Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > May 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11597 May 27, 1959 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO GARCIA, ET AL.

105 Phil 826:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-11597. May 27, 1959.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ISABELO GARCIA, DOMINGO COLORADO, RAYMUNDO DE GUZMAN, INOCENCIO PADAMA, IGNACIO RAMOS, LEON DE GUZMAN, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF COTABATO, Defendants-Appellants.

Eugenio M. Millado for Appellants.

Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Camilo D. Quiason for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. HOMESTEAD PATENTS; ENCUMBRANCE OF ALIENATION WITHIN FIVE YEARS PROHIBITED; REGISTRATION NOT NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE VIOLATION. — To constitute a violation of section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, it is enough that the home stead be encumbered or alienated with the prohibition period of five years; it is not necessary that the encumbrance or alienation be registered in the office of the Registration of Deeds.

2. ID.; ID.; PARTIAL SALE OF HOMESTEAD LAND WITHIN PROHIBITIVE PERIOD CAUSE FOR REVERSION TO THE STATE OF THE WHOLE GRANT. — Even if only part of the homestead land had been sold or alienated within the prohibited period of five years from the date of issuance of the patent to the grantee, such alienation is sufficient cause for reversion to the State of the whole grant. In granting a homestead to an applicant, the law imposes as a condition that the land should not be encumbered, sold or alienated within five years from the issuance of the patent. The sale or alienation of part of the homestead violates that condition.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


Appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Cotabato decreeing the reversion to the State of a homestead land covered by Patent No. V-532 and original certificate of title No. V-17 issued by the Registrar of Deeds in and for the province of Cotabato. The dispositive part of the judgment is:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

IN VIEW THEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) ordering defendant Isabela Garcia to return the owner’s Certificat of Title No. V-17 to the Register of Deeds;

(b) ordering the Register of Deeds of Cotabato that homestead patent No. V-532 be returned to the Bureau of Lands for cancellation;

(c) ordering the Register of Deeds of Cotabato to cancel Certificate of Title No. V-17; and

(d) declaring hereby reverted to the public domain as belonging to the Republic of the Philippines the land covered by said Certificate of Title No. V-17, with costs against the defendants.

Only questions of law are raised.

From the pleadings, stipulation of facts and documentary evidence submitted by the parties, the following facts are gathered: Sometimes before the last war appellant Isabelo Garcia and his wife Tagumpay Dumaguindin acquiered by purchase the homestead rights of Lingasa Bapanialag to a parcel of homestead land situated at Mabay, Kiamba, Cotabato, containing an area of 23.21 hectares (Homestead Application No. 182259 [E-90722]. The transfer was approved by the Secretary of Agricultural and Natural Resources upon recommendation of the Director of Lands and Patent No. V-532 was issued in favor of the appellant Isabelo Garcia and his wife. Three years and three months after the issuance of the homestead patent, or on 14 April 1950, for and in consideration of the sum of P11,000, by an instrument executed and acknowledged before a notary public the appellant Isabelo Garcia and his wife sold and conveyed to Domingo Colorado, Raymundo de Guzman, Inocencio Padama, Ignacio Ramos and Leon de Guzman 19 hectares of the homestead land (Exhibit A). The vendees took possession of the part sold to them. The deed of sale was not submitted to the Secrectary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for approval nor presented to the Registrar of Deeds in and for the province of Cotabato for registration .

Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 partly provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, lands acquired under free patent or homestead provision shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior or the expiration of said period, but the improvements or crops on the land may be mortgaged or pleged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations.

Section 124 of the same Act provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Any acquisition conveyance, alienation, transfer, or other contract made or executed in violation of any of the provisions of sections one hundred and eightee, one hundred and twenty, one hundred and twenty-one, one hundred and twenty-two, and one hundred and twenty-three of this Act shall be unlawful and null and void from its execution and shall produce the effect of annulling and cancelling the grant, title patent, or permit originally issued, recogized or confirmed, actually or presumptively, and cause the reversion of the property and its improvement to the State.

As the sale of the 19 hectares of the homestead land was made wihtin the prohibited period of five years-three years and three months after the issuance of the homestead patent is null and void, 1 and is a cause for reversion of the homestead to the State.

Appellants’ defense set up in the court below was that the document Exhibit A was intended merely as a mortgage on the improvements and crops existing on the 19 hectares of the homestead land to secure the payment by instalment of a loan, only that it was drawn upp by mistake as an absolure sale upon the insistence of the vendees. If it was draw up as an absolute sale upon the insistence of the vendees, then there was no mistake committed. The document Exhibit A is so clearly worded as to preclude an interpretation other than what the parties had intended it to be — a deed of absolute sale of the 19 hectares of the homestead land. Moreover, as found and held by the trial court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . as stated in Annex "A", the improvement on the land only consist of 50 coconut trees, 5 mango trees, 1 nangka tree, bananas and other fruit trees. It is unbelievable that defendants Domingo Colorado, Raymundo de Guzman, Inocencio Padama, Ignacio Ramos and Leon de Guzman would grant a loan of P11,000.00 for such as small security as those improvements specified above. Then if it is true that the transaction had between them is only a loan, to be paid by instalment every year, the defendants failed to produce any evidence that any installment has ever been paid, taking into consideration that already elapsed more than five (5) years from that time up to the hearing of this case.

The fact that the appellant Isabelo Garcia moved to the municipality of Bislig, province of Surigao, and abandoned his homestead in Kiamba, Cotabato, is proof that he sold 19 hectares of his homestead.

Appellants content that, under section 50, Act No. 496, the operative act to convey and effect lands registered there under is the act of registration, that inasmuch as the deed of sale Exhibit A was never registered there was actually no conveyance made of the 19 hectares of the homestead land, and that for the reason there was no infringement of section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141. To constitute a violation of the section just referred to, it is enough that the homestead be encumbered or alienated wihtin the prohibitive period of five years; it is not necessary that the encumbrance of alienation be registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds. To uphold the appellant’s contention would defeat the very prohibition established by law, for no party to a prohibited sale or conveyance would register such an illegal transaction. Besies, the vendees already, had taken possession of the part sold to them.

Even if only 19 out of the 23.21 hectares of the homestead land had beem sold or aliednated withim the prohibitive period of five years from date of issuance of the patent to the grantee, such alienation is a sufficient cause for reversion to the State of the whole grant. In granting a homestead to an applicant, the law imposes as a condition that the land should not be ecumbered, sold or alienated wihtin five years from the issuance of the patent. The sale or alienation of part of the homestead violates that condition.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Baustist Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. De los Santos v. Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap, 49 Phil., 405; 50 Off. Gaz., 1588; Acierto v. De los Santos, 95 Phil., 887; Eugenio v. Perdido, 97 Phil., 41; Corpus v. Beltran, 97 Phil., 772; 51 Off. Gaz., 563; Cadiz v. Nicolas, 102 Phil., 1032; Santander v. Villanueva, 103 Phil., 1; Felices v. Iriola, 103 Phil., 125.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9553 May 13, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM ERNEST JOLLIFFE

    105 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-2331 May 13, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS CAMPOS

    105 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. L-11474 May 13, 1959 - CANDIDO VALDEZ, ET AL. v. CRISPIN PARAS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-9636 May 15, 1959 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ILONE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., ET AL.

    105 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. L-11334 May 15, 1959 - SALVADOR CRUZ v. TITA TIRONA MALABAYASBAS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. L-10853 May 18, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR I. PONELAS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-9873 May 20, 1959 - UY HOO & CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    105 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. L-12044 May 20, 1959 - BRIGIDO JUGUETA, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    105 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. L-12057 May 20, 1959 - FRANCISCO MARTIR v. PEDRO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    105 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-12696 May 20, 1959 - PERFECTO DIZON, ET AL. v. FERMIN LEAL

    105 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-9102 May 22, 1959 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA v. MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC.

    105 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-12164 May 22, 1959 - BENITO LIWANAG, ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    105 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-12334 May 22, 1959 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO. INC. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

    105 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. L-12439 May 22, 1959 - FELICIANO MARTIN v. PRUDENCIO MARTIN, ET AL.

    105 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-12666 May 22, 1959 - JUAN CLARIDAD v. ISABEL NOVELLA

    105 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-13141 May 22, 1959 - VICENTA PANTALEON v. HONORATO ASUNCION

    105 Phil 761

  • G.R. No. L-10732 May 23, 1959 - VICTORIANO GAMIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-11316 May 23, 1959 - ADELAIDA P. IZON v. CREDIT UNION KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR

    105 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-12492 May 23, 1959 - ANDRES DE LA CERNA v. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR.

    105 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. L-12534 May 23, 1959 - ANGELES RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 777

  • G.R. Nos. L-9616 & L-11783 May 25, 1959 - HOA HIN CO., INC. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    105 Phil 783

  • G.R. No. L-10454 May 25, 1959 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. HIGINIO MACADAEG, ET AL.

    105 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-11415 May 25, 1959 - MANUEL BUASON, ET AL. v. MARIANO PANUYAS

    105 Phil 795

  • G.R. No. L-11743 May 25, 1959 - ASUNCION LIM, ET AL. v. ROQUE VELASCO

    105 Phil 799

  • G.R. No. L-11506 May 26, 1959 - SIXTO CASTRO, ET AL. v. JUSTO EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-12737 May 26, 1959 - LORENZO MANUEL v. REMEDIOS TIONG VDA. DE NAOE, ET AL.

    105 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-12794 May 26, 1959 - ANASTACIO MORELOS v. GO CHIN LING, ET AL.

    105 Phil 814

  • G.R. No. L-10956 May 27, 1959 - CHEE NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. L-11362 May 27, 1959 - IN RE: SIMEON LIM HAM YONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 821

  • G.R. No. L-11554 May 27, 1959 - SEVERINO DAGDAG v. DELFIN FLORES

    105 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-11597 May 27, 1959 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO GARCIA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 826

  • G.R. No. L-12759 May 27, 1959 - TOMAS FERNANDO v. LUIS ABALOS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-14143 May 27, 1959 - MARIANO B. DELGADO v. ANGEL B. TIU, ET AL.

    105 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-7839 May 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO DELIMIOS

    105 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-10781 May 29, 1959 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. MAXIMO J. SAVELLANO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 856

  • G.R. Nos. L-10829-30 May 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLES E. HENDERSON III, ET AL.

    105 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11563 May 29, 1959 - ROSITA H. PORCUNA v. UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    105 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-11860 May 29, 1959 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. LT. COL. LEOPOLDO RELUNIA

    105 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11990 May 29, 1959 - JOSE MOVIDO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    105 Phil 886

  • G.R. No. L-12075 May 29, 1959 - NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION (NARIC) v. NARIC WORKERS UNION

    105 Phil 891

  • G.R. No. L-12183 May 29, 1959 - SIXTO CELESTINO v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    105 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-12184 May 29, 1959 - CHAN KIAN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-12299 May 29, 1959 - FRANCISCO M. ORTEGA v. SAULOG TRANSIT

    105 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12331 May 29, 1959 - LAURO B. ISIDRO v. RAYMUNDO OCAMPO

    105 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-12394 May 29, 1959 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. COTO LABOR UNION (NLU)

    105 Phil 915

  • G.R. No. L-12399 May 29, 1959 - RUFINO ADAN, ET AL. v. NICASIA PANTALLA

    105 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12407 May 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO T. KOH, ET AL.

    105 Phil 925

  • G.R. No. L-12465 May 29, 1959 - YU PANG CHENG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 930

  • G.R. Nos. L-12502 & L-12512 May 29, 1959 - WALKER RUBBER CORPORATION v. NEDERLANDSCH INDISCHE & HANDELSBANK, ET AL.

    105 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-12581 May 29, 1959 - MAXIMO GALVEZ v. REPUBLIC SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    105 Phil 944

  • G.R. Nos. L-12634 & L-12720 May 29, 1959 - JOSE G. TAMAYO v. INOCENCIO AQUINO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-12693 May 29, 1959 - FLORENTINA J. TECHICO v. AMALIA SERRANO

    105 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-12757 May 29, 1959 - MUNICIPALITY OF COTABATO, ET AL. v. ROMAN R. SANTOS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 963

  • G.R. No. L-14723 May 29, 1959 - NORBERTO LUMPAY. VALENTIN SUPERABLE v. SEGUNDO MOSCOSO

    105 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. 12157 May 30, 1959 - MARIANO MARQUEZ LIM v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    105 Phil 974