ENVI # 20_Assignment 1

DE LOS ANGELES v. SANTOS

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF LAND. LEONOR DE LOS ANGELES, FEDERICO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL., applicants-appellants, vs.
ISIDORO O. SANTOS, ANTONIO ASTUDILLO, ET AL., THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS and THE PROVINCE OF RIZAL, oppositors-appellees.

G.R. No. L-19615      December 24, 1964; Bengzon, JP, J.:

FACTS: On November 21, 1959 an application for registration of title on 12 parcels of land in Ampid, San Mateo, Rizal,
was filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal by Leonor De Los Angeles and 7 co-applicants. They alleged that they are
“owners pro-indiviso and in fee simple of the aforesaid land.”

The Director of Lands opposed, stating that the land is “a portion of the public domain.” The Province of Rizal also
interposed an opposition, asserting “the required 3.00 meters strips of public easement” on lots along Ampid River and
the creek.

At the initial hearing, an order of general default was issued except against the Director of Lands, the Director of Lands,
the Province of Rizal and 11 private oppositors who appeared therein.

The private oppositors, Julio HIidalgo one among them, filed their written opposition claiming that they “are the lawful
owners of the parcels of land in question, having acquired homestead patents over said lots”.

The Land Registration Commissioner in its report stated that (1) Lot 11 was under patent No. 95856 in the name of Julio
Hidalgo; and (2) That the land registration case filed by herein applicants-appellants was set for hearing but no decision
has as yet been received.

The court then ordered the dismissal of the case as regards Lot 11 without prejudice on the part of the applicants to
pursue the corresponding remedy in any ordinary action. Motion for reconsideration having been denied. Hence, this
appeal.

ISSUE: WON a land registration court which has validly acquired jurisdiction over a parcel of land for registration of title
thereto could be divested of said jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act consisting in the issuance by the
Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering the same parcel of land.

HELD: NEGATIVE. It is well-settled that the Director of Lands’ jurisdiction, administrative supervision and executive
control extend only over lands of the public domain and not to lands already or private ownership. Accordingly, a
homestead patent issued by him over land NOT of the PUBLIC DOMAIN is a nullity, devoid of force and effect against the
owner.

As contended by the applicants, as of Nov. 21, 1957 – date of application for registration, they are already “owners pro-
indiviso” and in “fee simple”. If this is the case, then Julio Hidalgo’s homestead patent over Lot 11 makes said lot no
longer public.

Since proceedings for land registration in rem (enforcement is upon the property not against the person), as against a
homestead patent which is NOT, the latter does not therefore finally dispose of the public or private character of the
land. Hence, applicants should be given opportunity to prove registrable title to Lot 11.