Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 89 views

    Omandam v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Cesyl Patricia Ballesteros
    1) Blas Trabasas and Amparo Bonilla filed a case claiming ownership over a piece of land based on documents showing the Bureau of Lands granted a homestead patent and title to a previous owner, Camilo Lasola. 2) The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, Carquelo Omandam and Rosito Itom, finding neither Trabasas/Bonilla nor their predecessor were ever in possession. 3) On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and found the collateral attack on the homestead title was not allowed and the title had become indefeasible, so it ordered the defendants to vacate the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Omandam v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Cesyl Patricia Ballesteros
    89 views1 page
    1) Blas Trabasas and Amparo Bonilla filed a case claiming ownership over a piece of land based on documents showing the Bureau of Lands granted a homestead patent and title to a previous owner, Camilo Lasola. 2) The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, Carquelo Omandam and Rosito Itom, finding neither Trabasas/Bonilla nor their predecessor were ever in possession. 3) On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and found the collateral attack on the homestead title was not allowed and the title had become indefeasible, so it ordered the defendants to vacate the land.

    Original Description:

    credit tran

    Original Title

    45. Omandam v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Blas Trabasas and Amparo Bonilla filed a case claiming ownership over a piece of land based on documents showing the Bureau of Lands granted a homestead patent and title to a previous owner, Camilo Lasola. 2) The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, Carquelo Omandam and Rosito Itom, finding neither Trabasas/Bonilla nor their predecessor were ever in possession. 3) On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and found the collateral attack on the homestead title was not allowed and the title had become indefeasible, so it ordered the defendants to vacate the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    89 views1 page

    Omandam v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Cesyl Patricia Ballesteros
    1) Blas Trabasas and Amparo Bonilla filed a case claiming ownership over a piece of land based on documents showing the Bureau of Lands granted a homestead patent and title to a previous owner, Camilo Lasola. 2) The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, Carquelo Omandam and Rosito Itom, finding neither Trabasas/Bonilla nor their predecessor were ever in possession. 3) On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and found the collateral attack on the homestead title was not allowed and the title had become indefeasible, so it ordered the defendants to vacate the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Omandam v.

    CA, (Blas Trabasas and Amparo Bonilla)

    Facts: On January 29, 1974, the Bureau of Lands issued a homestead patent in favor of Camilo Lasola for a
    certain land in Sagrada, Tambuling, Zamboanga del Sur. The Register of Deeds also issued an Original
    Title Certificate in his name. On April 28, 1983, Blas Trabasas bought the land from a certain Dolores
    Sayson who claimed to be the owner. In 1984, Trabasas discovered that petitioners Carquelo Omandam
    and Rosito Itom had occupied the land. Meanwhile, on July 19, 1987, Omandam protested Lasola's
    homestead patent before the Bureau of Lands and prayed for the cancellation of the OCT. Upon Sayson's
    advice, Trabasas repurchased the land from Lasola, who executed a Deed of Sale dated September 24,
    1987. On August 9, 1989, Trabasa acquired a new Transfer Certificate of Title. On April 16, 1990, Blas
    Trabasas and Amparo Bonilla filed a complaint for the recovery of possession and/or ownership of the
    land with the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Sur. They alleged that they are the true owners of
    the land and that the petitioners should vacate it.

    Petitioners, on the other hand, alleged that they purchased the land from one Godofredo Sela who have
    been in possession for almost twenty years. After the parties were duly heared, the RTC issued a decision
    on November 15, 1993, declaring that neither Trabasas and Bonilla, nor their predecessor-in-interest were
    ever in possession of the land. The court ordered the Trabasas and Bonilla to reconvey the title of the land
    in the name of the petitioners. The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals. Pending appeal, the
    DENR dismissed Omandam's protest previously filed with the Bureau of Lands. It said that Omandan
    failed to prove that Lasola committed fraud and misrepresentation in acquiring the patent, hence there is
    no ground for the revocation and cancellation of its title. On October 29, 1996, the Court of Appeals
    reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC and ordered the petitioners to vacate the subject land and
    surrender it to Blas Trabasas and Amparo Bonilla. The Court of Appeals declared that the collateral attack
    on the homestead title to defeat private respondents' accion publiciana, was not sanctioned by law; that
    the patent had already become indefeasible since April 28, 1977; and that petitioners' action for
    reconveyance in the nature of their protest with the Bureau of Lands and counterclaim in their answer to
    the complaint for recovery of possession, already prescribed. Petitioners filed a motion for
    reconsideration but was subsequently denied.

    Issue: WON the trial courts decision will affect the order of the Bureau of Lands regarding a homestead
    application and decision of the DENR on the protest over homestead patent?

    Held: Commonwealth Act 141 as amended, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, gives in its Section
    3 and 4 to the Director of Lands primarily and to the Secretary of the DENR ultimately the authority to
    dispose public lands. In this regard, the courts have no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the
    decree of registration issued by the Director of Lands. Only the Secretary of the DENR can review, on
    appeal, such decree. Thus, reversal of the RTC of the award given by the Director of Land to Lasola was
    in error.

    DENR's jurisdiction over public lands does not negate the authority of the courts of justice to resolve
    questions of possession and their decisions stand in the meantime that the DENR has not settled the
    respective rights of public land claimants. But once DENR has decided, particularly with the grant of
    homestead patent and issuance of an OCT and then TCT later, its decision prevails.

    Petition was denied and the decision of the CA was affirmed.

    You might also like