VOL. 349, JANUARY 483 defense in an action for cancellation of title acquired through fraud.

18, 2001 These two cases refer to actions for cancellation of title initiated by
the government, through the Solicitor General, after a finding of
Omandam vs. Court of fraud by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Appeals In Padre vs. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 446 (1992) we said that in
G.R. No. 128750. January 18, 2001. *
an action for quieting of title, the court may determine incidentally
CARQUELO OMANDAM and ROSITO the right to the possession thereof, in order to provide complete relief
ITOM,  petitioners, vs. COURT
1
OF APPEALS, BLAS to the parties. The
TRABASAS and AMPARO BONILLA, respondents.
_______________
Appeals; Well-entrenched is the rule that the Supreme Court’s
jurisdiction in a petition for review is limited to reviewing or *
 SECOND DIVISION.
revising errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, 1
 “Itom” in the petition for review, but “Etom” in the signature portion of the
findings of fact below being generally conclusive on the Court.—In Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, Rollo, p. 20.
the first two assigned errors, petitioners apparently question findings 484
of fact by the Court of Appeals while disputing the claim of 48 SUPREME
possession by private respondents and their predecessors-in-interest. 4 COURT REPORTS
The appellate court had stated firstly that respondent Trabasas ANNOTATED
bought the subject land from Sayson who presented herself as the
true owner, then secondly, that he bought the land from Lasola also.
Omandam vs. Court of
The first two issues, in our view, raise questions of fact. Well- Appeals
entrenched is the rule that the Court’s jurisdiction in a petition for last case refers to determination of rightful possession in
review is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law allegedly possessory actions.
committed by the appellate court. Findings of fact below are Same; Same; Courts; Administrative
generally conclusive on the Court. It is not for the Court to weigh Law; Homesteads; Courts have no jurisdiction to inquire into the
evidence all over again. There are instances where the Court departs validity of the decree of registration issued by the Director of Lands
from this rule. However, petitioners did not show that involved here —only the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
is an exceptional instance. Hence, we need not tarry on the first two Secretary can review, on appeal, such decree.—Notwithstanding the
assignments. formulation by the petitioners in the third assigned error, the real
Land Registration; Land Titles; Torrens System; Fraud; The issue raised in this case involves the trial court’s jurisdiction vis-à-
indefea-sibility of a Torrens Title cannot be used as a defense in an vis administrative agencies. What is the effect of the trial court’s
action for cancellation of title acquired through fraud.—In Director decision in a possessory action on the order of Bureau of Lands
of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 17 SCRA 71 (1966), we ruled that a regarding a homestead application and decision of the DENR on the
void title may be cancelled. A title over a disposable public land is protest over the homestead patent? Commonwealth Act 141 as
void if its grantee failed to comply with the conditions imposed by amended, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, gives in its
law. In Director of Lands vs. Abanilla, 124 SCRA 358 (1983), we sections 3 and 4 to the Director of Lands primarily and to the
held that the indefeasibility of a Torrens Title cannot be used as a Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (now the Secretary

1|Page
of Department of Environment and Natural Resources) ultimately the reversing and setting aside the decision of the Regional Trial
authority to dispose and manage public lands. In this regard, courts Court of Zamboanga Del Sur, Branch 23, dated November 15,
have no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the decree of 1996, and the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated
registration issued by the Director of Lands. Only the DENR February 21, 1997, denying the petitioners’ motion for
Secretary can review, on appeal, such decree. reconsideration.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same.—DENR’s jurisdiction over
On January 29, 1974, the Bureau of Lands in Pagadian City
public lands does hot negate the authority of courts of justice to
resolve questions of possession and their decisions” stand in the issued in favor of Camilo Lasola Homestead Patent No. IX-6-
meantime that the DENR has not settled the respective rights of 40 covering Lot No. 8736, with an area of 23,985 sq. m. in
public land claimants. But once the DENR has decided, particularly Sagrada, Tambulig, Zamboanga del Sur. On April 28, 1978, the
with the grant of homestead patent and issuance of an OCT and then Register of Deeds issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
TCT later, its decision prevails. No. P-22-690 in his name.
On April 28, 1983, respondent Bias Trabasas bought the
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court land from a Dolores Sayson who claimed she was the owner of
of Appeals. said land. In 1984, Trabasas discovered that petitioners
Carquelo Omandam and Rosito Itom had occupied the land.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Meanwhile, on July 19, 1987, Omandam protested Lasola’s
     Rufino Y. Aloot for petitioners. homestead patent before the Bureau of Lands and prayed for
     Jose A. Bersales for private respondent. cancellation of the OCT. Upon Say son’s advice, Trabasas
repurchased the land from Lasola, who executed a deed of sale
QUISUMBING, J.: dated September 24, 1987. On August 9, 1989, Trabasas
acquired a new transfer certificate of title.
This petition  for review seeks the reversal of the decision dated
1

On April 16, 1990, spouses Bias Trabasas and Amparo

October 29, 1996, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
Bonilla filed a complaint against petitioners for recovery of
44442,
possession and/or ownership of the land with the Regional
_______________ Trial Court of Zamboanga del Sur. They alleged that they were
the true and registered owners of the land and Omandam and
 Rollo, pp. 6-25.
1
Itom should vacate it.
485 Petitioners answered that they purchased the land from one
VOL. 349, JANUARY 485 Godofredo Sela who had been in possession for almost twenty
18, 2001 years. After the parties were duly heard, the Regional Trial
Omandam vs. Court of Court issued its decision on November 15, 1993 declaring that
Appeals neither respondents herein nor their predecessors-in-interest
were ever in possession of the land. Citing Director of Lands

2|Page
vs. Court of Appeals, 17 SCRA 71 (1966), Director of Lands in acquiring the patent, hence there is no ground for its
vs. Abanilla, 124 SCRA 358 (1983) and Padre vs. Court of revocation and cancellation of its corresponding title.
Appeals, 214 SCRA 446 (1992), the trial court disposed: On October 29, 1996, the Court of Appeals reversed the
WHEREFORE, finding that the plaintiffs have no equitable right to trial court. It decided thus:
the possession of the land under litigation, judgment is hereby WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the appealed decision is
rendered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff— hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, a new one is hereby issued
486 ordering defendants-appellees to vacate the subject land and
48 SUPREME COURT surrender it to plaintiff-appellant.
6 REPORTS Cost against defendants-appellees.
ANNOTATED SO ORDERED. 4

Omandam vs. Court of _______________

Appeals
2
 Rollo, p. 42.
3
 Executive Order No. 192 providing for the reorganization of the
1. 1)Finding the defendants to have equitable right to the Department of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, transferred to the
possession of the land in litigation. regional field offices the line functions and powers of the Bureau of Lands.
2. 2)Ordering the plaintiffs to reconvey the title of the land 4
 Id at 31.
under litigation in the name of the plaintiffs to the 487
defendants within 30 days from the date this decision VOL. 349, JANUARY 487
becomes final and executory, and upon their failure to so 18, 2001
comply, ordering the Clerk of Court to execute in behalf of
the plaintiffs the necessary deed of conveyance over the Omandam vs. Court of
said land in favor of the defendants which deed would be Appeals
considered sufficient to authorize the Register of Deeds of The Court of Appeals declared that petitioners’ collateral attack
Zamboanga del Sur, Pagadian City, to cause the on the homestead title, to defeat private respondents’ accion
cancellation of the Torrens Certificate of Title in the names publiciana, was not sanctioned by law; that the patent and title
of the plaintiffs, and in lieu thereof, to issue another in the of Camilo Lasola, private respondents’ predecessor-in-interest,
common names of the defendants. had already become indefeasible since April 28, 1977; and that
petitioners’ action for reconveyance in the nature of their
SO ORDERED. 2

protest with the Bureau of Lands and counterclaim in their

Private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. Pending answer to the complaint for recovery of possession, already
the appeal, the Department of Environment and Natural prescribed.
Resources (DENR)-Region IX dismissed Omandam’s protest Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was
previously filed with the Bureau of Lands.  It said that 3

denied on February 21, 1997. Hence, this petition for review.

Omandam failed to prove that Lasola, respondents’
predecessor-in-interest, committed fraud and misrepresentation
3|Page
Petitioners make the following assignment of errors, alleging 488
that the Court of Appeals erred in: 48 SUPREME COURT
8 REPORTS
1. I. . . HOLDING THAT ONE OF THE UNDISPUTED ANNOTATED
FACTS IS THAT “ On April 28, 1983, plaintiff bought the Omandam vs. Court of
subject land from Dolores Sayson who presented herself to
be the true owner of the subject land; Appeals
2. II. . . HOLDING THAT ANOTHER UNDISPUTED FACT petition for review is limited to reviewing or revising errors of
IS THAT “. . . sometime in 1984 plaintiff discovered that law allegedly committed by the appellate court. Findings of
defendants had entered and had occupied the subject land. fact below are generally conclusive on the Court. It is not for
Upon instructions of Dolores Sayson, plaintiff approached the Court to weigh evidence all over again.  There are instances
6

Camilo Lasola and again bought the subject land, this time where the Court departs from this rule.  However, petitioners
7

from Camilo Lasola; did not show that involved here is an exceptional instance.
3. III. . . IGNORING THE FINDINGS OF THE REGIONAL Hence, we need not tarry on the first two assignments.
TRIAL COURT WHICH THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED In the third assignment of error, petitioners aver that public
THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO ITS respondent erred in ignoring the trial court’s finding that
CONCLUSION THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
private respondents had no equitable possession of the subject
AND CAMILO LASOLA HAD NO EQUITABLE
POSSESSION ON THE SUBJECT LAND, WHICH land. Again, we are confronted with a question of fact. But
LACK OF EQUITABLE POSSESSION MAKES SOME petitioners claim the appellate court had disregarded or even
OF THE RECENT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME contradicted our holdings in the cited cases of Director of
COURT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE. 5 Lands, Abanilla, and Padre.
In Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 17 SCRA
In the first two assigned errors, petitioners apparently question 71 (1966), we ruled that a void title may be cancelled. A title
findings of fact by the Court of Appeals while disputing the over a disposable public land is void if its grantee failed to
claim of possession by private respondents and their comply with the conditions imposed by law. In Director of
predecessors-in-interest. The appellate court had stated firstly Lands vs. Abanilla, 124 SCRA 358 (1983), we held that the
that respondent Trabasas bought the subject land from Sayson indefeasibility of a Torrens Title cannot be used as a defense in
who presented herself as the true owner, then secondly, that he an action for cancellation of title acquired through fraud. These
bought the land from Lasola also. The first two issues, in our two cases refer to actions for cancellation of title initiated by
view, raise questions of fact. Well-entrenched is the rule that the government, through the Solicitor General, after a finding
the Court’s jurisdiction in a of fraud by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. In Padre vs. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA
_______________ 446 (1992) we said that in an action for quieting of title, the
court may determine incidentally the right to the possession
 Id., at 7.
5

4|Page
thereof, in order to provide complete relief to the parties. The Thereafter, respondents Trabasas and Bonilla instituted the
last case refers to determination of rightful possession in present action in the Regional Trial Court for recovery of
possessory actions. possession and/or ownership. As mentioned earlier, the trial
Notwithstanding the formulation by the petitioners in the court held that petitioners were entitled to a declaration of
third assigned error, the real issue raised in this case involves equitable possession over the area in question. Said trial court
the trial court’s jurisdiction vis-à-vis administrative agencies. then ordered the cancellation of respondents’ title and the
What is the effect of the trial court’s decision in a possessory issuance of a new one. In effect, the court’s order reversed the
action on the order of Bureau of Lands regarding a homestead award made by the Director of Lands in favor of Lasola. This
application and decision of the DENR on the protest over the reversal was in error, for the proper administrative agency, the
homestead patent? DENR under CA 141, had prior jurisdiction over the patent on
the subject matter, which is the contested homestead area.
_______________ DENR’s jurisdiction over public lands does not negate the
 Co vs. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 195, 200 (1995); Gobonseng, Jr. vs.
6
authority of courts of justice to resolve questions of possession
Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 472 (1995). and their decisions stand in the meantime that the DENR has
 Bautista vs. Mangaldan Rural Bank, Inc., 230 SCRA 16 (1994).
7
not set-
489
VOL. 349, JANUARY 489 _______________
18, 2001  CA 141, Sec. 3: The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources shall
8

Omandam vs. Court of be the executive officer charged with carrying out the provisions of this Act
Appeals through the Director of Lands, who shall act under his immediate control.
Sec. 4: Subject to said control, the Director of Lands shall have direct
Commonwealth Act 141 as amended, otherwise known as the executive control of the survey, classification, lease, sale or any other form of
Public Land Act, gives in its sections 3 and 4 to the Director of concession or disposition and management of the lands of the public domain,
Lands primarily and to the Secretary of Agriculture and and his decisions as to questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved by
Natural Resources (now the Secretary of Department of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
 Maximo vs. Court of First Instance of Capiz, Br. III, 182 SCRA 420, 426
9

Environment and Natural Resources) ultimately the authority (1990).

to dispose and manage public lands.  In this regard, courts have
8
490
no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the decree of 49 SUPREME COURT
registration issued by the Director of Lands.  Only the DENR
9
0 REPORTS
Secretary can review, on appeal, such decree. ANNOTATED
It will be recalled that the Bureau of Lands approved
Omandam vs. Court of
Lasola’s homestead application on May 21, 1968. No appeal
was made therefrom. Nineteen years after, or on July 9, 1987,
Appeals
Omandam filed the protest with the Bureau of Lands. tied the respective rights of public land claimants.  But once 10

the DENR has decided, particularly with the grant of

5|Page
homestead patent and issuance of an OCT and then TCT later, DENR Regional Director up to the present, five years have
its decision prevails. lapsed. From this, we can
In this case, Lasola applied for a homestead patent over the
contested area in 1967. His application was granted on May 21, _______________
1968. The Order for the issuance of the patent was issued by  Rallon vs. Ruiz, 28 SCRA 331, 339 (1969).
10

the Bureau of Lands on January 29, 1974 and the  124 SCRA 358 (1983).
11

corresponding Original Certificate of Title was issued by the  Rollo, pp. 110-113.
12

Register of Deeds on April 28, 1976. From the three latter 491
dates, no appeal was made. It was only on July 9, 1987, i.e., 13 VOL. 349, JANUARY 491
years from the date of the Order directing the issuance of the 18, 2001
patent that petitioners protested the homestead grant with the Omandam vs. Court of
Bureau of Lands. Despite the said lapse of time, the Bureau of Appeals
Lands gave due course to the protest relying on our ruling conclude that no appeal has been made and that the DENR
in Director vs. Abanilla  that the doctrine of indefeasibility of
11
decision dismissing the petitioners’ protest and upholding
title does not apply when the grant is tainted with fraud and respondents’ right on the contested area has attained finality.
misrepresentation. From this date, Lasolas’ right of possession By now it appears indubitable that private respondents,
based on his OCT and eventually that of respondents were put spouses Trabasas and Bonilla, have been duly confirmed in
on issue. In their desire to get possession of the property, their right to possession of Lot No. 8736 as owners thereof. By
respondents instituted an action for recovery of possession virtue of the deed of sale executed by OCT holder Camilo
and/or ownership on April 16, 1990 with the Regional Trial Lasola as early as September 24, 1987, in favor of Trabasas,
Court. Said court rendered its decision against respondents on who then secured a transfer certificate of title in his name,
November 15, 1993. Respondents appealed to the Court of private respondents clearly have superior right over the land
Appeals. Pending the appeal or on March 23, 1995, the DENR- claimed by petitioners Omandam and Itom. The appellate court
Region IX dismissed petitioners’ protest on the ground of did not err in upholding the right of private respondents, and in
absence of fraud and misrepresentation committed by ordering the petitioners to vacate and surrender the land to said
respondents’ predecessors-in-interest.  On October 29, 1996,
12
respondents.
the Court of Appeals promulgated the decision subject of this WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the decision of
petition in favor of respondents. Petitioners then brought the the Court of Appeals dated October 29, 1996, and its resolution
instant case to us. dated February 21, 1997, are AFFIRMED. Costs against
We note that the parties did not manifest as to whether an petitioners.
appeal was made from the decision of the Regional Director of SO ORDERED.
DENR-IX. Further, no mention was ever made in their      Bellosillo (Chairman),  Mendoza, Buena and De Leon,
pleadings regarding the matter. From the said Order of the Jr., JJ., concur.

6|Page
 Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Notes.—The Torrens Title issued on the basis of a free
patent or homestead patent becomes as indefeasible as one
which was judicially secured upon the expiration of one year
from date of issuance of patent. (Republic vs. Court of
Appeals, 255 SCRA 335 [1996])
Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 does not
contain any prohibition to convey homestead land but grants
the homesteader, his widow or legal heirs a right to repurchase
said land within a period of five years in the event that he
conveys said land. (Development Bank of the Philippines vs.
Court of Appeals, 316 SCRA 650 [1999])
A homestead applicant is required by law to occupy and
cultivate the land for his own benefit, and not for the benefit of
someone else. (Saltiga de Romero vs. Court of Appeals, 319
SCRA 180 [1999])

——o0o——

492
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
reserved.

7|Page