[Digest] Heirs of Tengco vs. Heirs of Aliwalas and CA (1988)

HEIRS OF TENGCO vs. HEIRS OF ALIWALAS and CA (1988, CORTES, J.)

FACTS:

·         October 12, 1933 - Lot No. 3563 (subject land) of the Arayat Cadastre was originally part of the public domain.

·         Dr. Jose Aliwalas applied with the Bureau of Lands for a homestead patent covering this lot.

o   1936 – Application granted. Homestead Patent No. 38588 was issued in his name.

o   1937 – The homestead patent was duly registered and OCT No. 159 was issued.

·         From that time on, Dr. Aliwalas declared the subject lot for tax purposes and paid the corresponding land taxes thereon. As owner, Dr. Aliwalas, thru his overseer and caretaker Espiridion Manaul, had this parcel fenced and vegetables were planted in some portions. Other portions were dedicated to cattle raising until WWII.

·         After the war, tenants of Dr. Aliwalas planted crops on the subject land. Manaul was still caretaker and delivered to Dr. Aliwalas the owners’ share in the harvests.

·         1962 – Dr. Aliwalas died – management over the subject parcel passed to his son Jose Jr.

o   Subsequently, the heirs partitioned Dr. Aliwalas’ estate the subject land was distributed to Victoria Vda. De Aliwalas (the widow) à Partition was approved by RD of Pampanga à OCT in Victoria’s name (Nov 1966). Also has TD and paid real estate taxes thereon.

·         October 31, 1973 - Ponciano Tengco representing the Heirs of Gregorio Tengco filed an application with the Bureau of Lands. Among other things, he alleged that the subject parcel of land had been occupied and cultivated originally and continuously by Gregorio. à APPROVED + issued Free Patent No. 557692 on February 5, 1974.

o   The Free Patent was issued upon the assumption that the lot still formed part of the public domain and on the findings of the Public Land Inspector Romeo Buenaventura who conducted an investigation and reported that the land was possessed and occupied by the Tengcos who had planted different kinds of trees on the land aside from rice and corn.

·         On rebuttal, Victoria adduced evidence that there is no record of the Homestead patent in the name of Dr. Aliwalas is because the prewar records of the Bureau of Lands pertaining to public land applications were burned during the war.

·         TC: Victoria as true owner, cancel all certs in Tengcos names, Tengcos must vacate and pays rents 5k/year since 1974 until turn over

·         Heirs of Tengco appealed to CA à CA affirmed TC, MR was denied à Hence this case.

ISSUES:

·         WON TC and CA had jurisdiction?

·         WON the claim of the heirs of Victoria will hold true and prosper before a proper forum; (Tengcos were claiming the Aliwalas title is defective)

·         WON the heirs of Victoria, assuming for the sake of argument, that they have proprietary rights on and to the land in question, have not long lost such rights by laches and/or prescription.

ON JURISDICTION

·         Well-settled rule in jurisprudence: an OCT 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.

ON NON-EXHAUSTION

·         Already been rejected in earlier decisions. à The Director of Lands has the power to review homestead patents only so long as the land remains part of the public domain and continues to be under his exclusive control; but once the patent is registered and a certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be a part of public domain and becomes private property over which the Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction.

ON DEFECTIVE TITLE

·         TENGCOS: (a) Dr. Jose Aliwalas was not qualified to be a homesteader being a rich landed person; and (b) The Aliwalas Family has never been in actual or physical possession of the property, unlike the Tengcos who have been in continuous and open possession of the property since 1918. (EVIDENCE: Report prepared by Librado B. Luna, hearing officer of the Bureau of Lands, attesting to such facts.)

o   SC citing the CA: Aliwalas title to the property having become incontrovertible, CANNOT be collaterally attacked. If indeed there had been any fraud or misrepresentation the proper remedy is an action for reversion instituted by the OSG.

ON LACHES AND PRESCRIPTION

·         TENGCOS: The Aliwalas Family has never actually possessed the property unlike the Tengcos (same as their 2^nd reason as to why the Aliwalas title is defective)

o   UNTENABLE à Title acquired through a homestead patent registered under the Land Registration Act is imprescriptible. Thus, prescription cannot operate against the registered owner.

o   Citing CA: The Aliwalas Family have NOT slept on their rights. SC cited the facts (having a caretaker, tenants, planting on the land, paying tax, partition) which they found showed that the Aliwas Family had indeed occupied, possessed and exercised rights of ownership over the subject land prior to the filing of the instant suit.

DENIED. AFFIRMED.