Piero v Director of Lands

1. Facts
-

Appeal by Solicitor General from the decision of the Court of First Instance;
granting the writ of prohibition of Antonio Piero, Emma Piero Bernard, and
Fortunato Piero against the Director of Lands
There are 3 lots in question: Lot No. 5790, Lot No. 5792, and Lot No. 2532
owned by Antonio Piero, Emma Piero Bernard, and Fortunato Piero
respectively
Pursuant to free patents of Antonio and Emma, original certificate of titles
were issued to them
Fortunato applied for patent under homestead, but has not been issued any
patent or title as of yet
Eusebio Camansi, Nicanor Alasaas, and Tomas Sumalpon subsequently
protested against the patents and titles of Antonio, Emma, and Fortunato,
alleging fraud in the acquisition of said patents and titles
The Director of Lands then ordered for the titles to be investigated
The authority of the Director of Lands to order such investigation was
questioned

2. Relevant Issue
-

Whether or not the Director of Lands had authority to order the investigation
of the patents and title

3. Relevant Decision
-

YES. The Director of Lands had authority to order the investigation.

4. Doctrine
-

It is not only the right but the DUTY of the Director of Lands to conduct
investigation of any alleged fraud in securing a free patent, and the
corresponding title to a pubic land
He may also file the corresponding court action for the reversion of the public
land to the State
Sec. 91 of the Public Land Act states:
It shall be the duty of the Director of Lands, from time to time and whenever
he may deem it advisable, to make the necessary investigations for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the material facts set out in the application
are true, or whether they continue to exist and are maintained and preserved
in good faith..

MAGSINO, PATRICIA MARIE C.

5. Questions
a) Mr. A applied for a free patent over Lot. 112, this was granted. An Original
Certificate of Title was then issued in his favor. Mr. B alleged that the patent
and the title were secured through fraud. Mr. C, the Director of Lands, ordered
the investigation of the patent and title. Mr. A questioned the investigation.
Was Mr. C correct in ordering the investigation of the patent and the title?
Yes? No? Why?
-

Yes. Mr. C was correct in ordering for the investigation of the patent and the
title. Under Sec. 91 of the Public Land Act, it is his right and duty to
investigate any alleged fraud in securing a free patent and title.

b.) What is the proper remedy of the government if a patent was secured through
fraud?
-

The proper remedy is for the government, through the OSG, to file for an
Action for Reversion.
The objective of an action for reversion of public land is the cancellation of
the certificate of title and the resulting reversion of the land covered by the
title to the State. (Cawis v. Cerilles)

MAGSINO, PATRICIA MARIE C.