35. Republic Vs Guinto- Aldana

41. Pajomayo v. Manipon G.R. No. L-33676 June 30, 1971 FACTS: On June 5, 1963 the plaintiffs (the Pajomayos) filed in the CFI of Pangasinan a complaint alleging that they are owners pro-indiviso of the parcel of land which is covered by OCT No. 1089 in the name of Diego Pajomayo. They claim that they had acquired the land as an inheritance from their late father Diego Pajomayo; that they and their predecessor-in-interest had been in OCENCO for a period of more than 70 years until the early part of the year 1956 when the defendants dispossessed them of said property, resulting in their having suffered annual damages amounting to around P1,100.00 representing the value of the crops of rice; mongo, corn and vegetables that they failed to harvest. The defendants on the other hand alleged that they are the exclusive owners of the land covered by OCT No. 14043. The said land having been adjudicated to them in a cadastral proceedings of the Malasique cadastre. The defendants claim they had acquired the land by inheritance from their deceased father Pioquinto Manipon. As affirmative defenses, the defendants allege that plaintiffs' action is barred by res-judicata. When the case was called for trial it waThat parties agree that the land in question is covered by two Certificates of Title, one in the name of Diego Pajomayo (OCT No. 1089), issued under Free Patent; and one in the name of the Defendant Rodrigo Manipon ( OCT No. 14034), issued in Cadastral Case of Malasique Cadastre. CFI: made a finding that OCT No. 1089 held by the plaintiffs was issued earlier than OCT No. 14034 held by the defendants. Hence it ordered the defendants to vacate the land and for the Register of Deeds to cancel the OCT of the defendants.

the office of the Register of Deeds of the province where the land covered by the patent lies. It has been ruled by this Court that once a homestead patent granted in accordance with the Public Land Act, the certificate of title issued in virtue of said patent has the force and effect of a Torrens Title. In the cage of Aquino vs. Director of Lands, this Court held: The procedure under the Land Registration Law and under the provisions of Chapter VI of the Public Land Law are the same in that both are against the whole world, both take the nature of judicial proceedings, and for both the decree of registration issued is conclusive and final. In the case of Lahora, et al. vs. Dayanghirang, et al.,, held: Where land is granted by the government to a private individual, the corresponding patent therefor is recorded, and the certificate of title is issued to the grantee; thereafter, the land is automatically brought within the operation of the Land Registration Act, the title issued to the grantee becoming entitled to all the safeguards provided in Section 38 of said Act. In other words, upon the expiration of one year from its issuance, the certificate of title becomes irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding. It is the settled rule in this jurisdiction that where two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail as between the original parties, and in case of successive registration where, more than one certificate is issued over the land the person holding under the prior certificate is entitled to the land as against the person who relies on the second certificate.

ISSUES:

Here, Pajomayo OCT was issued in Nov. 27, 1931 and Manipon OCT wsa only issued in April 1, 1957.

1. WON Pajomayo’s title should prevail over the defendant’s title. - YES

Hence Pajomayo OCT, and TCT of his children (herein plaintiffs) thereafter prevails.

HELD: Necessarily when one of the two titles is held to be superior over the other, one should be declared null and void and should be ordered cancelled. And if a party is declared to be the owner of a parcel of land pursuant to a valid certificate of title said party is entitled to the possession of the land covered by said valid title. Contrary to the claim of defendants, the doctrine of res judicata cannot be applied in their favor in the present case. The undisputed fact is that the plaintiffs base their claim of title to the land in question on OCT No. 1089 issued to their father, Diego Pajomayo, in 1931 in virtue of a free patent that was granted to him. The law requires that the homestead patent must be registered in