G.R. No. L-5452 - APRIL 1953 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-5452April 30, 1953 Florentino Kiamko, et al. vs. Cirilo C. Maceren G.R. No. L-4896April 30, 1953 Apolinario Cruz vs. Patrocinio Kelly G.R. No. L-6177April 29, 1953 Gabino Lozada, et al. vs. Fernando Hernandez, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-6079April 29, 1953 Sofronio Gammad, et al. vs. Manuel Arranz, et al. G.R. No. L-5989April 29, 1953 Apolinario Duque, et al. vs. L. Pasicolan, et al. G.R. No. L-5969April 29, 1953 Alfredo P. Dalao vs. Francisco Geronimo G.R. No. L-5948April 29, 1953 Fortunato F. Halili vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-5826April 29, 1953 In Re: Vicente Cagro. vs. Pelagio Cagro, et al. Jesusa Cagro G.R. No. L-5788April 29, 1953 Chua Bun Pok vs. Primera Instancia de Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-5558April 29, 1953 Enrique D. Manabat, et al. vs. Bernabe de Aquino G.R. No. L-5470April 29, 1953 Woodcraft Works, Ltd. vs. Segundo C. Moscoso, et al. G.R. No. L-5394April 29, 1953 Bernardo Torres vs. Mamerto S. Ribo G.R. No. L-5206April 29, 1953 Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Phil. Labor Organizations, et al. G.R. Nos. L-5190-93April 29, 1953 People of the Phil. vs. Emilio Baysa, et al. G.R. No. L-5104April 29, 1953 In Re: Oscar Anglo. vs. Republic of the Phil. Oscar Anglo G.R. No. L-5099April 29, 1953 Beatriz Cabahug-Mendoza vs. Vicente Varela, et al. G.R. No. L-5062April 29, 1953 Manila Trading & Supply Co. vs. Manila Trading Labor Association G.R. No. L-4948April 29, 1953 Primera Instancia de Baguio, et al. vs. Jose Valles G.R. No. L-4802April 29, 1953 In Re: Kiat Chun Tan. vs. Republic of the Phil. Kiat Chun Tan G.R. No. L-4790April 29, 1953 Isidoro Fojas, et al. vs. Segundo Agustin, et al. G.R. No. L-4144April 29, 1953 George S. Corbet vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-5876April 27, 1953 People of the Phil. vs. Chu Chi G.R. No. L-5675April 27, 1953 Antonio Carballo vs. Demetrio B. Encarnacion, et al. G.R. No. L-5157April 27, 1953 Visayan Electric Co., S.A. vs. Saturnino David G.R. No. L-5515April 24, 1953 Felipa Feria, et al. vs. Geronimo T. Suva G.R. No. L-4831April 24, 1953 Natividad Sideco, et al. vs. Angela Aznar G.R. No. L-5888April 22, 1953 Antonio T. Carrascoso, Jr. vs. Jose Fuentebella G.R. Nos. L-5163April 22, 1953 P.J. Kiener Company, Ltd. vs. Saturnino David G.R. No. L-4940April 22, 1953 Madrigal & Co. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-5750April 20, 1953 Rodrigo Coloso vs. Board of Accountancy G.R. No. L-5242April 20, 1953 People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno B. Ibañez, et al. G.R. No. L-5065April 20, 1953 Estefania Pisalbon, et al. vs. Honorato Tesoro, et al. G.R. No. L-4647April 20, 1953 Flor Villasor vs. Agapito Villasor G.R. No. L-4476April 20, 1953 Samuel J. Wilson vs. B. H. Berkenkotter G.R. No. L-4353April 20, 1953 Tan Kay Ko vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-6103April 17, 1953 Fortunato Marquiala, et al. vs. Filomeno Ybañez, et al. G.R. No. L-5790April 17, 1953 People of the Phil. vs. Pablo de la Cruz G.R. No. L-5770April 17, 1953 Briccio Madrid, et al. vs. Anatolio C. Mañalac, et al. G.R. No. L-5686April 17, 1953 Antonio del Rosario, et al. vs. Froilan Bayona, et al. G.R. No. L-5587April 17, 1953 Felixberto Medel, et al. vs. Bernabe de Aquino etc., et al. G.R. No. L-5539April 17, 1953 Ruperta Bool vs. Perpetuo Mendoza, et al. G.R. No. L-5198April 17, 1953 People of the Phil. vs. Panglima Mahlon, et al. G.R. Nos. L-4215-16April 17, 1953 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Dosal The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Florentino Kiamko, et al. vs. Cirilo C. Maceren Apolinario Cruz vs. Patrocinio Kelly Gabino Lozada, et al. vs. Fernando Hernandez, etc., et al. Sofronio Gammad, et al. vs. Manuel Arranz, et al. Apolinario Duque, et al. vs. L. Pasicolan, et al. Alfredo P. Dalao vs. Francisco Geronimo Fortunato F. Halili vs. Public Service Commission, et al. In Re: Vicente Cagro. vs. Pelagio Cagro, et al. Jesusa Cagro Chua Bun Pok vs. Primera Instancia de Manila, et al. Enrique D. Manabat, et al. vs. Bernabe de Aquino Woodcraft Works, Ltd. vs. Segundo C. Moscoso, et al. Bernardo Torres vs. Mamerto S. Ribo Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Phil. Labor Organizations, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Emilio Baysa, et al. In Re: Oscar Anglo. vs. Republic of the Phil. Oscar Anglo Beatriz Cabahug-Mendoza vs. Vicente Varela, et al. Manila Trading & Supply Co. vs. Manila Trading Labor Association Primera Instancia de Baguio, et al. vs. Jose Valles In Re: Kiat Chun Tan. vs. Republic of the Phil. Kiat Chun Tan Isidoro Fojas, et al. vs. Segundo Agustin, et al. George S. Corbet vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Phil. vs. Chu Chi Antonio Carballo vs. Demetrio B. Encarnacion, et al. Visayan Electric Co., S.A. vs. Saturnino David Felipa Feria, et al. vs. Geronimo T. Suva Natividad Sideco, et al. vs. Angela Aznar Antonio T. Carrascoso, Jr. vs. Jose Fuentebella P.J. Kiener Company, Ltd. vs. Saturnino David Madrigal & Co. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Rodrigo Coloso vs. Board of Accountancy People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno B. Ibañez, et al. Estefania Pisalbon, et al. vs. Honorato Tesoro, et al. Flor Villasor vs. Agapito Villasor Samuel J. Wilson vs. B. H. Berkenkotter Tan Kay Ko vs. Republic of the Philippines Fortunato Marquiala, et al. vs. Filomeno Ybañez, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Pablo de la Cruz Briccio Madrid, et al. vs. Anatolio C. Mañalac, et al. Antonio del Rosario, et al. vs. Froilan Bayona, et al. Felixberto Medel, et al. vs. Bernabe de Aquino etc., et al. Ruperta Bool vs. Perpetuo Mendoza, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Panglima Mahlon, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Dosal The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5452             April 30, 1953

FLORENTINO KIAMKO, JULIAN ESTELLES and GUILINGAN (ATA)petitioners,
vs.
CIRILO C. MACEREN, as judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, and ARCOY(MORO)respondents.

Arsenio Suazo for petitioners.
Salvador Ibarreta for respondents.

MONTEMAYOR,J.:

This is a case of prohibition wherein petitioners seek to restrain respondent Judge Maceren from ordering the execution of his judgment in Civil Case No. 504 if the Court of First Instance of Davao under the theory that he had jurisdiction in hearing and deciding said case. The facts as revealed by the pleadings in his case, including their exhibits and annexes are as follows:

In the years 1932 a woman named Marisa (ATA) filed homestead application No. 188366 for a parcel of land known as lot No. 1937 of the Guianga Extension cadastre, situated within the City of Davao, with an area of about twenty-four hectares. In her application she stated that she was married to Moro Pakira, and that they had two children named Mamonas and Balan. her application was given due course.

Marisa cultivated the land introduced many improvements like abaca plants, fruit trees and food crops. She died in 1946 before containing a patent to her homestead. Shorty after her death, petitioner Guilingan and his brothers Abas claiming to be her brother and that she died without issue, entered and occupied the homestead. On April 19, 1949, the two brother adjudicated the land to themselves under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court providing for the summary settlement of estates of deceased persons, and on the same day they sold a portion of the land containing six hectares to petitioner Florentino Kiamko and another portion to Juan (Julian) Estelles. On July 3, 1950, respondent Arcoy, a Moro, his sister Casiran and his brothers Depiran, Zapanta, Kawasa, Cabiranans Sraba, claiming to be the heirs and grandchildren of the original homestead applicant Marisa, brought an action Saraba, claiming to be the heirs and grandchildren of the original homestead applicant Marisa, brought an action (Civil case NO. 504) in the Court of First Instance of Davao against Guilingan, Kiamko and Stelles to recover the against Guilingan, Kiamko and Stelles to recover the possession of the whole homestead and damages. In their answer the defendants claimed that Arcoy and his brothers were in no way related to Marisa and were total strangers to her, but as such succeeded her in all her rights over the land because she had no issue. During the hearing evidence was presented to show that Guilingan and Abas were not even relatives, much less brothers of Marisa but that the plaintiff Arcoy et al., were her granchildren because they were the children of Mamonas who was a son of Marisa, and that although the latter had another son Balan, he died without issue. After hearing, respondent judge held that the principal issue to be determined in the case was — which of the contending parties were the legal heirs of Marisa so that her rightful successors-in-interest could be determined. he found and ruled that Arcoy and his brother and sister are the grandchildren of Marisa and so rendered judgment in their favor, declaring them to have a better right to the possession of the land in question with all the improvements thereon, and he ordered the defendant to vacate the land and deliver possession thereof to the plaintiffs. The defendants failed to appeal from said decision and respondent judge on January 29, 1952, ordered the execution of the judgment.

In the meantime Kiamko and Stelles filed homestead applicants for the portion of the homestead ceded to them. As regards Kiamko the Bureau of Lands issued an order dated February 16, 19952 to the effect that inasmuch as the heirs of the original homesteader (Marisa)cedes said portion to him )Kiamko), he had the right to occupy the same as a homesteader and so gave due course and approval to his application. Arcoy and his brothers filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands against the favorable action taken on the homestead application of Kiamko, and invoking the decision in their favor in civil case No. 504, asked that the approval of Kiamko's homestead application be revoked on the ground that his application was filed under false pretenses and the bureau's approval was given under a misapprehension, namely that the portion was ceded to him by the heirs of Marisa when as matter of fact the cession was made by persons in no way related to her as found by the trial court. Acting upon said protest the Bureau of Lands in an order dated March 21, 1952, held that "consideration the judicial declaration that the herein contestants are the legal heirs of Marisa Ata, it is clear that they are entitled to succeed her in whatever right or interest she might have acquired in the land in controversy," and the Bureau ordered the District Land Officer to conduct an investigation of the case.

The theory of the petitioner is that the land in controversy which is covered by the homestead application of Marisa being public land, it comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Director of Lands who has the authority to determine who are the persons entitled to its possession, and that if in the present case the decision of the respondent judge were allowed to stand, there would be confusion because while on the one stand, there would be confusion because while on the one hand the Director of Lands approved and gave due course to the homestead application of Kiamko, meaning to say that he is entitled to the possession of the portion of the homestead of Marisa ceded to him, the decision sought to be annulled declared that only the respondents Arcoy and his brothers and sister as heirs and successors-in-interest of Marisa have no right to the possession of the whole homestead and consequently, Guilingan and his brother Abas and Kiamko to whom they ceded a portion of the homestead would have no right whatsoever over the land.

Petitioners presumably have in mind section 4 of the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act 141) which as amended, reads as follows:

There is no question that under this section the Director of Lands has executive control over the concession and disposition of land of the public domain such as through homestead. He has the right to determine which among several applicant for homestead has preference based for instance on previous occupation. He also has the right to determine compliance or non-compliance with the condition required by the Public Land Act such as resident and cultivation prior to the issuance of the patent. However, transmission by operation of law of the rights acquired over said homestead are no longer within his control and determination. Section 105 of the same Public Land Act reads:

In the present case and in accordance with section 105 of the Public Land Act above quoted, Marisa, the original homestead applicant upon her death was succeeded in her rights over the homestead by her heirs in law which those heirs in law are, are not mentioned by the Public Land Act. The legal provisions as to who are the heirs in law of a deceased person are contained in and come under the civil law. They involve questions peculiarly for judicial determination or by the courts. Even the Director of Lands in acting on the protest of Arcoy and his brothers against the approval of the homestead application of Kiamko recognized the propriety and legality of the judicial determination of the heirs and successors-in-interest of Marisa over her homestead. It is, therefore, clear that respondent judge had jurisdiction and authority to determine who were the heirs in law of Marisa and who had a better right to the homestead.

In view of the foregoing, the petition for prohibition is hereby denied and the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued is hereby dissolved. Petitioners will pay the costs.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ.,concur.