847 Phil. 54
CAGUIOA, J:
In 1924, [respondent Estefania] filed an undated homestead application, numbered 151736 ("HA No. 151736"), over a parcel of land, subsequently denominated as Lot No. 7035 of Cad. 211, located in the (sic) San Mateo, Isabela.
On 28 November 1946, Andres Guerrero ("Andres"), common-law husband of [respondent] Estefania, relinquished his rights over a one-hectare portion of Lot No. 7035 in favor of [petitioner Municipality of San Mateo].
On 26 April 1948, allegedly under threat and intimidation by the municipal officials of San Mateo, the Guerreros executed a waiver over the remaining portions of Lot No. 7035 in favor of Angel Madrid [(Madrid)].
In 1948, Lot No. 7035 was subdivided by the Bureau of Lands into Lots 7035-A to 7035-F, under Plan Bsd-10188. The lots were distributed in this manner:• In 1950, a homestead patent covering Lot No. 7035-A was issued to [Madrid]. A certificate of title to said land was subsequently issued to him in 1955.On 12 January 1953, [respondent] Estefania filed a protest ("protest") against any and all applications in conflict with her homestead application.
• Lot Nos. 7035-B to 7035-D were set aside as municipal market site, town plaza, and municipal building site in favor of the Municipality of San Mateo, pursuant to Proclamation No. 90 dated 13 September 1948.
• Lot Nos. 7035-E and 7035-F were made available for and ceded through homestead and/or sales patents, with a portion of Lot [N]o. 7035-F titled under the name of Vidal Cadiz [(Cadiz)] on 22 December 1950.
In the meantime, [respondent] Estefania filed on 5 May 1967 an application for registration of title before the Regional Trial Court of Cauayan, Isabela ("cadastral court"), which application was docketed as LRC Case No. N-259. This application was opposed by [petitioner] Municipality of San Mateo and the Director of Lands, among others. In the same court and proceeding, it appears that [respondent] Estefania filed a manifestation recognizing the ownership of [petitioner] Municipality of San Mateo over Lots 7035-B to 7035-D. On 9 June 1994, the cadastral court rendered a Decision dismissing [respondent] Estefania's application for registration of title over Lot 7035.
Years passed without any official action taken on [respondent] Estefania's homestead application or her protest.
It was only in 2000, through an undated letter-protest filed by Romeo T. Guerrero [(Romeo)] as attorney-in-fact of his grandmother [respondent] Estefania, that there was movement in the case. [Romeo] reiterated [respondent] Estefania's plea for the approval of her homestead application and protest against the fraudulent issuance of patents in conflict with HA No. 151736. The DENR Secretary issued DENR Special Order No. 2000-1187 creating a Special Team ("Galano Team") to investigate the claim of fraud.
On 19 November 2002, the DENR Secretary promulgated Special Order No. 2002-994 creating another Special Team ("Recalde Team") to investigate alleged anomalous issuance of patents by the DENR personnel of Region II, this time covering several lots, though Lot 7035 was still included.
Meanwhile, in a Memorandum dated 23 December 2002, the GSD [(Geodetic Surveys Division)] informed the Recalde Team that "Bsd-10188 was found to be a survey plan of a lot located in Taguig, Rizal and is designated as a cemetery, as per inventory records of the [GSD]."
Believing that the legitimacy of [respondent] Estefania's claim would depend not only on the existence of her homestead application but more importantly, on the existence of an approved final proof which could at least confer a vested right in her favor subject to the defense to be put up by the titleholders, the Recalde Team submitted its Investigation Report on 19 May 2003, with the following comments/recommendations, to wit:The land whose title dates back more than fifty (50) years are no longer in the name of the original titleholder. A great bulk of the lots involved has passed to innocent purchasers for value. These purchasers were transferees of the heirs of the homesteader [e.g.] Madrid and of Teodoro dela Cruz. They relied on the certificates of title of their vendors. To question the validity of its issuance after more than fifty (50) years ago would prejudice the rights of innocent purchasers, cause the citizens to lose confidence in the integrity of the Torrens certificates of title, disturb property right, and subvert public peace. This could be peculiarly unfair in that on its face it is directed against the alleged violators of the law but in reality it is the innocent persons who stand to fell (sic) the impact of the action. And when it is considered that it is not really the homesteader or the original titleholder who will bear the brunt of punishment but the innocent transferees the injustice would become seriously disturbing.The DENR Secretary instructed the Regional Executive Director ("Regional Executive Director") of DENR-Region II to resolve the issue involving Estefania's claim over Lot 7035 in a Memorandum dated 22 August 2003. Thus, on 22 September 2003, the Regional Executive Director promulgated Special Order No. 328 creating another team ("Pablo Team") to investigate [respondent] Estefania's claim.
The facts and fundamental legal and equitable consideration preclude impugnation of the titles which have gone through several buyers and transferees in good faith and for valuable consideration during a period of more than fifty (50) years. It will undermine the principle of indefeasibility of titles which is a basic underpim1ing of the Torrens System of land registration and which was precisely instituted to quiet title to land.
On 6 January 2004, the Pablo Team submitted its Investigation Report, finding that there was no official rejection of HA No. 151736. It did not give credence to the notation "Rejected August 1931" handwritten on the upper left portion of the homestead application for the following reasons:1. Resolution No. 84, dated October 1, 1946 of the Municipality of San Mateo resolving to obtain a Deed of Donation from lot owners where the Municipal Government Site and Public Market would be transferred;The Pablo Team maintained that, based on the Certification of the Bureau of Lands (Central Office) that Plan Bsd-10188 does not correspond to any tract of land in lsabela but is located in Taguig, Rizal, any subdivision of Lot 7035 using Plan Bsd-10188 is fraudulent, spurious and irregular. Contrary to the recommendation of the Recalde Team, the Pablo Team believed that the certificates of title covering Lots 7035-A, 7035-E and 7035-F are not indefeasible because the original owners obtained them through fraud and misrepresentation. It thus submitted the following recommendations.
2. Affidavit, dated November 28, 1946 of Andres Guerrero, husband of [respondent Estefania], forfeiting rights over a 1-hectare portion of Lot 7035 under H.A. 151736;
3. The records show that after the alleged 1931 rejection of H.A. 151736, there were still several investigations conducted by the Land District Office No. 4 of Hagan, Isabela involving Lot 7035 pursuant to the directives of the Director of Lands;
4. Preliminary Investigation Report, dated November 30, 1946 stating that: the lot applied for by [respondent Estefania] is not claimed by anybody; applicant has been occupying and cultivating the land since 1930; the husband of the applicant is a qualified entry man; and the application of [respondent Estefania] was recommended that it be given due course.Considering that there are two (2) conflicting reports on the instant case rendered by the two (2) teams headed by officials belonging to a superior Office - Director Estanislao Z. Galano being from the Office of the Secretary and Atty. Alberto R. Recalde being the OIC, Assistant Director, LMB, it is strongly recommended that the herein treated case be referred back to the DENR Central Office thru the Director, Lands Management Bureau for final decision taking into account our findings that the application of [respondent Estefania] was never rejected and that the issuance of title over Lot 7035 was tainted with fraud.On 11 February 2004, the Regional Executive Director submitted its Memorandum for the DENR Secretary, concurring with the recommendation .of the Regional Investigating Committee (the Pablo Team).
Further, the following courses of action are recommended[,] to wit:A. To set aside and/or declare Bsd-10188 non-existent in so far as the subdivision of Lot 70335 (sic), CAD 211 is concerned;
B. To initiate the proper proceedings for the cancellation of titles issued to certain individuals covering portions of Lot 7035 on the basis of adopting Bsd-10188 which is non-existent;
C. To relocate the metes and bounds of Lot 7035 in accordance with Bsd-6434 which was the first subdivision plan of Lot
7035 and was approved on October 11, 1938.
On 12 May 2005, [respondent Estefania] and the Heirs of [Andres], represented by Maria Teresa Guerrero and [Romeo], filed before the DENR Secretary an Urgent Omnibus Petition and Executive Summary re: the Miguel-Guerrero Case[7] praying that the recommendation by the Regional Investigating Committee be affirmed and issue orders accordingly.
The DENR Secretary dismissed the petition in its Order[8] dated 25 October 2005, finding that on two separate occasions, [respondent] Estefania and Andres executed documents waiving their rights to the land subject of their homestead application. The DENR Secretary reasoned that even if the execution of said waivers was allegedly vitiated by force, threat and intimidation, the Guerreros failed to have the purportedly voidable waivers annulled. The DENR Secretary concluded that, in the light of the waivers, the fact that [respondent] Estefania's homestead application was not rejected no longer has bearing.
The DENR Secretary also reasoned that, since the records show that the land covered by Plan Bsd-10188 had long been divided, with patents issued and registered under the Torrens system, the rights to these parcels of land had long been vested. Absent any showing that the subsequent transfers had been tainted by fraud, these rights must be protected.
The Guerreros moved for reconsideration, which was granted by the DENR Secretary in its Order[9] dated 26 October 2006, the dispositive portion of which reads:WHEREFORE, above premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:In reversing the 25 October 2005 Order, the DENR Secretary found that there was fraudulent issuances of homestead patents to [Madrid] and [Cadiz], and accordingly ordered the Regional Executive Director to initiate cancellation and reversion proceedings. It also found that [respondent] Estefania had prefe[re]ntial right and interest over the lot.
1. The Order, dated October 25, 2005 of this Office is hereby REVERSED.
2. The Homestead Application No. 151736 of [respondent Estefania] is hereby AMENDED to cover only Lot Nos. 7035-A, 7035-E and 7035-F, using the technical descriptions of said lots with that of Plans Ap-2590, Bsd-6434 as reference, and subsequently, the said Homestead Application be given FURTHER DUE COURSE. Accordingly, all present pending public land applications covering the said lots are hereby REJECTED.
3. Plan Bsd-10188 is hereby declared as nonexistent insofar as the subdivision of Lot 7035, Cad 211 is concerned and Plan Bsd-6434 is hereby RECOGNIZED being the original Subdivision Plan for San Mateo Cadastre, Province of Isabela;
4. Lot Nos. 7035-B, 7035-C and 7035-D, having been reserved for public purposes of the Municipality of San Mateo under Proclamation 90, Series of 1948, are hereby segregated from the coverage of this case. Accordingly, the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Isabela shall initiate appropriate legal actions to correct whatever defects that are found in its titles on the aforementioned lots;
5. The Regional Executive Director, DENR Region II, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, is hereby directed to immediately initiate cancellation and reversion proceedings against the Original Certificate of Titles issued over Lots 7035-A, 7035-E and 7035-F, Plan Bsd-10188, or portions thereof, for not only utilizing a fictitious and spurious subdivision plan but for having been acquired through fraud and misrepresentation.
SO ORDERED.
[Petitioner] Municipality of San Mateo moved for the reconsideration of the above Order, while [respondent] Estefania manifested that [petitioner] Municipality of San Mateo is not entitled to Lot Nos. 7035-B, 7035-C and 7035-D except the one-hectare portion donated by [Andres]. Edgardo L. Dela Cruz and 40 other persons moved to intervene with attached comment in intervention.
The DENR Secretary dismissed all motions in its Order[10] dated 24 April 2008, x x x[.]
x x x x
The above Order became final and executory on 30 July 2008.[11]
[More than four (4) months after the finality of the DENR's Order, o]n 3 December 2008, [petitioner] Municipality of San Mateo filed a Motion to Stay Execution.[12] It also filed a Supplemental Motion to Stay Execution[13] on 5 January 2009. It subsequently filed a Motion for Ocular Inspection[14] on 16 January 2009.
The DENR, through Undersecretary Sering, informed [petitioner] Municipality of San Mateo by [a L]etter[15] dated 10 February 2009 that it has no more jurisdiction to act on the motions, x x x[.]
xxxx
Petitioners filed a Motion for Clarification[16] of the 10 February 2009 [L]etter, which was received by the DENR on 16 February 2009. Petitioners aver that this Motion for Clarification had not been resolved by the DENR.
Aggrieved, [the petitioners filed a] Petition for Certiorari[17] [before the CA], raising this issue:THE DENR COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DID NOT RESOLVE THE MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION, SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION AND MOTION FOR OCULAR INSPECTION.Petitioners argue that by disowning jurisdiction to resolve the three motions, the DENR gravely and seriously abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. They insist that the three motions were properly filed, and the motion to stay execution was directed to a final and executory judgment. They submit that the DENR['s L]etter dated 10 February 2009 did not resolve the pending motions and instead evaded resolution by simply stating that it has no jurisdiction. Verily, they pray that [the CA] nullify and set aside the [L]etter dated 10 February 2009 and grant their motion to stay execution.[18]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.As explained in the assailed Decision, the CA found in the main that the DENR did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it did not resolve the Motion to Stay Execution in favor of the petitioners in its Letter dated February 10, 2009.
SO ORDERED.[19]