LTD Prepared by: SOLLEGUE, Shanica

38 – Mesina v Sonza
TOPIC: Original Registration

Citation G.R. No. L-14722

Date May 25, 1960
Case Doctrine/s Related to Topic
• Where all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government are complied with through actual physical
possession, openly, continuously and publicly, with a right to a certificate of title to said land under the provisions of
Chapter VIII of Act No. 2874, amending Act No. 926 (carried over as Chapter VIII of CA 141), the possessor is deemed
to have already acquired by operation of law not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is not
necessary that a certificate of title be issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts — an application
therefore being sufficient under the provisions of Section 47 of Act No. 2874 (reproduced as Sec 50, CA 141).
• If by legal fiction, the possessor is deemed to have acquired the lot by a grant of the State, it follows that the same has
ceased to be part of the public domain and has become private property and therefore, is beyond the control of the
Director of Lands. Consequently, the homestead patent and the original certificate of title covering said lot issued by
the Director of Lands in favor, of other persons may be said to be null and void having been issued through fraud,
deceit and misrepresentation.
Case Summary
See facts below.

FACTS:
1. Ignacio Mesina (Mesina) claims that he is the owner in fee simple of a lot in San Antonio, Nueva Ecija and that he has
been in actual possession thereof since 1914, publicly, openly, peacefully and against the whole world and up to the
present time he is the only one who benefits from the produce thereof.
2. 16 Sep 1953: the Director of Lands, without exercising due care, and in spite of his knowledge that Eulalia Pineda vda de
Sonza et al (Sonza et al) had not complied with the requirements of CA 141, issued a homestead patent in their favor.
Consequently, a certificate of title was issued in their name by the register of deeds;
3. Mesina further claims that said title was procured through fraud, deception and misrepresentation since Sonza et al knew
that the lot belonged to the former; and that the Director of Lands has no authority nor jurisdiction to issue a patent covering
said land because it is Medina’s private property. Medina prays that said decree and title be cancelled.
4. Sonza et al filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Medina’s action is already barred by the statute of limitations.
○ the complaint was filed on 25 Mar 1958 while the TCT was issued 16 Sep 1953. The action has thus prescribe
after the lapse of more than 4 years. Hence, title has already become indefeasible and incontrovertible.
5. CFI ruled in favor of Sonza et al.

ISSUE # 1 HELD
WON Mesina acquired title to the lot YES
RATIO
1. RA No 1942, which took effect on 22 Jun 1957 (amending Section 48-b of CA 141) provides that:
○ (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interests have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation
of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed
all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions
of this chapter."
2. Susi v. Razon, Et Al., 48: where all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government are complied with through
actual physical possession openly, continuously, and publicly, with a right to a certificate of title to said land under the
provisions of Chapter VIII of Act No. 2874, amending Act No. 926 (carried over as Chapter VIII of CA141), the possessor
is deemed to have already acquired by operation of law not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is
not necessary that a certificate of title be issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts - an application
therefor being sufficient under the provisions of Section 47 of Act No. 2874 (reproduced as Section 50, Commonwealth
Act No. 141).
○ If by a legal fiction, Valentin Susi had acquired the land in question by a grant of the State, it had already ceased
to be of the public domain and had become private property, at least by presumption, of Valentin Susi, beyond
the control of the Director of Lands. Consequently, in selling the land in question to Angela Razon, the Director
of Lands disposed of a land over which he had no longer any title or control, and the sale thus made was void
and of no effect, and Angela Razon did not thereby acquire any right."
3. APPLICATION: Mesina is the owner of the lot and has been in actual possession thereof since 1914, publicly, openly,
peacefully and against the whole world, and he is the only one who benefits from the produce thereof. If by legal fiction,
as stated in the Susi case, Mesina is deemed to have acquired the lot by a grant of the State, it follows that the same had
ceased to be part of the public domain and had become private property and, therefore, is beyond the control of the
Director of Lands. Consequently, the homestead patent and the original certificate of title covering said lot issued by the
Director of Lands in favor of Sonza et al can be said to be null and void, for having been issued through fraud, deceit and
misrepresentation.
RULING:
Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. No costs.

Page 1 of 1