Piñero, Jr. vs. Director of Lands

The Director of Lands has not only the right but the duty to investigate alleged fraud in securing a free patent and corresponding Torrens title, and prohibition cannot issue to enjoin such investigation despite the existence of a Torrens title, because the indefeasibility of a title over previously public land is not a bar to an investigation for purposes of a reversion action.

Antonio Piñero, Jr., Emma Bernad, and Fortunato Piñero were claimants of lots in Napuyan, Dapitan, Zamboanga del Norte under the public land system, with Antonio and Emma having been issued free patents and original certificates of title and Fortunato having a homestead application. The Director of Lands and provincial land officials were charged with administering public lands under the Public Land Act, while Nicanor Alasaas, Eusebio Camansi, and Tomas Sumalpong were protestants claiming interests adverse to the Piñeros. The dispute implicated the State’s Regalian rights over the public domain and the statutory conditions attached to free patents and homestead applications.

Antonio Piñero, Jr. and Emma Piñero Bernad were residents of Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte, while Fortunato Piñero was then a resident of Negros Oriental. The case concerned Lots Nos. 5790, 5792, and 2532 of Pls-100, situated at Napuyan, Dapitan, Zamboanga del Norte. Lot No. 5790 was covered by Free Patent No. V-63411 issued on January 30, 1957 in favor of Antonio Piñero, Jr., and Lot No. 5792 was covered by Free Patent No. V-63420 issued on January 30, 1957 in favor of Emma Piñero Bernad. Lot No. 2532 was applied for by Fortunato Piñero under Homestead Application No. V-66441, approved as of January 2, 1953, but no patent had yet been issued. Lot No. 2532 was formerly part of PSU-111118, a private survey executed by Surveyor Calixto Sudiacal in 1939 for Fortunato Piñero; by a subsequent survey executed by the ECA, PSU-111118 was subdivided into smaller lots, one of which became Lot No. 2532. Pursuant to Free Patent No. V-63411, Original Certificate of Title No. D-5349 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga del Norte in favor of Antonio Piñero, Jr. on October 17, 1957, and pursuant to Free Patent No. V-63420, Original Certificate of Title No. P-5312 was issued in favor of Emma Piñero on October 17, 1957.

On August 8, 1958, the Director of Lands issued an order directing the investigation of the protest of Eusebio Camansi against the patented application of Antonio Piñero, Jr., and on March 24, 1959, the Director of Lands through the Chief Legal Division directed the Provincial Land Officer at Dipolog to investigate the protest of Nicanor Alasaas against the patented application of Emma Piñero Bernad. As regards Lot No. 5790, the protest of Eusebio Camansi was given due course against the claim of Antonio Piñero, Jr.; that protest was investigated and terminated, with Antonio Piñero, Jr. represented by his counsel, Atty. Jesus Sarmiento. Nicanor Alasaas filed a protest dated February 27, 1958 and subscribed on March 11, 1958 before Notary Public G.R. Dalmacio, Jr., and that protest was investigated by Atty. Mariano D. Palermo, investigator of the Bureau of Lands, Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte, on August 30, 1959. With respect to Lot No. 5792, the matter had already been investigated, and regarding Lot No. 5790, the investigation had been terminated but no decision had yet been issued.

As to the claim of Tomas Sumalpong against the application of Fortunato Piñero, an investigation was conducted on August 21, 1959, but neither Fortunato Piñero nor his counsel appeared. The case was rescheduled for October 30, 1959, and Atty. Jaime T. Hamoy, counsel for Fortunato Piñero, filed a motion for postponement on the ground that he had a criminal case to attend to in the Justice of the Peace Court of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte; the hearing was then rescheduled for December 28, 1959. At that hearing, counsel for Fortunato Piñero for the first time attacked the authority of the investigation on the alleged ground that under the Revised Administrative Code only the Director of Lands and the Chief of Section of said Office could order investigation of land conflicts. No resolution of that issue had yet been made, and no written motion bearing on the same ground interposed before the investigator had ever been raised before the Director of Lands. Pursuant to a letter of Atty. Candido Pa. Sumalpong, counsel for Tomas Sumalpong, dated July 28, 1959, protesting against the homestead application of Fortunato Piñero and addressed to the Director of Lands through the Provincial Land Officer at Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte, the Provincial Land Officer in a first indorsement dated July 22, 1959 addressed to Deputy Public Lands Inspector Mariano D. Palermo directed the investigation of the case until terminated for disposition under Land Administrative Order No. 13-3. That first indorsement was the sole authority for the investigation of the claim of Tomas Sumalpong against the homestead application of Fortunato Piñero, and the investigation was not terminated because counsel for Fortunato Piñero attacked the authority for the investigation.

In connection with the separate petition of the respondents Nicanor Alasaas, Eusebio Camansi, and Tomas Sumalpong against the application of the petitioners, those respondents were required by the Chief of the Legal Division of the Bureau of Lands in a letter dated September 4, 1959 to file a sworn protest and pay the protest fee within thirty days from receipt of the letter, otherwise their claims would be dismissed and disregarded without further notice. There was no showing that the respondents complied with the letter, nor was there any showing that their claims had already been dismissed as of that date. On December 18, 1959, the petitioners, through counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the alleged protest, but no resolution had yet been made. The letter of September 4, 1959 was addressed to Antonio Mabulay, and the respondents Tomas Sumalpong, Nicanor Alasaas, and Eusebio Camansi were not given a copy of it; the motion of counsel for the petitioners to dismiss the protest did not show that those respondents were ever furnished a copy of the motion.

The Director of Lands was served with summons on January 20, 1960, as shown by the return of the City Sheriff of Manila. The parties submitted the case on the foregoing stipulation of facts and agreed to ask for a date for the reception of evidence on matters not covered by the stipulation.

• Authority of the Investigator: Counsel for Fortunato Piñero attacked the authority of the investigation on the ground that under the Revised Administrative Code only the Director of Lands and the Chief of Section of said Office could order investigation of land conflicts. The decision notes this was raised at the December 28, 1959 hearing, that no resolution had been made, and that no written motion on that ground was ever raised before the Director of Lands.

• Director’s Power and Duty to Investigate: Whether the Director of Lands has the right and duty to investigate alleged fraud in securing a free patent and corresponding title and to file an action for reversion if the investigation warrants.
• Prohibition Despite Torrens Title: Whether prohibition may issue to enjoin the Director of Lands from conducting such investigation despite the existence of a Torrens title.
• Indefeasibility of Torrens Title: Whether the indefeasibility of a Torrens title over land previously public bars an investigation by the Director of Lands into the manner of its acquisition for purposes of reversion.

• Director’s Power and Duty to Investigate: Yes. Under Section 91 of the Public Land Act, the Director of Lands has not only the right but the duty to investigate alleged fraud in securing a free patent and corresponding title and to file a reversion action if warranted.
• Prohibition Despite Torrens Title: No. Prohibition cannot issue to enjoin such an investigation despite the existence of a Torrens title.
• Indefeasibility of Torrens Title: No. The indefeasibility of a Torrens title over land previously public is not a bar to an investigation by the Director of Lands into how the title was acquired for purposes of reversion.

• Director’s Power and Duty to Investigate: Section 91 of the Public Land Act provides that statements in an application are essential conditions and parts of any concession, title, or permit issued on the basis of the application; any false statement or omission of facts altering, changing, or modifying the consideration of the facts set forth, and any subsequent modification, alteration, or change of material facts, shall ipso facto produce cancellation of the concession, title, or permit granted. The same section imposes on the Director of Lands the duty, from time to time and whenever he may deem it advisable, to investigate whether the material facts set out in the application are true or continue to exist and are maintained and preserved in good faith, and empowers him to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum. Cebedo vs. Director of Lands was reiterated, holding that the Director has not only the right but the duty to investigate alleged fraud in securing a free patent and corresponding title and to file the corresponding court action for reversion to the State if the facts warrant. The Regalian doctrine under Section 1 of Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution, as explained in Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, underlies this authority because all agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain and other natural resources belong to the State. The right to acquire disposable public lands under the Public Land Act is therefore subject to the reservation in Section 91. A footnote clarified that judicial action is required to set aside the effects of the title; the title is not really cancelled ipso facto, but its cancellation retroacts to the date of issuance, making it void ab initio.
• Prohibition Despite Torrens Title: Because the investigation is not merely permitted but required by Section 91, and because the Director of Lands may file a reversion action if the investigation discloses fraud, prohibition cannot issue to enjoin such investigation despite the existence of a Torrens title. Cebedo vs. Director of Lands is controlling: prohibition cannot be issued to enjoin the investigation. The trial court’s grant of the writ was thus reversed.
• Indefeasibility of Torrens Title: Under Section 122 of the Land Registration Act, a Torrens title issued on the basis of a free patent or a homestead patent is as indefeasible as one judicially secured. Previous decisions have emphasized that indefeasibility, holding that not even the Government can file an action for annulment; however, an action for reversion may be instituted by the Solicitor General in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. It is in the public interest that one who fraudulently acquires title to public land should not benefit from it, and the State must have an ever-existing authority, through its duly authorized officers, to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the issuance of such title so that the Republic, through the Solicitor General or another authorized officer, may file the corresponding reversion action. The indefeasibility of a title over land previously public is not a bar to an investigation by the Director of Lands as to how the title was acquired, if the purpose is to determine whether fraud was committed in order that the appropriate reversion action may be filed. It was clarified that no finding was made that the titles of the appellees had in fact been fraudulently secured; that matter could be resolved only after the Director of Lands finished his investigation.

• Regalian Doctrine — Under Section 1 of Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution, all agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain and other natural resources belong to the State. The doctrine was invoked to explain why the State retains authority over public lands and why the Director of Lands may investigate alleged fraud in the acquisition of titles to such lands.
• Director of Lands’ Right and Duty to Investigate Fraud — Section 91 of the Public Land Act makes the statements in a public land application essential conditions of any title issued on the basis of the application and imposes on the Director of Lands the duty to investigate whether the material facts set out in the application are true or continue to exist. The Director has not only the right but the duty to investigate alleged fraud in securing a free patent and corresponding title and to file a reversion action if the facts warrant. Prohibition cannot issue to enjoin such investigation.
• Indefeasibility of Torrens Title Not a Bar to Investigation for Reversion — A Torrens title issued on the basis of a free patent or homestead patent is as indefeasible as one judicially secured under Section 122 of the Land Registration Act. However, this indefeasibility is not a bar to an investigation by the Director of Lands into how the title was acquired, if the purpose is to determine whether fraud was committed so that the Government may file an action for reversion. The Government cannot file an action for annulment, but the Solicitor General may file a reversion action in the name of the Republic.
• Reversion as the State’s Remedy — Where public land is fraudulently acquired, the State may file an action for reversion of the land to the public domain, subject thereafter to disposal to other qualified persons in accordance with law. The State has an ever-existing authority to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the title to preserve public interest.
• Prohibition Does Not Lie Against Lawful Investigation — Prohibition cannot issue to enjoin the Director of Lands from conducting an investigation that the law requires him to perform, even if a Torrens title has already been issued. The remedy of reversion, not prohibition, is the proper response to the State’s claim.

• "it is not only the right but the duty of the Director of Lands to conduct the investigation of any alleged fraud in securing a free patent and the corresponding title to a public land and to file the corresponding court action for the reversion of the same to the State, if the facts disclosed in the course of such investigation should so warrant. Consequently, prohibition cannot be issued to enjoin such an investigation despite the existence of a Torrens title." — This is the ratio decidendi, reiterating Cebedo vs. Director of Lands and denying the writ of prohibition.
• "the indefeasibility of a title over land previously public is not a bar to an investigation by the Director of Lands as to how such title has been acquired, if the purpose of such investigation is to determine whether or not fraud had been committed in securing such title in order that the appropriate action for reversion may be filed by the Government." — This defines the key doctrine that Torrens indefeasibility does not prevent an investigation for purposes of reversion.
• "It shall be the duty of the Director of Lands, from time to time and whenever he may deem it advisable, to make the necessary investigations for the purpose of ascertaining whether the material facts set out in the application are true, or whether they continue to exist and are maintained and preserved in good faith..." — This states the statutory basis under Section 91 of the Public Land Act for the Director’s investigative authority.
• "Nothing said above, however, should be understood as holding that the Court has found that the titles of appellees have been in fact fraudulently secured. That matter may be resolved only after the Director of Lands shall have finished his investigation." — This clarifies that the decision did not make a finding of actual fraud and left that issue to the administrative investigation.

• Cebedo vs. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-12777, May 22, 1961, 2 SCRA 25 — Controlling precedent reiterated by the Court. It held that the Director of Lands has not only the right but the duty to investigate alleged fraud in securing a free patent and corresponding title and to file a reversion action if warranted, and that prohibition cannot issue to enjoin such investigation despite the existence of a Torrens title.
• Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, 79 Phil. 461 — Cited to explain that the constitutional provision on public domain embraces all lands of any kind of the public domain and establishes a permanent and fundamental policy for the conservation and utilization of all natural resources of the Nation.
• Director vs. De Luna, 110 Phil. 28; Republic vs. The Heirs of C. Carle, 105 Phil. 1227; Panimdim vs. Director, 11 SCRA 628 — Cited for the rule that while the Government cannot file an action for annulment of a Torrens title, an action for reversion may be instituted by the Solicitor General in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.

• Section 91, Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act 141) — Provides that statements in a public land application are essential conditions and parts of any concession, title, or permit issued on the basis of the application; false statements or omissions, and subsequent modifications of material facts, shall ipso facto produce cancellation. It imposes on the Director of Lands the duty to investigate whether the material facts in the application are true or continue to exist and authorizes him to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum. The provision was relied on to hold that the Director of Lands may investigate alleged fraud despite the issuance of a Torrens title.
• Section 1, Article XIII, 1935 Constitution — Declares that all agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State. The provision was used as the constitutional basis for the Regalian doctrine, which justifies the State’s continuing authority over public lands and the Director’s investigation.
• Section 122, Land Registration Act — Provides that a Torrens title issued on the basis of a free patent or homestead patent is as indefeasible as one judicially secured. The Court recognized this indefeasibility but held that it does not bar an investigation by the Director of Lands into how the title was acquired for purposes of a reversion action.

Makalintal, C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Fernandez, Muñoz Palma, and Aquino, JJ., concurred.