Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28591)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28591)
Facts:
Mariano Ramirez v. The Hon. Court of Appeals and Jose G. Paguia, G.R. No. L-28591, October 31, 1969, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, C.J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Mariano Ramirez filed an accion publiciana on February 8, 1960 to eject Jose G. Paguia from two parcels described as Lot No. 2 under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 282-A (Homestead Patent No. 70988) issued in Ramirez’s name. Ramirez alleged Paguia had taken possession in November 1958 and sought recovery of possession, damages, attorney’s fees and costs. Paguia answered asserting ownership by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-27323 (dated January 29, 1960) based on OCT No. 01356 (June 27, 1958), claiming continuous possession by his predecessors and that Ramirez’s patent and OCT were procured by fraud; he prayed for annulment of Ramirez’s titles and for damages and costs.
The Court of First Instance of Bulacan rendered judgment for Ramirez, declaring TCT No. T-27323 null and void and ordering Paguia to vacate, awarding P500 attorney’s fees and costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, declaring Patent No. 70988 and OCT No. 282-A null and void ab initio, upholding Paguia’s TCT No. T-27323, absolving him from attorney’s fees and awarding costs against Ramirez. Ramirez then brought this petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
The title history: a homestead application by Maximo Sison was filed March 2, 1927 and approved March 6, 1939; his son Doroteo, as heir, transferred rights to Ramirez with departmental approval on January 12, 1940, and Patent No. 70988 issued November 27, 1943 and was recorded in the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on June 22, 1944, whereupon OCT No. 282-A was issued to Ramirez. Paguia’s chain ran from Tomas Esteban and heirs; Paguia filed a land registration petition on October 17, 1957 (Land Registration Case No. N-1009), during which he sold his interest to spouses Hiwaga Pineda and Antonia Flores (who obtained OCT No. 01356 dated June 27, 1958); Paguia later repurchased and secured TCT No. T-27323 on January 29, 1960. The Court of Appeals based its annulment of Ramirez’s patent and title chiefly on findings that Ramirez had not complied with final proof or possession requirements and that the documentary record (Exhibit G) was deficient. The Supreme Court took up Ramirez’s Rule 45 petition to review the Court of Appeals’ reversal.
Issues:
- May a registered homestead patent and the Torrens certificate (OCT) issued thereon be collaterally attacked and annulled by the Court of Appeals after the one‑year statutory period of indefeasibility has expired?
- Was Patent No. 70988 and OCT No. 282‑A null and void ab initio for fraud because Ramirez allegedly never possessed or made final proof of the homestead?
- Are the subsequently issued OCT No. 01356 and TCT No. T-27323 void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction where the land was already covered by an indefeasible certificate in Ramirez’s name?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)