ESTANISLAO PANIMDIM, Petitioner, v.

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET

AL., Respondents.
[G.R. No. L-19731. July 31, 1964]

Facts: Free patent was issued in Panimdims name on July 8, 1957, and
thereafter Original Certificate of Title No. 9040 was also issued in his name
by the Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur. But in issuing said certificate of
title, it was made to appear erroneously to cover more area than what
Panimdim applied for and was entitled to.

A certain Mariano dela Rosa filed a petition with the Director of Lands praying
for the annulment of the free patent, claiming that Panimdim was entitled, if
any, to a smaller area that what was granted in the patent. In August 1959,
the Director of Lands rendered a decision declaring the issuance of the
patent in favor of Panimdim erroneous and improper for it covers more area
than what he was entitled to, and making a manifestation that corresponding
administrative action to amend said free patent and re-issue it to cover a
smaller area will be taken accordingly.

Issue: Whether or not the Director of Lands has jurisdiction to amend the
patent after its registration and the issuance of the corresponding certificate
of title

Held: No. Once a free patent is registered and the corresponding certificate
of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and
becomes private property over which the Director of Lands had neither
control nor jurisdiction.

(If patent has already been issued, allegedly through fraud or mistake and had been registered,
the remedy of the party who had been injured by the fraudulent registration is an action for
reconveyance.)

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIA ABANILLA and

THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ISABELA, Defendants, MARIA
ABANILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
[G.R. No. L-26324. August 31, 1983.]

Facts: In 1949, Maria Abanilla filed an application for free patent over a
public land situated in Roxas, Isabela. In 1952, Esteban Esquivel and
Dominador Cullanan registered their respective oppositions to the application
upon learning that the same included portions of lands they own and asked
the Bureau of Lands to investigate the matter.

In June 1953, pending investigation, Abanilla was able to secure the issuance
of the free patent. A month later, as a result of the investigation, the
Director of Lands rendered a decision holding that Abanilla acted in bad faith
in procuring the free patent; that the said free patent and original certificate
of title included portions of land occupied by Esteban Esquivel and Wilson
Nuesa; and that the portion occupied by Wilson Nuesa was sold to him by
Dominador Cullanan, who also bought the same from defendant-appellant
Abanilla herself. Abanilla challenged said decision before the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, but she was denied. Also, the trial court,
where she filed an action to recover possession of the portions of land from
Esquivel and Nuesa, ruled against her.

In 1959, the Director of Lands filed a complaint against Abanilla for

employing fraudulent means in securing a free patent and an original
certificate of title over a public land.

Issue: Whether the patent and original certificate of title issued by virtue of
the said patent can still be cancelled despite the lapse of six (6) years from
their issuance

Held: The factual findings of the Director of Lands and approved by the
Secretary of Agriculture as to the employment of fraud by Abanilla were
conclusive. Hence, the indefeasibility of title issued pursuant to a free patent
one year after its issuance does not apply to a grant tainted with fraud and
secured through misrepresentation, such as the free patent invoked in this
case, since said grant is null and avoid and no effect whatsoever.

Section 91 of the C.A. No 141 as amended, expressly provides that any false
statement in the application, which is an essential condition of the patent or
title," shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession, title, or
permit granted." In the light of the said provision, Abanilla cannot use her
title as a shield to perpetuate fraud. "No amount of legal technicality may as
serve as a solid foundation for the enjoyment of the fruits of fraud.