G.R. No. 125053 - People vs. Leonor

Case Summary (G.R. No. 125053)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Free Patents issued: Free Patent No. V-63411 and No. V-63420 on January 30, 1957.
Original Certificates of Title issued October 17, 1957.
Director of Lands issued investigation orders (August 8, 1958 and March 24, 1959) directing inquiry into protests.
Investigations and related proceedings occurred in 1958–1959; the Director was served with summons on January 20, 1960.
Trial court granted writ of prohibition enjoining the Director’s investigation; the Solicitor General appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the trial court and denied the writ.

Stipulated Facts (concise synthesis)

Lots involved: Lots Nos. 5790, 5792 and 2532 in Pls-100, Napuyan, Dapitan, Zamboanga del Norte.
Titles and applications: Lot 5790 covered by Free Patent V-63411 in favor of Antonio Pinero, Jr.; Lot 5792 covered by Free Patent V-63420 in favor of Emma Pinero Bernad; Lot 2532 applied for by Fortunato Pinero under Homestead Application No. V-66441 (approved January 2, 1953) but no patent yet issued. Lot 2532 derived from a prior private survey P.S.U.-111118.
Investigations: Director of Lands ordered inquiries into protests filed by Camansi (against Pinero, Jr.), Alasaas (against Emma Bernad), and Sumalpong (against Fortunato Pinero). Investigations were conducted by provincial officers and by Deputy Public Lands Inspector Palermo; some hearings occurred, some were continued, and in one instance counsel for the applicant challenged the authority of the investigator.
Administrative procedure: The Bureau of Lands’ Chief of the Legal Division required protesting parties to file sworn protests and pay protest fees within 30 days (letter dated September 4, 1959). There was no showing that respondents complied or that claims had been dismissed as of the stipulation. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the protests (December 18, 1959) which had not been resolved at the time of stipulation.
Procedural disputes: Counsel for an applicant at one hearing attacked the authority to investigate (contending under the Revised Administrative Code only the Director of Lands and Section Chief can order investigations). That question had not been resolved administratively before the Director. The Director had been served with summons for the prohibition petition.

Issue Presented

Whether a writ of prohibition should issue to prevent the Director of Lands and his subordinate officers from conducting investigations into alleged fraud in the acquisition of free patents and their corresponding Torrens titles.

Controlling Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

Section 91 of the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141): treats application statements as essential conditions of any title issued thereon; authorizes the Director of Lands to investigate material facts, to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, and to obtain compulsory judicial process; prescribes that refusal to obey such process or to answer pertinent questions gives rise to a presumption of bad faith or fraud and may lead to cancellation of the concession or title.
Property/sovereign background: Regalian doctrine as embodied in Section 1 of Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution (all public domain lands and natural resources belong to the State), a doctrinal foundation for state supervision and conservation of public lands.
Land Registration Act, Section 122: recognizes indefeasibility of Torrens titles (a Torrens title issued on the basis of a free or homestead patent is as indefeasible as one judicially secured).
Precedent cited by the Court: Cebedo v. Director of Lands (recognizing Director’s duty and right to investigate fraud in patent acquisition), Krivenko v. Register of Deeds (scope of Regalian doctrine), and earlier decisions establishing that while Torrens titles are indefeasible, the Government can seek reversion through an action instituted by the Solicitor General.

Court’s Legal Analysis

Duty and authority to investigate: The Court reiterated Cebedo’s holding 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 to public land. Section 91 leaves no alternative: it expressly empowers the Director to make investigations, issue subpoenas, and, if necessary, seek compulsory judicial process.
Prohibition unavailable: Given that the Director’s investigatory power is both statutory and rooted in the State’s ownership of the public domain (Regalian doctrine), prohibition is not the appropriate remedy to enjoin such investigations, even when a Torrens title has been issued. The existence of a Torrens title does not prevent the Director from investigating whether the title was fraudulently obtained.
Interplay with indefeasibility: Although Section 122 of the Land Registration Act confers indefeasibility on Torrens titles, the Court explained that indefeasibility does not bar the State’s authority to investigate and to seek reversion if fraud in the acquisition of the title is established. The Court emphasized the public interest in preventing persons who fraudulently acquire title to public land from benefitting thereby. The State, through its authorized officers and ultimately the Solicitor General, must have the capacity to inquire and to institute reversion proceedings when warranted.
Presumptions and remedies under Section 91: Section 91 contemplates that refusal to comply with duly issued subpoenas or to answer pertinent questions gives rise to a presumption of bad faith, which may support an order of cancel

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 125053)

Court, Citation and Date

Case reported at 156 Phil. 382.
Decided En Banc on June 14, 1974.
G.R. No. L-36507.

Nature of the Proceeding and Relief Sought

Appeal by the Solicitor General from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte in Civil Case No. 1128.
The trial court had granted a writ of prohibition prayed for by appellees seeking to enjoin the Director of Lands and subordinate officials from conducting investigations into alleged fraud in the issuance of Free Patents and corresponding Certificates of Title to the appellees.
Appeal was certified to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeals on February 20, 1973.

Parties

Petitioners-Appellees: Antonio Pinero, Jr.; Emma Bernad (assisted by her husband Norberto Bernad); and Fortunato Pinero.
Respondents / Appellants: The Director of Lands; Segundo M. Reyes, Provincial Land Officer of Zamboanga del Norte; Mariano D. Palermo, Deputy Public Lands Inspector; and other respondents named in the stipulation (Nicanor Alasaas, Eusebio Camansi, Tomas Sumalpong).

Procedural Posture at Trial Court

The trial court rendered its decision based exclusively on a stipulation of facts executed by the parties, which is reproduced in the record and forms the factual basis for the present appeal.
The Director of Lands had ordered investigations into protests against the claimed applications and issued titles; investigations were conducted and in some instances completed without final decisions.

Stipulation of Facts (as stipulated and reproduced verbatim in the record; summarized)

The stipulation identifies residences: Antonio Pinero, Jr., and Emma Pinero Bernad are residents of Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte; Fortunato Pinero is a resident of Negros Oriental.
The identities of Lots Nos. 5790, 5792 and 2532, all of Pls-100, located at Napuyan, Dapitan, Zamboanga del Norte, are submitted (sic).
Lot No. 5790, Pls-100 is covered by Free Patent No. V-63411 issued January 30, 1957 in favor of Antonio Pinero, Jr.
Lot No. 5792, Pls-100 is covered by Free Patent No. V-63420 issued January 30, 1957 in favor of Emma Pinero Bernad.
Lot 2532 is applied for by Fortunato Pinero under Homestead Application No. V-66441 approved as of January 2, 1953, but as of the stipulation date no patent had yet been issued for Lot 2532.
Lot 2532 was formerly part of PSU-111118, a private survey executed by Surveyor Calixto Sudiacal in 1939 for Fortunato Pinero; by a subsequent ECA survey PSU-111118 was subdivided and one of the resulting lots is Lot 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 Pinero, Jr., on October 17, 1957.
Pursuant to Free Patent No. V-63420, Original Certificate of Title No. P-5312 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga del Norte in favor of Emma Pinero on October 17, 1957.
On August 8, 1958, the Director of Lands issued an order directing investigation of the protest of Eusebio Camansi against the patented application of Antonio Pinero, Jr. (a copy found at page 14 of the expediente).
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 Pinero Bernad (a copy found at page 15 of the expediente).
Regarding Lot 5790, the protest of Eusebio Camansi was given due course, investigated and terminated; Antonio Pinero, Jr. was represented by counsel Atty. Jesus Sarmiento.
Nicanor Alasaas filed his protest dated February 27, 1958 and subscribed March 11, 1958 before Notary Public G. R. Dalmacio, Jr.; that protest was investigated by Atty. Mariano D. Palermo, investigator of the Bureau of Lands, Dipolog, on August 30, 1959.
With respect to Lot 5792, the investigation had already been conducted; for Lot 5790 the investigation had been terminated but no decision had been issued as of the stipulation.
Regarding Lot 2532: an investigation on August 21, 1959 was conducted on the claim of Tomas Sumalpong against the application of Fortunato Pinero; Fortunato Pinero and counsel did not appear at that investigation; the case was re-scheduled for October 30, 1959; Atty. Jaime T. Hamoy (counsel for Fortunato Pinero) filed a motion for postponement citing attendance at a criminal case in the Justice of the Peace Court of Manukan; hearing rescheduled for December 28, 1959; at that hearing counsel for Fortunato Pinero first attacked the authority of the investigation, alleging under the Revised Administrative Code that only the Director of Lands and Chief of Section can order investigation of land conflicts; as of the stipulation date no resolution of that jurisdictional issue had been made and no written motion on that ground had been previously raised before the Director of Lands.
Pursuant to a letter of Atty. Candido Pa. Sumalpong dated July 28, 1959 as counsel for Tomas Sumalpong, protesting the homestead application of Fortunato Pinero addressed to the Director of Lands thru the Provincial Land Officer at Dipolog, the Provincial Land Officer's first indorsement dated July 22, 1959 addressed to Deputy Public Lands Inspector Mariano D. Palermo directed investigation of the case until termination for disposition under Land Administrative Order No. 13-3; that first indorsement was asserted to be the sole authority for investigation of Sumalpong's claim against the homestead application of Fortunato Pinero; the investigation was not terminated because counsel for Fortunato Pinero attacked the authority for the investigation.
In connection with the separate petitions of respondents Alasaas, Camansi and Sumalpong against the petitioners' applications, the Chief of the Legal Division of the Bureau of Lands, in a letter dated September 4, 1959, required said respondents to file a sworn protest and pay the protest fee within thirty days from receipt, otherwise the respondents' claim would be dismissed and disregarded; a copy of that letter is attached to the stipulation as Exhibit "B".
There was no showing that the respondents complied with that letter nor any showing that their claims had been dismissed as of the stipulation date.
On December 18, 1959 the petitioners, through counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the alleged protests but as of the stipulation date no resolution o