictional premise for preferring the Bureau disposition over judicial declarations between private claimants.
• "The function of administering and disposing of lands of the public domain in the manner authorized by law, is not entrusted to the courts but to executive officials." — Defines the separation between judicial power and executive administration of public lands, quoting Cerdon vs. Court of Appeals.
• "The doctrine of "law of the case" means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the Court [Mangoma vs. CA, 241 SCRA 21]." — Provides the canonical formulation used to reject application of the doctrine between the two conflicting decisions.

• De Buyser vs. Director of Lands, 121 SCRA 13 (1983) — Followed as controlling that disposition of admitted public-domain land falls under exclusive Bureau of Lands supervision and control.
• Francisco vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 121 SCRA 380 — Reiterated that administration and disposition are vested primarily in the Director of Lands and ultimately the Secretary, with factual findings conclusive absent fraud or mistake.
• Cerdon vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 198, 200 — Quoted for the rule that administering and disposing of public domain is entrusted to executive officials, not courts, under Section 4 of the Public Land Act.
• Pindangan Agricultural Co., Inc. vs. Dans, 4 SCRA 1035 (1962) — Followed that courts have no power to review, reverse, or modify the Director's decisions as approved by the Secretary.
• Vda. De Calibo vs. Ballesteros, 15 SCRA 37 — Followed on the Director's control over survey, classification, lease, sale, concession, disposition, and management, with conclusive factual findings.
• Benguet Exploration, Inc. vs. DAT, G.R. No. L-29534, February 28, 1977; Pinero vs. Director of Lands, 57 SCRA 386 — Cited that even a Torrens title does not bar inquiry into fraud in issuance of a free patent.
• Mangoma vs. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 21; Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540 — Cited to define law of the case and limit it to a case before a court a second time after appellate ruling.
• Director of Lands vs. Basilio Abache, et al.; Baranda vs. Baranda; Albienda vs. Court of Appeals; De los Santos vs. Rodriguez, 22 SCRA 451; Espinosa vs. Makalintal, 79 Phil. 134 — Referenced in the G.R. No. 90380 discussion and on conclusiveness and non-divestiture of State title.

• Section 4, Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act) — Vests direct executive control over survey, classification, lease, sale, concession, disposition, and management of public domain in the Director of Lands subject to Secretarial control, with factual decisions conclusive when approved; applied to uphold LMB/DENR award to the Adias.
• Section 38, Land Registration Act — Held inapplicable in G.R. No. 90380 because OCT No. 537 was void ab initio and the land was never brought under Torrens operation.
• Section 108, Presidential Decree No. 1529 — Invoked by Lopezes in the June 18, 1991 petition seeking cancellation of OCT No. 537 and conversion of TCT No. 196256; resulting RTC Orders were declared void.

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.