Wrong move

This is a case involving siblings fighting over a parcel of agricultural land with an area of 11.3365 hectares fully planted with coconuts and fruit bearing trees located in Basilan. It was originally a public land being cultivated by Gani

Before or during the Japanese occupation, the subject land was purchased by Sabaya from Gani by virtue of a verbal contract of sale for the mere sum of P70. In May 1949, Gani died. Upon his death, his heirs led by Andang tried to repurchase the land but Sabaya refused. So Andang and the other heirs of Gani sued Sabaya for Illegal Detainer. But the case was dismissed on September 24, 1951 because the right of the heirs to recover possession of the land has not been clearly established. Despite the decision, Andang applied for a homestead patent over the disputed land. Sabaya on the other hand donated the land to his daughter Sari. But Sari died ahead of her father Sabaya, so Sari’s right to the land passed on to her children, the four siblings in this case, Mujib and his three sisters Terah, Jedah and Harah.

In 1954, Sabaya himself died. After his death, Harah and her husband Jabah took over the administration of the land. Later Harah and Jabah declared the land, then still untitled, in their names for taxation purposes. From then on Harah and her husband Jabah refused to share with her siblings, Mujib, Terah and Jedah the income from the sale of the fruits of the land.

In the meantime on February 17, 1955, Andang’s application for a homestead patent was approved and on December 6, 1955, Original Certificate of Title (OCT P-793) over the disputed land was issued in his name. In July 1956, the brothers and sisters of Sabaya filed for the annulment of said title. But this petition was abandoned when the records of the case was burned. On August 29, 1959, Andang died intestate so his widow and sole heir Salmah executed an Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale, adjudicating unto herself the land in dispute and at the same time selling it to Jakirah who thereby obtained title to the land (TCT No. T-1941).

On September 22, 1969, Jakirah executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Jabah the husband of Herah. So on June 10, 1971 TCT No. T-1941 in the name of Jakirah was cancelled and a new TCT (No T-2592) was issued in the name of Jabah, husband of Harah.

On 23, February, 1993, Mujib, Terah and Jedah filed an action for partition of said disputed land with a prayer for preliminary injunction against their sister Harah and her husband Jabah. They alleged that said land was donated by their grandfather Sabaya to their mother Sari. So upon her death, the land passed to them, Harah included. In answer, Harah and Jabah claimed ownership of the land as Jabah purchased the same from Jakirah on September 22, 1969.

After trial, the Shari’a Court ruled in favor of Mujib et.al., ordered the partition of the land among the four of them and cancelled TCT No. T-2592 in the name of Jabah. Was the Shari’a Court correct?

No. The settlement of the issue of ownership is the first stage in an action for partition, and the action will not lie if the claimant has no rightful interest in dispute. In this case, Mujib, Terah and Jedah failed to prove their right to the land in dispute.

The land in dispute was originally titled in the name of Andang on December 6, 1955 by virtue of a homestead patent issued on February, 1955. Upon its registration the land falls under the operation of Act 496 and becomes a registered land. A Homestead patent, once registered, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title. The remedy of the person deprived of the land or an estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained through fraud is to file a petition for review within one year after entry of the decree provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest (Section 38 Act 496). In the case of public land grants (patents) the one year period under Section 38 is counted from the issuance of the patent by the government. In this case the patent was issued on February 1955 whereas the brother and sisters of Sabaya claiming as his heirs filed for annulment of said title on the ground of fraud only in July 1956, more than a year after the issuance of the patent. Sabaya’s children as his compulsory heirs did not intervene in said case. Sari’s children, Mujib et. al. who claimed to have succeeded to the rights of their mother also failed to intervene in the case nor did anything to protect their interest, not even after the records were burned. Instead of availing of the remedy under Section 38 Mujib et.al. filed this action for partition on February 23, 1993, which must fail because a Torrens Title is not susceptible to collateral attack. Besides the fraud attributed to Andang that he has never been in actual possession of the land does not constitute extrinsic and collateral fraud that will annul his title. So the title acquired by Jabah from Jakirah who acquired it from Salmah upon the death of Andang is valid. In any event even if Mujib et.al’s action effectively seeks to cancel the homestead patent and the corresponding title and even if they are cancelled, Mujib et.al will not acquire the land in the concept of an owner. The land will revert to the government and will again form part of the public domain as it was not yet privately owned when Sabaya first acquired it from Gani (Garingan vs. Garingan, G.R. 144095, April 12, 2005. 455 SCRA 480).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]