G.R. No.

L-27559 May 18, 1972

BERNABE LOPEZ (M.S.A. VI-1-135), MRS. GLORIA D. RAMA,
a!"#$ %y &#' &(%a)$ *OR+,NA+O RAMA (M.S.A. VINE-),
MELE.IO .ABIDO (M.S.A. NO. VI-1-1/7), SO+ERO ,BAL
(M.S.A. NO. VI-1-2-10), MRS. *ELISA VDA. DE BOR1A (M.S.A.
VI-1-NE-), 1OSE AR2,IZAL (R.P.A. NE-), LEOPOLDO ,BAL
(M.S.A. VI-1-NE-), BIENVENIDO GENSIS (M.S.A. VI-1-NE- ),
ANGEL ALEONAR (R.P.A. NE-), MA.ARIO DE LOS RE3ES
(R.P.A. NE-), DALMA.IO DE LOS RE3ES (R.P.A. NE-),
1,LIAN ABING (R.P.A. NE-), *ELIPE BANDE (R.P.A. NE-),
AN+ONIO SABLE (R.P.A. NE-), ENRI2,E BAS.ON (R.P.A.
NE-), 1. PABALA3A (R.P.A. NE-), ROSARIO EDA4O (R.P.A.
NE-), PEDRO PI.ON (R.P.A. NE-), APOLONIO VILLAMALA
(R.P.A. NE-), 1,ANI+A GASIONG (R.P.A. NE-), GREGORIA
DI.5OSO (R.P.A. NE-), ROD,L*O BA.AN+I (R.P.A. NE-),
+EODORO +ABOGON (R.P.A. NE-), .ARLOS BA.,LI (R.P.A.
NE-), .RISAN+O BA.,LI (R.P.A. NE-), BIBIANO .ALMA
(R.P.A. NE-), NI.ASIO PANSA.ALA, 1R., (R.P.A. NE-),
PON.IANO 3N+ONG (R.P.A. NE-), RES+I+,+A .AB,.AL
(R.P.A. NE-), ANI+A MARI2,I+ (R.P.A. NE-), L,.IANO
.ABARRON (R.P.A. NE-), GREGORIO .AN.ANO (R.P.A.
NE-), BENEDI.+O ALP5ABI+E (R.P.A. NE-), ES+RELLA
PE+AL.ORIN (R.P.A. NE-), plaintiffs-appellants, vs.EMILIO 6
ALBER+O %o"& (')a7#$ PADILLA a &#!' o8 "&# 9a"# 1,AN
PADILLA: "&# DIRE.+OR O* LANDS, B('#a( o8 La)$,
Ma)!9a: a)$ EDGAR -OOLBRIG5+, defendants-appellees.
+EE5AN;EE, J.:p
Direct appeal on questions of law from the orders of the Court of
First Instance of Cebu dismissing plaintiffs' complaint.
Plaintiffs' complaint for cancellation of title and inunction with
pra!er for writ of preliminar! mandator! inunction as filed on "une
#$, #%&&, made the following allegations, as restated b! them in
their brief'
+&a" "&# 9a"# 1(a) Pa$!99a, "&# <'#$#=#o' !) !)"#'#" o8
$#8#)$a)" E7!9!o Pa$!99a a)$ A9%#'"o Pa$!99a, >a "&#
a<<9!=a)" o8 a <(%9!= 9a)$ ()$#' 5o7#"#a$ A<<9!=a"!o) No. V-
/992 8!9#$ >!"& "&# B('#a( o8 La)$ o) February 28, 1939 (par.
), complaint* p. ), record on appeal+*
"&a" o) D#=#7%#' 27, 19/5, "&# &#!' o8 "&# a!$ 1(a) Pa$!99a
>#'# !(#$ O'!?!)a9 .#'"!8!=a"# o8 +!"9# No. 183 >&!=& >a
"'a)='!%#$ !) "&# R#?!"'a"!o) Boo@ o8 "&# P'oA!)=# o8 .#%(
<('(a)" "o "&# <'oA!!o) o8 S#="!o) B1 o8 A=" B9/ o)
1a)(a'y 7, 19//, covering ,ot -os. .%/&-0, .%/&-C, and .%/&-F
described therein (par. ., complaint* pp. .-1, record on appeal+*
+&a" sometime in the year 1958, "&# <9a!)"!88 %#?a)
'#=9a!7!)? "&# a'#a =oA#'#$ %y "&# >a"#' a='o "&# &o'#
o8 Ma7%a9!)?, .#%( .!"y, a)$ a oo) a "&# a7# %#=a7#
"#)a)"a%9#, "&#y =o)"'(="#$ "&#!' $>#99!)? "&#'#o) a)$
=o)#C(#)"9y, "&#y 8!9#$ >!"& "&# B('#a( o8 La)$ a<<9!=a"!o)
"o 9#a# "&# a'#a '#=9a!7#$ a)$ o==(<!#$ %y "&#7 8o' >&!=&
"&#y '#9!?!o(9y <a!$ "&# y#a'9y '#)"a9 $(# "&#'#o) (<a'. B,
=o7<9a!)": <. B, '#=o'$ o) a<<#a9): "&a" o7# o8 "&#7 a9o
8!9#$ >!"& "&# B('#a( o8 La)$, 7!=#99a)#o( a9#
a<<9!=a"!o) ()$#' R#<(%9!= A=" No. 730 =o)!$#'!)? "&# 9o)?
<#'!o$ o8 "!7# >!"&!) >&!=& <9a!)"!88 >#'# o==(<y!)? "&# 9a)$
!) C(#"!o) !) ?oo$ 8a!"&, o<#)9y, =o)"!)(o(9y, <(%9!=9y,
)o"o'!o(9y a)$ ()!)"#''(<"#$9y, >&!=& !)$!A!$(a9 a<<9!=a"!o)
a'# !)$!=a"#$ "&#'#!) (par. 1, supra+*
+&a" "&# a!$ 1(a) Pa$!99a a)$ 9a"#' o) &! &#!', $#8#)$a)"
Pa$!99a, (==##$#$ !) o%"a!)!)? "&# a<<'oAa9 o8 "&# D!'#="o'
o8 La)$ o8 "&#!' &o7#"#a$ a<<9!=a"!o) >!"&o(" #D=9($!)?
"&#'#8'o7 "&# 8o'#&o'# a)$ 7a'&y 9a)$ a >#99 a "&#
a'#a '#=9a!7#$ a)$ o==(<!#$ %y "&# <9a!)"!88 a)$ =oA#'#$ %y
<9a!)"!88E a<<9!=a"!o) "o "&# ?'#a" a)$ !''#<a'a%9# $a7a?# o8
a!$ <9a!)"!88 (par. 2, complaint* p. &, record on appeal+*
"&a" "&# a<<'oAa9 %y "&# D!'#="o' o8 La)$ o8 "&# &o7#"#a$
a<<9!=a"!o) a8o'#a!$ a)$ "&# (%#C(#)" <'o=##$!)?
9#a$!)? "o "&# !(a)=# o8 "&# &o7#"#a$ <a"#)" !)
$#8#)$a)"E 8aAo' >#'# $o)# >!"&o(" "&# @)o>9#$?# o8 &#'#!)
<9a!)"!88 and without consulting the records of the District ,and
3ffice
!) "&# <'oA!)=# a)$ =!"y o8 .#%(, "&'( 8'a($ a)$
7!'#<'##)"a"!o) o8 "&# $#8#)$a)" Pa$!99a (<a'. /,
=o7<9a!)": <. /, '#=o'$ o) a<<#a9): "&a" "&# 9a"# 1(a) Pa$!99a
a)$ 9a"#' &! &#!', "&# $#8#)$a)" Pa$!99a, <'#"#)$#$ "o "&#
B('#a( o8 La)$, Ma)!9a, "&a" "&#!' 5o7#"#a$ A<<9!=a"!o) No.
V-/992 #)"!'#9y =oA#'#$ a) a'#a o8 9a)$ >&!=& "&#y a9o)#
o==(<!#$ a)$ =(9"!Aa"#$, "&# "'("& o8 "&# 7a""#' %#!)? "&a"
7o'# "&a) &a98 o8 "&# a'#a a<<9!#$ %y "&#7 8o' &o7#"#a$ >a
8o'#&o'#, 7a'&y, a)$ =oA#'#$ %y "&# #a, a)$ a <o'"!o) o8
>&!=& >a '#=9a!7#$ a)$ o==(<!#$ %y &#'#!) <9a!)"!88 9o)?
%#8o'# "&# !(a)=# o8 "&# <a"#)" a)$ "!"9# !) $#8#)$a)"E 8aAo'
(par. 4, complaint* p. &, record on appeal+*
+&a" (%#C(#)" "o "&# !(a)=# o8 "&# <a"#)" a)$ "!"9#
a8o'#a!$ "&'o(?& 8'a($, $#=#!" a)$ 7!'#<'##)"a"!o),
$#8#)$a)" Pa$!99a o9$ "&# 9a)$ "o $#8#)$a)" E$?a'
-oo9%'!?&" !) o<#) A!o9a"!o) o8 S#="!o) 118 o8 .o77o)>#a9"&
A=" No. 1B1, a a7#)$#$ %y .o77o)>#a9"& A=" No. B5/, a
a$7!""#$ %y E$?a' -oo9%'!?&" &!7#98 !) &! 9#""#' $a"#$ May
20, 19// "o "&# D!"'!=" La)$ O88!=#', ,and District -o. 5I-I
6ureau of ,ands, Cebu Cit! (par. /, complaint* pp. &-/, record on
appeal+*
+&a" "&# $#8#)$a)" Pa$!99a >'o"# "&# <9a!)"!88 $#7a)$!)?
"&a" "&# 9a""#' Aa=a"# "&# <'#7!# '#=9a!7#$ a)$ o==(<!#$ %y
"&# a!$ <9a!)"!88 %#=a(# a!$ $#8#)$a)" >o(9$ %(99$oF#,
9#A#9 o' 8!99 (< "&# a7# !) o'$#' "o =o)"'(=" !7<'oA#7#)"
"&#'#o): "&a" $#8#)$a)" 7dgar 8oolbright has purchased some
of the houses within the portion reclaimed and occupied b! said
plaintiffs with the evident intent of destro!ing them and bulldo9ing
the houses and:or the lot for the purpose of constructing
improvements thereon (par. %, complaint* p. /, record on appeal+*
;hat notwithstanding the clear and lawful rights of plaintiffs over their
respective lots as assigned and allocated to them b! the 6ureau of
,ands through its regional office in Cebu Cit!, Philippines, defendants
conspiring and wor<ing together threatened and are still threatening to
occup! the premises in question and forcibl! oust plaintiffs from their
humble homes, thereb! compelling plaintiffs to retain the professional
service of undersigned counsel in the sum of P)$,$$$.$$ as attorne!
fees (par. #$, complaint* p. /, record on appeal+* that due to the refusal
of defendants to see the side of the plaintiffs, the! suffered damages to
the tune of P2$,$$$.$$ b! wa! of actual and moral damages (par. ##,
complaint* p. %, record on appeal+* and that plaintiffs will suffer great and
irreparable loss and inur! in the event defendants Padillas and
8oolbright will proceed to destro! the houses of plaintiffs and:or
bulldo9e level or fill up the areas reclaimed and occupied b! them, and
in order to obviate the same, plaintiffs pra! for the issuance of a 8rit of
Preliminar! =andator! Inunction enoining defendants Padillas and
8oolbright or their representatives an all persons acting under their
orders from entering into the lands reclaimed and occupied b! plaintiffs,
from destro!ing and:or bulldo9ing plaintiffs' houses, and bulldo9ing,
leveling or filling up the areas aforesaid, while this case is still pending
(par. #), complaint* p. %, record on appeal+.
1
Plaintiffs accordingl! pra!ed of the lower court to render udgment
>
#. Declaring ?omestead Patent -o. ##)11/ issued in favor of
defendants 7milio Padilla and 0lberto Padilla and its
corresponding 3riginal Certificate of ;itle -o. #/. as procured thru
actual fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, hence null and void,
and in flagrant violation of @ection ##/ of Commonwealth 0ct -o.
#1#, as amended b! Commonwealth 0ct -o. 12&*
). 3rdering the Director of ,ands to eAclude from the coverage of
?omestead 0pplication -o. 5-&%%) the areas which are strictl!
foreshore and marsh! lands as well as those portion which are still
under the sea*
.. 3rdering the Director of ,ands to eAclude from the coverage as
?omestead 0pplication -o. 5-&%%) of defendant Padillas that area
reclaimed and presentl! occupied b! plaintiffs as well as ordering
said officer to approve the lease and miscellaneous sales
applications of plaintiffs eAcluding onl! those portions which ma!
be needed b! the Cit! of Cebu, which sale and lease applications
had been given due course b! the 6urea of ,ands and are still
pending action b! the same to date*
1. 8hile this case is pending, a 8rit of Preliminar! =andator!
Inunction be issued enoining defendants Padillas and 8oolbright
from >
(a+ 7ntering into the areas reclaimed and presentl! occupied b!
plaintiffs*
(b+ Destro!ing and:or bulldo9ing plaintiffs' houses*
(c+ 6ulldo9ing, leveling or filling up the areas reclaimed and
occupied b! plaintiffs*
(d+ @uch act or acts preudicial to plaintiffs in their occupation and
use of the areas reclaimed and occupied b! them*
2. =a<ing permanent the preliminar! mandator! inunction that
ma! be issued b! this ?onorable Court*
&. @entencing defendants to pa! ointl! and severall! to plaintiffs
the sum of P)$,$$$.$$ as attorne!'s fees and the further sum of
P2$,$$$.$$ as actual and moral damages*
4. Branting such other reliefs and remedies as ma! be deemed ust,
proper and equitable in the premises.
2
Private defendants, in due course filed their answer of "une #&,
#%&&, disclaiming an! intention to bulldo9e or destro! plaintiffs'
houses and averring that the! have spent mone! to help those
who reali9ed that the! were squatting on the land and accordingl!
removed their houses. ;he! further set up special defenses in their
answer based on the records of the subect propert! in the 6ureau
of ,ands, as follows'
#.. ;hat "uan Padilla in life, applied for a homestead patent, over
,ot .%/&, Cebu Cadastre, sometime in #%.%. ?e then too<
possession of the land, and made improvements thereon, planted
coconut trees, filled up low places, constructed a small salt bed on
the fringes bordering the sea.
#1. ;he landing 0merican liberation forces made use of the
homestead beach* C.@. tan<s, heav! equipment, and truc<s
passed thru the homestead, and destro!ed the coconut trees, salt
beds, and di<es bordering the sea. 0fter liberation, "uan Padilla
and his sons 7milio and 0lberto renewed building the di<es, and
introduced improvements to compl! with the requirements of the
homestead law.
#2. In #%14 "uan Padilla died* the ?eirs 7milio and 0lberto Padilla
were substituted applicants. ;he! carried on the wor<, and pushed
thru the ?omestead application. In #%1/, long before an! of the
plaintiffs-squatters complainant herein even ever <new of the
homestead, the same was, after due investigation b! the 6ureau of
,ands, dul! approved* and in December 1952, all the requirements
of law having been satisfactorily met, the Director of Lands issued
the decree for the issuance of Patent.
#&. ;here being dela! in the issuance of patent, the ?eirs of "uan
Padilla filed Civil Case -o. 1$1# entitled ?eirs of "uan Padilla vs.
Director of ,ands, for andamus, and the Court of First Instance,
thru then Presiding "udge ?on. 7dmundoPicciodecided on
!ovember 11, 1955 in favor of the Padillas, and the Director of
,ands was ordered to issue the patent.
#4. ;he intervention b! the Cit! of Cebu, in the andamus Civil Case
-o. 1$1# having been dismissed as without merit, said Cebu Cit! filed a
separate civil suit for alleged recover! of title and damages, in Civil
Case -o. 1/44 in #%22. ;his held up the issuance of the patent until
December )4, #%&2, when said case was decided b! the @upreme
Court on appeal, affirming the issuance of patent,
3
and pursuant thereto
3riginal Certificate of ;itle -o. #/. was issued b! the Director of ,ands
in favor of the ?eirs of "uan Padilla.
#/. 0nswering defendants hereb! allege that the decree for the
issuance of patent issued in December #%2) has long since
become final, that 3riginal Certificate of ;itle -o. #/., issued b!
virtue thereof, and pursuant to the final udgment b! the ?on.
@upreme Court is valid, legal, final and indefeasible.
#%. 0nswering defendants aver that prior to the approval of the
?omestead application in #%1/, the ?omestead site, ,ot .%/& had
alread! been segregated from the lands of the public domain and
especiall! upon the decree of the issuance of patent in #%2), the
same was being held and possessed as a private propert! b! the
?eirs of "uan Padilla who had vested equitable title thereto, and as
such not an! portion thereof is subect to an! 0pplication for
Devocable Permit (DP0+ or =iscellaneous sale, as all the plaintiffs
now pretend to claim to have made such applications in #%2/ and
thereafter.
)$. ;hat assuming but not admitting that an! such DP0 or
=iscellaneous @ale 0pplications were ever filed in #%2/ or thereafter,
for an! portion of the ?omestead, ,ot .%/& 3.C.;. -o. #/., the same
must have been either reected, unacted or if accepted such acceptance
must necessaril! be illegal, null and void, for the 6ureau of ,ands or an!
of its 3fficers and emplo!ees has no right to sell or lease privatel!
owned estates.
B
P'!Aa"# $#8#)$a)" further filed under date of "une )/, #%&& a
motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that since plaintiffs
admit in their complaint that E(a+ the! are, as the! have been, since
#%2/, occup!ing the lots described in the complaint* (b+ that the
areas occupied are within the homestead grant of which the
defendant ?eirs of "uan Padilla were issued 3riginal Certificate of
;itle pursuant to a valid decree, affirmed b! the ?on. @upreme
Court, now final and indefeasible* (c+ that plaintiffs have never filed
any opposition against the issuance of the patent, and that in open
court, they manifested thru counsel they have not instituted any
proceedings against the Land authorities, so therefore have not
eAhausted the administrative remedies, a requisite sine qua non
prior to instituting a civil action as required b! law,E the complaint
should be dismissed since plaintiffs not onl! are improper parties
but have no cause of action against defendants, and the lower
court is without urisdiction over the subect matter.
0fter hearing plaintiffs' opposition, the 9o>#' =o('" presided b!
"udge (now appellate ustice+ =ateo Canono!, issued his order of
"ul! #., #%&& $!7!!)? "&# =o7<9a!)" with costs against
petitioners. ;he lower court after citing the applicable legal
principles, ruled that E;he fact that the plaintiffs herein allege that
the! have pending =@0 applications over portions of the land in
question with the 6ureau of ,ands, negates any claim on their part
that they own the said portions as their private property. @o, even if
the! succeed in annulling the title of the respondents to the
propert! in question, the! do not thereb! become the owners of
the same. ?ence, the! have no interest in the land in question
which would entitle them to invo<e the protection of the Court.
0gain, even if this action were to be considered as one for the
reversion of the homestead to the government, it is the "olicitor
#eneral or his representative and not the plaintiffs herein who
have the personality to file the action.E
P9a!)"!88 8!9#$ "&#!' 7o"!o) 8o' '#=o)!$#'a"!o) insisting that
the! had the right under section ./ of 0ct 1%& within the one-!ear
period therein provided to declare null and void the homestead
patent and 3riginal Certificate of ;itle issued in pursuance thereof
on December 4, #%&2 > on the ground that the same were
obtained through fraud and deceit. ;he lower court denied
reconsideration per its order of 0ugust ., #%&&, wherein it ruled
that defendants$ torrens title was no longer susceptible to collateral
attac% through plaintiffs$ action and again stressed plaintiffs$ lac% of
personality or legal interest to assail defendants' title, thus'
It is a rule in this urisdiction that once a public land has been
brought under the ,and Degistration 0ct, the ;orrens title issued
thereto is indefeasible. It is entitled to the same regard as one
issued in a udicial proceeding. ;he ;orrens title is not susceptible
to collateral attac<. ;he decree (or order of the Director of ,ands
for the issuance of the patent in the case of a homestead+ ma! be
reviewed under @ec. ./ of the ,and Degistration 0ct b! filing the
appropriate petition within one !ear from the issuance of the order
for the issuance of the patent. 3r an appeal ma! be ta<en to the
appellate court within the reglementar! period from the decision of
the Court* and in the case of the homestead, the administrative
remedies ma! be pursued. ;hese are the methods of direct attac<.
I) "&# =a# a" %a', "&! .o('" !""!)? a a =o('" o8 ?#)#'a9
G('!$!="!o) &a )o <o>#' "o a))(9 "&# +o''#) "!"9# !(#$ "o
"&# $#8#)$a)", -oo9%'!?&", a)$ o"&#', %#=a(# "&! ! a)
o'$!)a'y =!A!9 a="!o) a)$ !" ! a =o99a"#'a9 a""a=@.
During the discussion of the main motion to dismiss the complaint
and the motion for reconsideration, what is manifest is that the
various plaintiffs have filed =iscellaneous 0pplications covering
various portions of the lots in question. It is not shown that the
applications have alread! been approved. It is more consistent
with the fact and law to state that the Director of ,ands would
abstain from acting on the applications in view of the eAistence of
;orrens title to the land in question, for he is presumed to <now
that the propert! is no longer public land, but private propert!*
hence the 6ureau of ,ands would have no urisdiction over the
same.
?ence, this appeal from the lower court's dismissal order.
Plaintiffs-appellants themselves formulate the Efundamental
issuesE raised b! them, as follows'
(1) -&#"&#' o' )o" "&# =a# a" %a' 8a99 >!"&!) "&# =o<# o8 "&#
<'oA!!o) o8 S#="!o) 38 o8 A=" B9/, o"&#'>!# @)o>) a "&#
La)$ R#?!"'a"!o) A=".
(2) -&#"&#' o' )o" "&# <9a!)"!88 a'# "&# <'o<#' <a'"!# "o %'!)?
"&# a="!o).
(3) -&#"&#' o' )o" "&# .o('" o8 *!'" I)"a)=# o8 .#%( &a
G('!$!="!o) oA#' "&# (%G#="-7a""#' o8 "&# a="!o) a >#99 a
"&# <o>#' "o =a)=#9 "&# <a"#)" a)$ "!"9# !(#$ "o "&#
$#8#)$a)" o) "&# ?'o()$ o8 8'a($.
1. O) a<<#99a)"E 8!'" !(#, "&# 9o>#' =o('" =o''#="9y &#9$ "&a"
H!) o'$!)a'y '#?!"'a"!o) <'o=##$!)? !)Ao9A!)? <'!Aa"# 9a)$,
=o('" 7ay '#-o<#) <'o=##$!)? a9'#a$y =9o#$ %y 8!)a9
$#=!!o) o' $#='##, o)9y >&#) a<<9!=a"!o) 8o' '#A!#> ! 8!9#$
%y "&# <a'"y a??'!#A#$ >!"&!) o)# y#a' 8'o7 "&# !(a)=# o8
"&# $#='## o8 '#?!"'a"!o). A<<9!#$ "o &o7#"#a$ "&# $#='##
o8 '#?!"'a"!o) =o''#<o)$ "o "&# <'o7(9?a"!o) o8 "&# o'$#'
o8 "&# D!'#="o' o8 La)$ 8o' "&# !(a)=# o8 "&# <a"#)" a)$ )o"
"&# a="(a9 !(# o8 "&# <a"#)". (+!)!o A. *'a)=#, 21 O.G.
/205: Ba9%oa A. *#'a9#, 51 Phil. 1%/* Decido, et al., vs. Defaso
et al., B.D. -o. ,-#&&1#, prom. "une )1, #%&2+.E
5
;he facts of record, including this Court's own decision of "anuar!
.$, #%&2 in &ity of &ebu vs' Padilla,
/
show that the order for the
issuance of the patent for the 2.,$$$ square meter homestead lot
in question in favor of the Padillas was issued b! the Director of
,ands on December #&, #%2), which was upheld b! this Court
even as against the adverse claim and opposition of the Cit! of
Cebu in said case* the sale to defendant 8oolbright was made on
"une ), #%&&, and the present action was filed on "une #$, #%&&.
+&# 9o>#' =o('" a==o'$!)?9y &#9$ =o''#="9y "&a" H"&# <#'!o$
>!"&!) >&!=& "o 8!9# "&# a="!o) 8o' '#A!#> o8 "&# "!"9# a)$ "o
a))(9 "&# a9# "o -oo9%'!?&" &a a9'#a$y #D<!'#$,H o) "&#
"'#)?"& o8 "&# '(9!)? o8 Recido
7
H"&a" "&# <a"#)" ! $##7#$
!(#$ (<o) <'o7(9?a"!o) o8 "&# o'$#' o8 "&# D!'#="o' o8
La)$ 8o' "&# !(a)=# "&#'#o8.H
2. O) a<<#99a)"E #=o)$ !(#, "&# 9o>#' =o('" 9!@#>!#
=o''#="9y '(9#$ "&a" <9a!)"!88 =o(9$ )o" <'o<#'9y !)"!"("# "&#
a="!o) 8o' =a)=#99a"!o) o8 $#8#)$a)"E &o7#"#a$ <a"#)" No.
1121B8 a)$ o'!?!)a9 =#'"!8!=a"# o8 "!"9# No. 183 !(#$ !)
<('(a)=# "&#'#o8, !)=# "&# 9a)$ =9#a'9y &a$ =#a#$ "o %#
<(%9!= 9a)$ a)$ <'!Aa"# o>)#'&!< "&#'#o8 &a$ A#"#$ !) 8aAo'
o8 $#8#)$a)" Pa$!99a a)$ "&#!' "'a)8#'## -oo9%'!?&".
Branting arguendo plaintiffs' allegations of fraud and deceit against
defendants and their alleged preferential right under Depublic 0ct
4.$ to purchase the portions of the homestead lot occupied b!
them in #%2/ > which the! insist should be deemed conceded for
purposes of the motion to dismiss filed b! defendants-appellees >
section #$# of the Public ,and 0ct vests onl! in the @olicitor
Beneral or the officer acting in his stead the authorit! to institute
the action on behalf of the Depublic for cancellation of defendants'
title and for reversion of the homestead to the Bovernment.
8
;his
Court has recogni9ed as eAceptions cases where plaintiff-claimant
has sought direct reconve!ance from defendant of public land
unlawfull! and in breach of trust titled b! defendant, on the
principle of enforcement of a constructive trust, but such principle
is in no wa! applicable or invo<ed in the case at bar.
9
.. 0ppellants' third issue insisting that the lower court has
urisdiction over the subect matter of the action and authorit! to
cancel defendants' homestead patent and torrens title, must
necessaril! fail. A (==!)="9y &#9$ %y "&# 9o>#' =o('", "&#
"o''#) "!"9# !(#$ "o $#8#)$a)" !) <('(a)=# o8 "&#
&o7#"#a$ <a"#)" ! )o 9o)?#' (=#<"!%9# "o =o99a"#'a9 a""a=@
"&'o(?& "&# <'##)" a="!o) 8!9#$ %y <9a!)"!88, >&o a 7#'#
a<<9!=a)" o8 '#Ao=a%9# 9#a# <#'7!" o' 7!=#99a)#o(
a<<9!=a"!o) o8 >&a" ! )o> =o)=#$#$9y "!"9#$ <'o<#'"y o8
<'!Aa"# o>)#'&!<, &aA# )o <#'o)a9!"y o' 9#?a9 !)"#'#" !) "&#
8!'" <9a=# "o !)"!"("# "&# a="!o), )o' "o C(#"!o) "&# a9# o8
"&# &o7#"#a$ a99#?#$9y >!"&!) "&# 8!A#-y#a' <'o&!%!"o'y
<#'!o$ o8 #="!o) 118 o8 "&# P(%9!= La)$ A=". S!)=# "&#'# ! )o
&o>!)? "&a" "&#!' a<<9!=a"!o) &aA# %##) a<<'oA#$ %y "&#
D!'#="o' o8 La)$, >&o =o(9$ )o" %# #D<#="#$ "o $o o
@)o>!)? "&a" &# &a !)=# 1952 $#='##$ "&# !(a)=# o8 a
<a"#)" "&#'#8o' a)$ "&# <'o<#'"y &a 9o)? =#a#$ "o %# o8 "&#
<(%9!= $o7a!), "&# 9o>#' =o('" =o''#="9y '(9#$ !"#98 "o %#
%#'#8" o8 a("&o'!"y "o ?'a)" "&# '#9!#8 o(?&" %y <9a!)"!88-
a<<#99a)" o) "&# %a! o8 "&#!' 9a=@ o8 a Aa9!$ =a(# o8 a="!o).
0CC3DDI-B,F, finding no error in the lower court's appealed
orders dismissing the complaint, the same are hereb! affirmed.
8ithout pronouncement as to costs.
(eyes, )'*'L', a%alintal, +aldivar, ,ernando, *arredo, a%asiar
and -ntonio, ))', concur'
&astro, )', too% no part'
&oncepcion, &')', is on leave'