HEIRS OF GREGORIO TENGCO, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF JOSE and
VICTORIA ALIWALAS and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents
G.R. No. L-77541 | November 29, 1988
FACTS:
Lot No. 3563 of the Arayat Cadastre was originally part of
the public domain. Dr. Jose Aliwalas applied with the Bureau of Lands for the
issuance of a homestead patent covering this lot. On Dec. 12, 1936, his
application was granted and was issued Homestead Patent No. 38588. This patent
was duly registered in the Register of Deeds of Pampanga on April 8, 1937.
When Dr. Jose Aliwalas died in 1962, the properties left by
him were partitioned among his surviving heirs. The lot in question was
allotted in favor of Victoria L. Vda. de Aliwalas. Thereafter, the lot was
transferred to her name.
On the other hand, defendants Heirs of Gregorio Tengco filed
an application with the Bureau of Lands Pampanga on October 31, 1973. He
alleged in his application that this parcel of land had been occupied and
cultivated originally and continuously thereafter by Gregorio Tengco. The
application was approved and Free Patent No. 557692 covering the said lot was
issued in favor of the Heirs of Gregorio Tengco. The issuance was predicated on
the assumption that the lot still formed part of the public domain and on the
findings of the Public Land Inspector Romeo Buenaventura who reported that the
land in question was possessed and occupied by applicant, Heirs of Gregorio
Tengco, who had planted different kinds of trees on the land aside from rice
and corn.
Private respondents argue that since a homestead patent and
an original certificate of title had already been issued to their
predecessor-in-interest, the land had ceased to be part of the public domain
and, hence, the Bureau of Lands had no jurisdiction over the controversy. Private
respondents add that since an original certificate of title had been issued
pursuant to the homestead patent, their title to the property had become
conclusive, absolute, indefeasible and imprescriptible.
In rebuttal, petitioner contends that private respondents’
title had not acquired said qualities as it was derived from a homestead
patent. Petitioners advanced the view that only titles based upon a judicial
declaration can be vested with the attributes of conclusiveness,
indefeasibility and imprescriptibility.
ISSUE:
Who is the true owner of the land
RULING:
The rule is well-settled that an original certificate of
title issued on the strength of a homestead patent partakes of the nature of a
certificate of title issued in a judicial proceeding, as long as the land
disposed of is really 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 promulgation of the order of the Director of Lands for the
issuance of the patent. A homestead patent, once registered under the Land
Registration Act, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens Title.
As stated above, title acquired through a homestead patent
registered under the Land Registration Act is imprescriptible. Thus,
prescription cannot operate against the registered owner.
Comments
Post a Comment