Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Ciriaco Carle, et al.

A homestead patent duly registered under Section 122 of Act No. 496 converts the land into registered land, and the resulting certificate of title becomes indefeasible after one year from issuance under Section 38 of the same Act; the Director of Lands may no longer cancel or annul it, and the injured party’s remedy is an action for reconveyance.

Ciriaco Carle obtained a homestead over a parcel of land in Pola, Oriental Mindoro under the public land system, and after his death the homestead patent was issued to his heirs. Registration of the patent was governed by Section 122 of Act No. 496, which brings public land grants under the Land Registration Act, while challenges to certificates of title are governed by Section 38 of that Act. The Director of Lands is the official charged with the disposal of public lands under Commonwealth Act No. 141. The dispute concerns the legal effect of registering a homestead patent under Act No. 496 and the authority of the Director of Lands over land once patented and registered.

Ciriaco Carle filed a homestead application over a parcel of land located in Pola, Oriental Mindoro, docketed as H.A. No. 154223-E 72825, which was approved on August 30, 1930. Carle died in 1942. Homestead Patent No. 71852, corresponding to the application, was issued to his heirs on April 26, 1944. The patent was duly transmitted to and recorded by the Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro pursuant to Section 122 of Act No. 496. On May 11, 1946, the corresponding certificate of title, O.C.T. No. 4648, was issued in favor of the heirs.

Seven years later, on August 31, 1953, passing upon the opposition of Meynardo Ilagan to the issuance of Patent No. 71852 in the name of the heirs of Ciriaco Carle, the Director of Lands declared the patent inoperative insofar as it covered a certain portion designated as area A-2 and adjudged that area in favor of the oppositor, who held another homestead application. The Director found that the inclusion of area A-2 in the patent was erroneous. On appeal by the heirs, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources affirmed the order of the Director of Lands.

Thereafter, on December 2, 1955, the Director of Lands filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Mindoro, later amended, praying that Homestead Patent No. 71852 be declared null and void and that the respondents, Heirs of Ciriaco Carle, be ordered to surrender the patent and the certificate of title issued pursuant thereto to the Director of Lands and the Register of Deeds of Mindoro, respectively, for cancellation. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. R-650. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition, claiming that more than one year from the issuance of the certificate of title had already elapsed, so petitioner’s cause of action was barred by prescription.

Considering the motion to dismiss and the opposition filed by petitioner, the Court of First Instance, in its order of March 2, 1957, dismissed the petition on the ground that the action was filed beyond the period of limitation provided by law. The Director of Lands appealed. The Supreme Court noted that there was no controversy as to the fact that on May 11, 1946, the homestead patent in favor of the heirs was duly registered and the corresponding certificate of title was issued to them, and that the order of the Director of Lands cancelling a part of the homestead patent was handed down on August 31, 1953, or after the lapse of more than seven years.

• Section 38 Inapplicable: Petitioner-appellant maintained that Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, providing the one-year prescriptive period within which to assail the correctness or validity of a certificate of title, is not controlling in the case. It claimed that a homestead patent differs from a decree of registration obtained in an ordinary registration proceeding in many fundamental ways, thus depriving the former of the indefeasible nature ordinarily characteristic of the latter.
• Ten-Year Period: Petitioner-appellant alleged that neither the Public Land Act nor the Land Registration Law provides for the period within which the certificate of title to a public land grant may be questioned, and therefore the action may be brought within ten years under Article 1144 of the new Civil Code.
• Director’s Power to Review: Petitioner-appellant contended that as the official who exercises the power to dispose of public lands, the Director of Lands necessarily has the right to review a patent, citing Section 91 of Commonwealth Act 141.

• Prescription: Respondents moved to dismiss the petition, claiming that more than one year from the issuance of the certificate of title had already elapsed, so petitioner’s cause of action was already barred by prescription.

• Prescriptive Period: Whether a certificate of title issued pursuant to a homestead patent registered under Section 122 of Act No. 496 is subject to the one-year limitation under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act and becomes indefeasible after that period.
• Authority of Director of Lands: Whether the Director of Lands may still annul or cancel a homestead patent and the corresponding certificate of title after the patent has been registered and the title issued.
• Ten-Year Period under Article 1144: Whether the absence of a period in the Public Land Act and the Land Registration Law allows an action to question the certificate of title within ten years under Article 1144 of the new Civil Code.
• Remedy of Injured Party: Whether an action for reconveyance is the proper remedy for a party injured by a patent that has already been issued and registered, allegedly through fraud or mistake.

• Prescriptive Period: Yes. A certificate of title issued pursuant to a registered homestead patent is subject to the one-year period under Section 38 of Act No. 496 and becomes indefeasible after its expiration.
• Authority of Director of Lands: No. Once the patent is registered and the certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be public domain and becomes private property over which the Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction.
• Ten-Year Period under Article 1144: No. The absence of a period in the Public Land Act and the Land Registration Law does not permit an action within ten years under Article 1144; the one-year period under Section 38 governs.
• Remedy of Injured Party: Yes. If a patent has already been issued and registered, allegedly through fraud or mistake, the injured party’s remedy is an action for reconveyance.

• Prescriptive Period: Section 122 of Act No. 496 provides that after due registration and issue of the certificate and owner’s duplicate, the land shall be registered land for all purposes under the Act. The Court rejected appellant’s comparison between a homestead patent and a decree of registration; what is involved is the indefeasibility of the certificate of title issued after the homestead patent was duly registered pursuant to Section 122. Once registered, the land automatically falls under Section 38 and its safeguards. The Court cited Manalo vs. Lucban, El Hogar Filipino vs. Olviga, Sumail vs. Judge, Dagdag vs. Nepomuceno, and Ramoso vs. Obligado for the rule that a registered public land patent is a veritable Torrens title and is as indefeasible as a Torrens title. Lucas vs. Durian held that a certificate of title issued pursuant to a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issued as a consequence of a judicial proceeding and is indefeasible and incontrovertible after one year from issuance. Since O.C.T. No. 4648 was issued on May 11, 1946, and the petition was filed on December 2, 1955, the action was barred.
• Authority of Director of Lands: Section 91 of Commonwealth Act 141 gives the Director of Lands the right to review a patent, but only while the land remains part of the public domain and under his exclusive executive control. Once the patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property. Over such private property, the Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction. Sumail vs. Judge is cited for this rule.
• Ten-Year Period under Article 1144: Although neither the Public Land Act nor the Land Registration Law expressly provides the period within which a certificate of title to a public land grant may be questioned, that silence does not sustain the claim that the action may be brought within ten years under Article 1144 of the new Civil Code. The Court had already determined in Lucas vs. Durian that the one-year period from issuance governs the indefeasibility of the certificate.
• Remedy of Injured Party: The Court suggested that if a patent has already been issued, allegedly through fraud or mistake, and had been registered, the remedy of the injured party is an action for reconveyance, citing Roco vs. Gemida. This remedy preserves the injured party’s recourse without allowing collateral cancellation of an indefeasible title after the one-year period.

• Indefeasibility of a Registered Homestead Patent — A homestead patent issued under the Public Land Act and registered under Section 122 of Act No. 496 brings the land under the Land Registration Act. The resulting certificate of title is a veritable Torrens title and becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible after one year from issuance under Section 38. Applied: O.C.T. No. 4648 was issued on May 11, 1946, while the petition was filed on December 2, 1955, beyond the one-year period, so dismissal was affirmed.
• Cessation of Public Domain and Loss of Director of Lands’ Jurisdiction — Upon registration of the patent and issuance of the certificate of title, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property. The Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction over it; Section 91 of Commonwealth Act 141 operates only while the land remains public domain. Applied to reject the Director’s attempt to annul the patent after registration.
• Action for Reconveyance as Remedy — Where a patent has already been issued and registered, allegedly through fraud or mistake, the injured party’s remedy is an action for reconveyance, not cancellation of the registered title by the Director of Lands after the one-year period. Applied as the Court’s suggested remedy.
• One-Year Prescriptive Period under Section 38 — The one-year period to assail the correctness or validity of a certificate of title applies to certificates issued pursuant to homestead patents. Applied because the certificate of title had been issued more than one year before the action was filed.

• "After due registration and issue of the certificate and owner's duplicate, such land shall be registered land for all purpose under this act." — This is the statutory basis under Section 122 of Act No. 496 for treating a registered homestead patent as registered land subject to the Land Registration Act.
• "A certificate of title issued pursuant to a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issued as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, as long as the land disposed of is really indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance thereof" — This states the one-year indefeasibility rule applied to the homestead certificate of title.
• "But once the patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property over which the Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction" — This defines the point at which the Director of Lands loses authority over the land.
• "If patent has already been issued, allegedly through fraud or mistake and had been registered, the remedy of the party who had been injured by the fraudulent registration is an action for reconveyance" — This identifies reconveyance as the remedy for an injured party after registration.

• Manalo vs. Lucban, et al., 48 Phil., 973 — Cited for the rule that land granted by the Government to a homesteader under Act No. 962, with the patent registered and certificate issued, is considered registered under the Land Registration Act; the title may no longer be the subject of inquiry, decision, or judgment in a cadastral proceeding.
• El Hogar Filipino vs. Olviga, 60 Phil., 17 — Cited for the rule that once a homestead patent issued according to the Public Land Act is registered in conformity with Section 122 of Act No. 496, it becomes irrevocable and enjoys the same privileges as Torrens titles.
• Sumail vs. Judge, Court of First Instance of Cotobato, et al., 96 Phil., 946 — Cited for the Section 122 rule and for the loss of the Director of Lands’ control and jurisdiction once the patent is registered; the land ceases to be public domain.
• Dagdag vs. Nepomuceno, supra, p. 216 — Cited for the rule that a public land patent, when registered in the corresponding register of deeds office, is a veritable Torrens title.
• Ramoso vs. Obligado, 70 Phil., 86 — Cited for the rule that a public land patent, when registered, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title.
• Lucas vs. Durian, G.R. No. L-7886, promulgated September 23, 1957 — Cited for the rule that a certificate of title issued pursuant to a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issued as a consequence of a judicial proceeding and is indefeasible and incontrovertible after one year from issuance.
• Roco vs. Gemida, 94 Phil., 1011; 55 Off. Gaz., [37] 7922 — Cited for the rule that where a patent has already been issued and registered, allegedly through fraud or mistake, the injured party’s remedy is an action for reconveyance.

• Section 122, Act No. 496 — Provides that after due registration and issue of the certificate and owner’s duplicate, the land shall be registered land for all purposes under the Act. Applied because the homestead patent was registered under this section, making the land registered land and subjecting it to Section 38.
• Section 38, Act No. 496 — Provides the one-year prescriptive period to assail the correctness or validity of a certificate of title. Applied because O.C.T. No. 4648 was issued on May 11, 1946, and the action was filed on December 2, 1955, beyond the one-year period.
• Section 91, Commonwealth Act 141 — Concerns the Director of Lands’ power to review a patent. Applied only while the land remains part of the public domain and under the Director’s exclusive executive control; after registration and issuance of the certificate of title, the Director has no jurisdiction.
• Article 1144, new Civil Code — Cited by appellant as the basis for a ten-year period to question the certificate of title. Rejected because the absence of a period in the Public Land Act and the Land Registration Law does not allow a ten-year action; the one-year period under Section 38 governs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concurred.