Sumail v Judge of CFI (1955)

Facts:
On June 3, 1952, Gepuliano filed Civil Case No. 413 in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato against petitioner
Dawaling Sumail, alleging among other things that he was the owner of the lot in question by virtue of a Free
Patent and an Original Certificate of Title; that he had been in possession of the land since 1939 continuously,
publicly, and adversely up to June, 1949, when Sumail by means of force, threats and intimidation entered the
parcel and divested him of possession; that several demands had been made for the surrender of the
possession of the land which demands defendant had rejected.

On July 27, 2952, and said to be intended as counter-complaint to Civil Case No. 413, Sumail, defendant in said
case, filed Civil Case No. 420 in the same court against Gepuliano and the Director of Lands for the purpose of
cancelling Certificate of Title V-23 covering lot 3633, alleging that Gepuliano thru fraud and
misrepresentation had filed with the Bureau of Lands a falsified application for free patent for the lot, stating
in his application that the parcel was not occupied or claimed by any other person and that he had entered
upon it and introduced improvements thereon

The Director of Lands contended that the complaint of Sumail called for the cancellation of a free patent
issued by the Director of Lands over a parcel of public land and that the court had no jurisdiction over the
subject matter because under the Public Land Act, the Director of Lands had executive control over the
concession or disposition of the lands of the public domain, and that his findings as to questions of fact shall
be conclusive when approved by the Secretary of the Department

TC dismissed the case

Issue: WON TC still has jurisdiction
Held: No

Ratio:
We agree with the Director of Lands and the trial court that the latter had no jurisdiction to entertain Civil
Case No. 420 which was filed for the purpose of cancelling the Patent issued by the Director of Lands on lot
No. 3633 and also for the cancellation of the Original Certificate of Title V-23 issued to Gepuliano on the basis
of his free patent. Under section 122 of Act No. 496 known as the Land Registration Act, when any public
lands in the Philippines are alienated, granted, or conveyed to persons or public or private corporations, the
same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of the said Act and shall become registered lands and
that the instrument of conveyance in the form of a Patent, before its delivery to the grantee shall be filed with
the Register of Deeds for registration, and that once registered therein a certificate of title shall be issued as in
other cases of registered land.

In ordinary registration proceedings involving private lands, courts may reopen proceedings already closed
by final decision or decree, only when application for review is filed by the party aggrieved within one year
from the issuance of the decree of registration. Here, there was no decree of registration because instead of
an application for registration under the Land Registration Act Gepuliano applied for free patent under the
Public Land Act. Assuming that even in bringing public land grants under the Land Registration Law, there is
a period of one year for review in cases of fraud, how shall that period of one year be computed? For all
practical purposes we might regard the date of the issuance of the patent as corresponding to the date of the
issuance of the decree in ordinary registration cases, because the decree finally awards the land applied for
registration to the party entitled to it, and the patent issued by the Director of Lands equally and finally
grants, awards, and conveys the land applied for to the applicant.

The purpose and affect of both decree and patent is the same. Now, further assuming that Civil Case No. 420
of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato filed by Sumail was intended as a petition for review of the public
land grant and conveyance to Gepuliano, on the ground of fraud, was it filed within the period of one year?
The answer is in the negative. As already stated, free patent No. V459 was issued in the name of Gepuliano on
September 26, 1949, while Civil Case No. 420 was filed in court only on July 21, 1952, or almost three years
after the issuance of the free patent. It is, therefore, clear that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint in Civil Case No. 420

Jacinto v Jacinto

Facts:
On January 27, 1930, Pedro Jacinto and Narciso Jacinto, brothers, both sons of Crispin Jacinto, executed a
sworn statement. 1939, after Homestead Application No. 102221 mentioned in the second paragraph of the
above-quoted sworn statement had been approved by the Bureau of Lands, and the corresponding
Homestead Patent No. 55556 duly registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of the City of Zamboanga,
Original Certificate of Title No. 652 was issued in the name of Pedro Jacinto.

On April 24, 1950, or after a little over 10 years had elapsed since August 30, 1939, the date of the issuance of
the certificate of title, Crispin Jacinto, the brother, filed an action for specific performance against Pedro
Jacinto in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga and Basilan City (Civil Case No. 209-Z [9-BC] seeking the
enforcement of the agreement evidenced by the sworn statement quoted earlier and claiming that contrary to
what had been done since 1930, Pedro Jacinto had refused, since the last quarter of the year 1949 up to the
date of the presentation of the complaint, to share with the plaintiffs the yieldings and fruits of the coconut
trees planted by them on the land in question, amounting to P1,875.00 for each quarter

lower court rendered judgment finding that the preponderance of evidence was in favor of Crispin Jacinto
and Narciso Jacinto in both cases and ordering, in Civil Case No. 209-Z (9-BC) for specific performance, that a
deed of partition be executed by and between the plaintiffs and defendant or whosoever may be his
administrator or heirs, in the proportion as agreed upon Exhibit A namely, one-half of the land described in
Original Certificate of Title No. 652 (Exh. 1) in favor of Crispin Jacinto, and the other half to be divided equally
between Narciso Jacinto and Pedro Jacinto or his heirs, administrator, successors, or assigns, and dismissing
Civil Case No. 297-Z (36-BC) for usurpation and illegal detention.

Issue: WON appellant must perform obligation
Held: Yes

Ratio:
Appellant likewise contests the legality of the decision of the lower court ordering him to convey unto the
appellees certain portions of the property subject of the litigation, claiming that under Section 21 Act. No.
2874 (now Sec. 20 Com. Act 141), transfer of homestead rights is allowable only prior to the making of the
final proof of the application but not thereafter. While this is true, yet this provision is not applicable to the
case at bar. The subject of the agreement between the parties hereto is not the homestead right but the
property itself after it has been acquired and title thereto issued in favor of Pedro Jacinto. Such undertaking to
divide and convey portions of the land to those who have jointly occupied, cleared and cultivated the land, as
in this case, does not run counter to any provision of the Public Land Law.

Where the homestead applied for was acquired by means of joint occupation, clearing and cultivation of the
land by both petitioner and respondent, it is held under a joint tenancy, and the promise of the latter to
convey a part thereof to the family is not the alienation or encumbrance prohibited by Sections 16 and 22 of
Act 2874, as amended.

The prohibition imposed upon a grantee or homesteader against the alienation or conveyance of a land grant
is, therefore, lifted upon the expiration of 5 years from the date of the issuance of the patent or certificate, and
thereafter for the next 20 years, the restriction is confined merely to the security of the approval by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources of such conveyance or alienation. Apparently, the provision of
the herein agreement was purposely drafted to comply with this specific requirement. Nor can the appellant
claim exemption from fulfilling his part of the agreement by taking shelter behind their failure to secure prior
approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the alienation being one to be accomplished
after the lapsed of 5 years but before 25 years from the issuance of the patent have expired.

In fact he does not raise this point. Furthermore, as already held by this Court, the absence of approval by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources does not invalidate a sale made upon the expiration of the 5-
year period, for in such event the requirement of Section 118 of the Public law becomes merely directory. The
approval may therefore be secured later, producing the effect of ratifying and adopting the transaction as if
the sale had been previously authorized (Evangelista vs. Montano, 93 Phil., 275). This doctrine was reiterated
in the case of Flores vs. Plasina (94 Phil., 327), when this Court held:

It is true that the transfer of the patent and the law requires that the transfer be made with the approval of
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, (Section 118, Commonwealth Act No. 141), but we do not
deem of importance the absence of such requirement not only because the same is not now in issue but
because this Court has already held in a similar case that the failure to secure the requisite approval from the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources does not have the effect of rendering the sale null and void.
This provision of the law is merely directory which can be complied with any time in the future.