Panimdim vs. Director of Lands (G.R. No.

L-19731, July 31, 1964)

On December 27, 1927, the Director of Lands rendered a joint decision approving the
free patent applications filed separately by Joaquin Panimdim and Fulgencio Minalabag.
Accordingly, Parcel A containing an area of 9,000 hectares was adjudicated to Panimdim,
while Parcel B containing an area of 13,000 hectares was adjudicated to Minalabag. The
opposition interposed by Mariano De la Rosa to the approval of said free patent
applications was overruled.
Nevertheless, De la Rosa took steps to have said Parcels A and B surveyed under his
name as Lot No. 4, Psu-49596, and applied later for their registration in his name before
the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. After due hearing, the court denied the
petition for registration declaring said parcels of land as parts of the public domain.
Meanwhile, Joaquin Panimdim was succeeded in his rights over Parcel A by his son
Estanislao, and after the former's death, the latter succeeded in having a patent issued in
his name on July 8, 1957, the register of deeds of Camarines Sur having issued in his
favor Original Certificate of Title No. 9040. But in issuing said certificate of title, it was
made to appear erroneously therein that it covers both Parcels A and B although the late
Joaquin Panimdim never possessed Parcel B nor has laid any claim therefor thereby
creating a trust in favor of the heirs of Fulgencio Minalabag.
Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted
and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other
evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.t
Mariano De la Rosa did not cease in asserting his claim not only over Parcel B but also
over a portion of Parcel A and so he again filed a petition with the Director of Lands
praying for the annulment of the free patent issued in the name of Estanislao Panimdim
claiming that the latter if at all is only entitled to an area of about 4 hectares. Acting on
this petition, the Director of Lands ordered a new investigation of the claim relative to the
two parcels of land and in the course thereof an ocular inspection was ordered which was
carried out by Deputy Public Land Inspector Augusta Corpuz. In this ocular inspection,
Inspector Corpuz interviewed several persons he found in the premises although it is
claimed that Estanislao Panimdim was not notified thereof, nor given an opportunity to
be present.
On March 20, 1959, Panimdim moved to dismiss the petition of De la Rosa, as well as to
set aside whatever administrative action has been taken thereon, on the ground that the
Director of Lands has already lost jurisdiction over the parcel of land adjudicated to him
inasmuch as after the issuance of the patent covering the same in his favor the land is
deemed to have been segregated from the public domain and as such it no longer comes
under the jurisdiction of the Director of Lands.

On August 24, 1959, the Director of Lands rendered decision denying the motion to
dismiss and declaring the issuance of the patent in favor of Panimdim erroneous and
improper for it covers more area than what he was entitled to. He stated that the
"corresponding administrative action to amend the said free patent and re-issue it for the
area marked A only will be taken accordingly."
Panimdim moved to reconsider the decision reiterating his plea that the Director of Lands
had no longer jurisdiction to reopen the case relative to his patent because of the many
years that had elapsed since it was issued, but the motion was denied. In due time, he
appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and when the decision of
the Director of Lands was affirmed, he filed the present petition for certiorari.
It appears that the free patent application of petitioner's predecessor-in- interest was
approved by the Director of Lands on December 27, 1927, and after petitioner had
succeeded to the rights of his father over the land a free patent was issued in his name on
July 8, 1957, and thereafter Original Certificate of Title No. 9040 was also issued in his
name by the register of deeds of Camarines Sur. But because of a protest lodged by
Mariano De la Rosa against the issuance of the patent over Parcel A, the Director of
Lands ordered a new investigation in the course of which an ocular inspection was made
which was conducted by Land Inspector Augusto Corpus. And notwithstanding the
opposition of petitioner on the ground that the Director of Lands had no longer
jurisdiction to act thereon because the property has ceased to be a portion of the public
domain, said official rendered on August 24, 1959 a decision ignoring the opposition and
declaring the issuance of said patent over a portion of Parcel A "legally wrong and
improper." The Director of Lands made manifest that corresponding administrative action
to amend said free patent and re-issue it to cover a smaller area will be taken accordingly.
Petitioner has now come pleading that such administrative action be prevented for being
erroneous and illegal.
We find this stand in line with the ruling we recently and down in the case of Republic of
the Philippines v. Heirs of Ciriaco Carle, et al., L-12485, July 31, 1959, the facts of
which are on all fours with those of the present.
Thus, in said case a homestead patent was issued to the heirs of one Ciriaco Carle on
April 26, 1944 which was duly recorded in the office of the register of deeds and for
which a certificate of title was issued in their favor on May 11, 1946. Seven years latter,
or on August 31, 1953, acting on the opposition of certain Meynardo Ilagan, the Director
of Lands declared said patent inoperative insofar as it cover a portion designated as area
A-2 and adjudged the same in favor of the oppositor, this decision having been affirmed
by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Thereafter the Director of Lands
filed an action with the Court of First Instance of Mindoro to have the homestead patent
declared null and void, to which the patentees objected claiming that the action has
already prescribed since more than one year had elapsed since the issuance of the patent.
This objection was sustained; and on appeal this Court made the following
pronouncement:

There is no controversy as to the fact that on May 11, 1946, the homestead patent in favor
of the appellees heirs of Ciriaco Carle was duly registered in the Office of the Register of
Deeds of Mindoro and the corresponding certificate of title issued to them, and that the
order of the Director of Lands cancelling a part of the homestead patent upon which the
aforesaid certificate of title was based was handed down on August 31, 1953, or after the
lapse of more than 7 years. Appellant, however, maintains that Section 38 of the land
Registration Act providing for the prescriptive period of one year within which to assail
the correctness or validity of a certificate of title is not controlling in the case at bar. It is
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
that indefeasible nature ordinarily characteristic of the latter.
The flaw in this contention is that appellant compares a homestead patent and a decree of
registration. But what is involved in the instant case is the indefeasibility of the certificate
of title issued after the homestead patent has been duly registered pursuant to Section 122
of the Land Registration Act (No. 496). As to this, the law is clear: "After due registration
and issue of the certificate and owner's duplicate, such land shall be registered land for all
purposes under this Act." (Sec. 122). Consequently, the land automatically comes under
the operation of Sec. 38 of the same Act and subject to all the safeguards therein
provided. And this, too, is the constant doctrine laid down by this Court in a long line of
adjudicated cases.
xxx

xxx

xxx

True, it may be, as appellant alleges, that neither the Public Land Act (Com. Act 141) nor
the Land Registration Law provides for the period within which the certificate of title to a
public land grant may be questioned, but this does not necessarily sustain appellant's
contention that such action may be brought within 10 years (Art. 144, new Civil Code),
because this point has already been determined by this Tribunal when we 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, as long as the land disposed
of is really a part of the disposable land of the public domain, and becomes indefeasible
and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance thereof
(Lucas v. Durian, G.R. No. L-7886, promulgated September 23, 1957)."
But appellant contends that as he is the official who exercises the power to dispose public
lands, it necessarily follows that the right to review a patent pertains to him. In support of
his stand, he cites Section 91 of Commonwealth Act 141. This view is correct but only as
long as the land remains a part of the public domain and still continues to be under his
exclusive and executive control. 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
(Sumail v. Judge, Court of First Instance, et al., supra).
The parties, however, are not without any remedy in law. As we have suggested:

"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 (Roco v. Gemida, G.R. No. L-11651, promulgated December
27, 1958)."
Here the free patent covering Parcel A was issued to Estanislao Panimdim on July 8,
1957 for which Original Certificate of Title No. 9040 was issued in his name by the
register of deeds of Camarines Sur, but on August 24, 1959 the Director of Lands, acting
on a protest interposed by Mariano De la Rosa, rendered a decision declaring the issuance
of the patent erroneous and ordering that an administrative action be taken in order to
amend the same and issue another reducing the patent to merely four hectares. This the
Director of Lands can no longer do, considering that more than two years had elapsed
since the registration of the patent. As such, the same had already become indefeasible
and incontrovertible.
WHEREFORE, petition is granted. The decision of respondent Director of Lands of
August 24, 1959 is hereby set aside. No costs.
DIGEST
Facts:
This is a case where the Director of Lands wanted to amend a free patent and re issue the
same due to a protest by another and with an investigation that concluded that the
petitioner has received a patent which was erroneous and improper for it covered more
area than what he was entitled to. The following are some important dates:
1. Dec 27, 1927 - the free patent application of petitioners predecessor-in-interest was
approved by the Director of Lands
2. Jul 8, 1957 - petitioner had succeeded to the rights of his father over the land a free
patent was issued in his name; and thereafter, Original Certificate of Title No. 9040 was
also issued in his name by the register of deeds of Camarines Sur
3. Aug 24, 1959 the Director of Lands declared the patent erroneous and improper
Issue: Whether or not the Director of Lands has the authority to adjudicate the land in
question
Held:
No. The Director of Lands losses jurisdiction over lands no longer part of the public
domain. 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. The Director of Lands can no longer take

administrative action because the land in question was already registered and more than
two years have already lapsed.
Land registration; Free patent title; Director of Lands loses jurisdiction once title is
issued.Once a free 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,
Same; Same; Director of Lands may not amend a patent after title thereto has been
issued; Case at bar.Where the free patent covering the land in controversy was issued
to petitioner for which an original certificate of title was issued in his name by the
register of deeds, but two years later the Director of Lands acting on a protest interposed
by a third party rendered a decision declaring the issuance of the patent erroneous and
ordering that an administrative action to be taken in order to amend the same and issue
another reducing said patent, it is held that the Director of Lands can no longer do this
because the title thereto had already become indefeasible and incontrovertible.

TAHANAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner,

-versusTHE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA, THE
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, NICOLAS A. PASCUAL, CRISANTO F. PASCUAL,
ANSELMO F. PASCUAL, MAMERTO F. PASCUAL, PASCUALA A. MEJIA,
DAMIANA A. MEJIA, CIRILO S. PASCUAL, and CATALINA S. PASCUAL,
respondents.
Conrado B. Enriquez for petitioner.
Ramon S. Nievo for private respondents.
There are three cases recently decided by the Supreme Court that are directly related to
and squarely Identified with the petition at bar, namely, (1) Director of Lands, petitioner,
vs. Court of Appeals, et al., respondents, Greenfield Development Corporation,
intervenor, Alabang Development Corporation and Ramon D. Bagatsing, intervenors, No.
L-45168, September 25, 1979, 93 SCRA 238, (2) The Director of Lands, petitioner, vs.
The Court of Appeals and Demetria Sta. Maria Vda. de Bernal, respondents, Greenfield
Development Corporation, intervenor, Alabang Development Corporation and Ramon D.
Bagatsing, intervenors, L-45168, January 27, 1981, 102 SCRA 370, and (3) Alabang
Development Corp. and Ramon D. Bagatsing, petitioner, vs. Hon. Manuel F. Valenzuela,
et al., respondents, G.R. No. 54094, August 30, 1982.
In the first case, Our Resolution admitted the intervention of the intervenors filed before
the Supreme Court at the stage of the proceedings where trial of the petition for judicial

reconstitution had already been concluded, the judgment thereon granting the
reconstitution had been promulgated and on appeal by the losing party, the same was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the petition for certiorari to review said judgment
was already submitted for decision in the Supreme Court. The second case is Our
decision on the merits of the certiorari petition wherein We ruled, among others, that the
judgment of the lower court granting the petition for judicial reconstitution of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 42449 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal in the name of Demetria
Sta. Maria Vda. de Bernal covering two parcels of land located in Barrio San Dionisio,
Municipality of Paranaque, Rizal (now Barrio Cupang, Municipality of Muntinlupa,
Rizal) denominated as Lots 1 and 3 of Plan II-4374 based on a survey approved July 25,
1911 with an area of 717,523 square meters and 717,539 square meters, respectively, was
null and void for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Republic Act No.
26. We further held that TCT No. 42449 was fake and spurious.
In the third case, the Supreme Court directly ruled that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Pasay City, Branch XXIX, in Reconstitution Case No. 504-P Land
Registration Case No. 9368, Hon. Manuel E. Valenzuela, presiding, ordering the
reconstitution from Decree No. 15170 and the plan and technical descriptions, the alleged
certificate of title, original and owner's duplicate copy over Lots 2 and 4 indicated in Plan
II-4374 situated in Barrio San Dionisio, Paranaque, Rizal, now Barrio Cupang,
Muntinlupa, Rizal, in the name of Manuela Aquial, was null and void.
The instant petition for review similarly assails the validity of the same judgment
ordering the reconstitution of the Certificate of Title, original and owner's duplicate copy,
over the same lots, Lots 2 and 4, of the same plan, Plan 11-4374, in the name of the said
Manuela Aquial, promulgated in the same Reconstitution Case No. 504-P, Land
Registration Case No. 9368, Court of First Instance of Pasay City, Branch XXIX, Judge
Manuel E. Valenzuela, presiding. The said case at bar was brought by petitioner Tahanan
Development Corporation while the third case was instituted by Alabang Development
Corporation and Ramon D. Bagatsing as petitioners.
Whereas the third case categorically ruled and decided the questions of law raised
therein, the proceedings being the special civil action of certiorari attacking the
jurisdiction of the lower court, the petition at bar being a petition for review, a more
extended discussion of the issues on the merits is necessary and more appropriate. Thus,
We start by noting that herein petition for review seeks to set aside the Resolution of the
Court of Appeals promulgated April 30, 1980 reversing an earlier decision of the same
Court dated November 16, 1979 in C. A.-G.R. No. SP-08680-R entitled "Tahanan
Development Corporation, petitioner, versus Hon. Manuel E. Valenzuela, et al.,
respondents," as well as the subsequent resolution dated December 8, 1980 denying
petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner Tahanan Development Corporation,
hereinafter referred to as TAHANAN, claiming grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the respondent Judge, further seeks the setting aside of the decision rendered by the latter
in Reconstitution Case No. 504-P, Land Registration Case No. 9368, dated October 5,
1978 in favor of herein private respondents Nicolas A. Pascual and his co-heirs, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The Register of Deeds of Metro Manila, Makati
Branch IV, is hereby ordered to reconstitute from Decree No. 15170, Exhibit X, the plan
and technical descriptions submitted to the Court-the certificate of title, original and
owner's duplicate copy, in the name of Manuela Aquial, single, Filipino, with residence at
307, 15th Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City, giving the certificate appropriate number which
will not conflict with other titles already issued upon payment of the prescribed fees. The
Branch Clerk of Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this decision and all
documents necessary for the reconstitution.
A petitioner for reconstitution of Title is duty-bound to know the adjacent boundary
owners or owners with claims overlapping the property covered by the title to be
reconstituted.The Pascuals are duty-bound to know who are their actual adjacent
boundary owners on all sides and directions of their neighbors are in actual possession
and occupancy not only of porproperty. They are charged with the obligation to inquire
who their tions of their own property but also of land adjacent thereto. This duty or
obligation cannot be ignored or simply brushed aside where the location or the properties
involved is a prime site for land development, expansion, suitable for residential,
commercial and industrial purposes and where every square inch of real estate becomes a
valuable and profitable investment. It is of public knowledge in the community of
Paraaque that Tahanan Village is a privatelyowned and occupied residential
subdivision, plainly visible to the general public by reason of the perimeter fence or wall
separating it from adjacent estates, the roads and streets therein and leading thereto, the
numerous home constructions and buildings going on, the visible electrical, lighting and
water supply installations, the presence of private security guards thereat and the
numerous signs and billboards advertising the estate as a housing development owned
and/or managed by petitioner Tahanan. It is preposterous to claim that the area is public
land