Week 6 – Land Titles and Deeds

BALBOA vs. FARRALES

51 Phil. 498 [1928]

FACTS:

(1) In the year 1913, the plaintiff Buenaventura Balboa filled with the Bureau of Lands an application for
homestead, No. 10619, under the provisions of Act No. 926, covering a tract of land situated in the
barrio of Culis, municipality of Hermosa, Province of Bataan, containing 14 hectares, 49 ares and 77
centares. (2) Five years thereafter, or in 1918, Balboa submitted proof, showing his residence upon, and
cultivation of said land, as well as his compliance with all of the other requirements of section 3 of said
Act No. 926, which final proof was approved by the Director of Lands on February 15, 1918. On July 1,
1919, said Act No. 926 was repealed by Act No. 2874. (3) On September 10, 1920, or over a year after
Act No. 2874 had gone into effect, the homestead patent for said land, otherwise known as certificate of
title No. 91 was issued in favor of Buenventura Balboa by the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands.
(4) On August 11, 1924, said Buenaventura Balboa, for and in consideration of the sum of P950, sold said
land to the defendant Cecilio L. Farrales; and on October 16, 1924, the latter secured in his name
transfer certificate of title No. 650 of said land. On March 6, 1926, the plaintiff commenced the present
action for the purpose of having said sale declared null and void on the ground of lack of consent on his
part and fraud on the part of the defendant, and on the further ground that said sale was contrary to,
and in violation of the provisions of section 116 of Act No. 2874.The lower court Judge rendered a
decision on the basis that the said sale was null and void since, The sale was done before the lapse of
five years upon the issuance of the certificate, which in accordance with act no. 2874.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Act 2874 and not act 926 shall be applicable to Balboa.

RULING:

No. Since the acquisition of the land and final completion of the requirements was done by Balboa prior
to the repeal of Act 926 by act no. 2874, also upon the submission of the final requirement by Balboa, he
acquire vested right over the patent granted unto him. The fact the homestead patent or certificate of
title No. 91 was issued on September 10, 1920, after the repeal of Act No. 926, and under the provisions
of section 116 of the repealing Act No. 2874, cannot prejudice the vested right acquired by Balboa under
the provisions of the former Act. The issuance of the certificate of title was a mere ministerial act. The
only prohibition contained in Act No. 926 against alienation of homestead acquired under said law,
appears in section 4 thereof, which reads as follows: "No lands acquired under the provisions of this
chapter shall in any event become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the issuance
of a patent therefor." It follows, therefore that the sale of the land in question by the plaintiff Balboa to
the defendant Farrales does not infringe said prohibition and consequently said sale is valid and binding
and should be given full force and effect of law. Section 116 of Act No. 2874, which prohibits the sale of
homestead land during the period of five years subsequent to the issuance of the patent or certificate of
title upon which rests the decision of the court a quo, cannot be invoked to annul the sale in question.
Said prohibition, if applied in the present case, would impair and diminish the vested rights, hence the
court reversed the decision of the lower court.

Page 1 of 4
Week 6 – Land Titles and Deeds

RAMOSO vs. OBLIGADO

70 Phil. 86 [1940]

SYLLABUS

1. HOMESTEAD PATENT; REGISTRATION; JURISDICTION OF CADASTRAL COURT. — A homestead patent,

once registered under the Registration Act, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title, and cannot
thereafter be the subject of an investigation for determination or judgment in a cadastral case. Any new
title which the cadastral court may order to be issued is null and void and should be cancelled. All that
the cadastral court may do is to make corrections of technical errors in the description of the property
contained in its title, or to proceed to the partition thereof if it is owned by two or more coowners.
(Pamintuan v. San Agustin, 43 Phil., 558, 561; El Hogar Filipino v. Olviga, 60 Phil., 17, 18.) Accordingly,
the order of registration issued by the cadastral court in favor of the widow is null and void, and,
consequently, no valid transfer could have been made by her in favor of the petitioner, A. R. In other
words, the latter has no right to the property.

2. COURTS; FAILURE TO QUESTION JURISDICTION OF COURT OF APPEALS. — It is true that this is a

question of jurisdiction of the cadastral court, which the Court of Appeals may not entertain. But there is
no showing that the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals on this matter and
has taken the proper steps to have the case certified to this court. Under this circumstance, this court
will confine itself to reviewing the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals on the question of
jurisdiction and such other questions of law as have been properly raised by the petitioner.

DECISION

MORAN, J.:

An appeal by certiorari from the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

One Feliciano Capinpin was owner of a homestead granted him on September 21, 1921 and registered
in the office of the registrar of deeds of Nueva Ecija under title No. 1080. He died, and his widow, Luisa
Jarduela, and son by the first marriage, Geronimo Capinpin, sold the property to respondent Juan
Obligado on May 17, 1930. When the cadastral proceedings were opened in Nueva Ecija, the widow,
without the son, claimed the property, and the court awarded it to her on December 10, 1929, the final
decree of registration and the original certificate of title having been issued on December 8, 1930, and
January 7, 1931, respectively. On October 26, 1934, the widow transferred the property to her lawyer,
Armesto Ramoso, the herein petitioner, in whose favor transfer certificate of title No. 8550 was issued.
The question now is whether Armesto Ramoso, under his transfer certificate of title, is entitled to the
property as against the first transferee, Juan Obligado.

A homestead patent, once registered under the Registration Act, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens
title, and cannot thereafter be the subject of an investigation for determination or judgment in a
cadastral case. Any new title which the cadastral court may order to be issued is null and void and
should be cancelled. All that the cadastral court may do is to make corrections of technical errors in the
description of the property contained in its title, or to proceed to the partition thereof if it is owned by

Page 2 of 4
Week 6 – Land Titles and Deeds

two or more coowners. (Pamintuan v. San Agustin Et. Al., 43 Phil., 558, 561; El Hogar Filipino v. Olviga Et.
Al., 60 Phil., 17, 18.) Accordingly, the order of registration issued by the cadastral court in favor of the
widow is null and void, and, consequently, no valid transfer could have been made by her in favor of the
petitioner, Armesto Ramos. In other words, the latter has no right to the property.

It is argued, however, that, if in a cadastral proceeding, the court may order the partition of the property
already registered, then it may also validly award the property in favor of the supposed sole heir of the
person in whose favor the title was issued. This conclusion is wrong. Awarding the property to a
supposed sole heir is not ordering its partition. If, according to the registered title, the property belongs
to several owners, the cadastral court may order partition among them. But when the registered title
belongs to only one person, the cadastral court cannot, if that person is dead, order the registration of
the property in favor of the heirs or its partition among them, for that would presuppose a declaration
of heirs, a function which devolves upon probate courts. We do not mean to say that the cadastral court
cannot do so in connection with unregistered lands, the actual ownership of which it must determine.
But when the ownership has already been determined and a registered title has already been issued,
the cadastral court cannot adjudicate anew the ownership of the property and order the issuance of an
original title to successors in interest. Such successors in interest, either by inheritance or by contract,
are entitled only to a transfer certificate of title which can be issued in proceedings that are not proper
in a cadastral court. The issuance of an original title to the successors in interest is in fact equivalent to
setting aside the original title issued in favor of their predecessor in interest. And this cannot be done by
the cadastral court.

It is true that this is a question of jurisdiction of the cadastral court, which the Court of Appeals may not
entertain. But there is no showing that the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals on this matter and has taken the proper steps to have the case certified to this Court. Under this
circumstance, this court will confine itself to reviewing the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals on
the question of jurisdiction and such other questions of law as have been properly raised by the
petitioner.

In the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals, it is held that the herein petitioner acted in bad faith
in acquiring the property from Luisa Jarduela, for, prior to the acquisition, he knew that the property
had already been sold to Juan Obligado. This is a question of fact which we will not review. And the
finding of the Court of Appeals on this matter is another ground for holding that the petitioner has no
right to the property.

Judgment is affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

PAMINTUAN vs. SAN AGUSTIN

43 Phil. 561 [1922]

FACTS:

On April 19, 1917 a lot title was decreed in favor of Pamintuan. Another cadastral case was instituted on
the land. Pamintuan inadvertently failed to claim the lot of trial of the cadastral case, and the Court of
First Instance in a decision dated April 29, 1919, awarded it to the respondents Espinosa. The petitioner

Page 3 of 4
Week 6 – Land Titles and Deeds

further prays that upon said records being so certified that all proceedings in subsequent cadastral case
be declared null and void.

ISSUE:

Did the court exceeded its jurisdiction in undertaking to decree in a cadastral case land already decreed
in another land registration case?

RULING:

Yes. The "settlement and adjudication" of a land title under the Cadastral Act is exactly that provided for
in the land Registration (now Property Registration Decree), i.e., a proceeding culminating in the
issuance of a final decree and a Torrens certificate of title in favor of the owner of the land. It cannot
have been the intention of the Legislature to provide a special proceeding for the settlement and
adjudication of titles already settled and adjudicated. In cadastral case, the jurisdiction of the court over
lands already registered is limited to the necessary correction of technical errors in the description of
the lands, provided, such corrections, do not impair the substantial rights of the registered owner, and
that such jurisdiction cannot operate to deprive a registered owner of his title.

Page 4 of 4