MESINA V. Vda de SONZA.
Sometime in September 12, 1953, the
May 25, 1960
Bautista Angelo J
Topic: Original Registration
Digest by the late Chua (edited by the late Prana)
PETITIONERS:
Ignacio Mesina
RESPONDENT:
EULALIA PINEDA VDA. DE SONZA et al
SUMMARY. Mesina claimed to own lots in Nueva Ecija.
She had been in possession of the subject land but the land
was registered by vda de Sonza (!!!!) through homestead
patent in the same court where Mesinas registration was
also pending (???). RTC dismissed Mesinas case upon
vda de Sonzas motion. It reasoned prescription under
statute of limitations. SC ruled that the dismissal was
improper, and remanded the case.
DOCTRINE.
GR: decree of registration can no longer be impugned on
the ground of fraud one year after the issuance and entry
of the decree
E: if the property is allegedly private in nature (this case)
FACTS:
1. Action before CFI Nueva Ecija praying for the
cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. P-
1137 and that registration case pending before the
same court covering the property described
therein be given due course.
2. Defendants, in their motion to dismiss, claim that
action is already barred by the statute of
limitations.
a. March 25, 1958: Complaint filed
b. September 12, 1953: Degree of
registration/issuance of patent
c. September 16, 1953: TCT issued
Action has been filed after the lapse of more than 4
years, title has already become indefeasible and
incontrovertible.
3. Plaintiff claims the ff:
a. That he is an owner in fee simple, with
improvements
b. that he has been in actual possession
since 1914;
c. that he is the one who benefits from the
produce thereof;
d. that said lot is subject to pending
registration proceedings.
e.
Director of Lands, without due care and
knowing that defendants have not
complied with the requirements of
Commonwealth Act No. 141, issued a
homestead in favor of the defendants as
a consequence of which a certificate of
title was issued in the latters name. It is
alleged that such title was procured
through fraud since defendants knew the
lot belonged to the plaintiff.
f. the Dir. Of Lands has no authority to
issue a patent over the same since it is
already a private property.
4. The ruling in Suzi vs Razon provides that 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, the possessor is deemed to have already
acquired by operation of law not only a right to
the 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.
If be a legal fiction, 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, and thus, beyond the
control of the Dir. of Lands.
ISSUE: WON defendants title should be cancelled?
RATIO:
If by legal fiction, plaintiff 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 Dir. of
Lands. Consequently, the homestead patent and
the OCT covering said lot issued by the same can
be said to be null and void, for having been
issued through fraud.
Considering that this was dismissed on a Motion
to Dismiss on the ground that it is already barred
by the statute of limitations
o predicated in the theory that a decree of
registration can no longer be impugned
on the ground of fraud one year after the
issuance and entry of the decree
o statute of frauds NOT applicable here
because the property is allegedly private
in nature and had ceased to be of the
public domain
 the trial court should not have dismissed the
action outright and instead should have given
plaintiff the chance to prove his claim.
It would have been more proper for the court to
deny the motion on the ground that its object
does not appear to be indubitable, rather than to
have dismissed it, as was done by the trial court.

Dispositive: Case is remanded to trial court for further

proceedings.