Case # 7 Sumail vs Judge of CFI issued by the Director of Lands equally and finally
grants, awards, and conveys the land applied for to the
Facts: applicant.
Gepuliano filed a case against petitioner Dawaling Case #8 Serna vs CA
Sumail, alleging that he was the owner of the lot in
question by virtue of a Free Patent and an Original Facts: Private respondents Fontanilla filed an action for
Certificate of Title and he had been in possession of the reconveyance with damages and sought to annul OCT
land since 1939 continuously, publicly, and adversely up No. 139 against the petitioners alleging that the
to June, 1949, when Sumail by means of force, threats petitioners took advantage that respondents were in
and intimidation entered the parcel and divested him of USA when they applied for the registration of the land
possession; that several demands had been made for owned by the respondents which the Land Registration
the surrender of the possession of the land which court approved said application. The petitioners opposed
demands defendant had rejected. the said petition saying that they bought the property
from their mother which was actually inherited by her
Defendant filed a counter-claim against Gepuliano and father from Dionisio Fontanilla.
the Director of Lands for the purpose of cancelling
Certificate of Title V-23 covering lot 3633, alleging that Petitioner Amparo said that when Dionisio failed to pay
Gepuliano thru fraud and misrepresentation had filed the survey costs in 1921, Turner Land Surveying
with the Bureau of Lands a falsified application for free Company took the property in question as payment for
patent for the lot, services. Her father, Alberto Rasca, redeemed the
property from Turner evidenced by a deed of sale,
The Director of Lands filed a motion to dismiss which, however, Amparo could not produce in court.
contending that the complaint of Sumail called for the When her father died, Santiago Fontanilla borrowed from
cancellation of a free patent issued by the Director of her mother the deed covering the transfer of the
Lands over a parcel of public land and that the court had property, which Santiago did not return. She said that
no jurisdiction over the subject matter because under the the property was first declared in Alberto's name for
Public Land Act, the Director of Lands had executive taxation purposes in 1951. Later, the property was
control over the concession or disposition of the lands of ceded to her. CFI favoured respondents. However, both
the public domain, and that his findings as to questions parties went to CA. Respondent questioned CFI’s failure
of fact shall be conclusive when approved by the not to grant their moral damages claim. However, CA
Secretary of the Department. affirmed the CFI ruling in toto.
RTC granted the motion to dismiss stating that the lot in Issue: Whether the decision is in accordance with law
question was a public land and Jurisprudence
issue: Whether Director of Lands has jurisdiction over Ruling: Yes. At the time material hereto, registration of
the case untitled land was pursuant to Act No. 496, as amended.
Later, Presidential Decree 1529, the Property
Ruling: No. In ordinary registration proceedings involving
Registration Decree, amended and codified laws relative
private lands, courts may reopen proceedings already
to registration of property. Adjudication of land in a
closed by final decision or decree, only when application
registration (or cadastral) case does not become final
for review is filed by the party aggrieved within one year
and incontrovertible until the expiration of one (1) year
from the issuance of the decree of registration. Here,
after the entry of the final decree. After the lapse of said
there was no decree of registration because instead of
period, the decree becomes incontrovertible and no
an application for registration under the Land
longer subject to reopening or review. However, the right
Registration Act Gepuliano applied for free patent under
of a person deprived of land or of any estate or interest
the Public Land Act. Assuming that even in bringing
therein by adjudication or confirmation of title obtained
public land grants under the Land Registration Law,
by actual fraud is recognized by law as a valid and legal
there is a period of one year for review in cases of fraud,
basis for reopening and revising a decree of registration.
how shall that period of one year be computed? For all
practical purposes we might regard the date of the
issuance of the patent as corresponding to the date of
the issuance of the decree in ordinary registration cases,
because the decree finally awards the land applied for
registration to the party entitled to it, and the patent
