Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > July 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23245 July 31, 1968 - JUANITA RIVERA v. SILVINO CURAMEN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23245. July 31, 1968.]

JUANITA RIVERA, Petitioner, v. SILVINO CURAMEN, Respondent.

Agustin C. Bagasao for Petitioner.

Mamerto N. Macapagal for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL LAW; PUBLIC LAND LAW; FREE PATENT; CONVEYANCE OF LAND ACQUIRED UNDER FREE PATENT SUBJECT TO REPURCHASE; RIGHT OF REPURCHASE EXTENDS TO HEIRS; INSTANT CASE. — Under the law, every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions of existing laws shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow or legal heirs, within five years from the date of conveyance. Assuming that, in the case at bar, the original grantees, Silvino Curamen and his widow, had lost their right to repurchase the properties — in the case of the first because of the sale of his right to repurchase made on April 1, 1955, and in that of the second because of the quit-claim — it does not necessarily follow that their legal heirs had likewise lost their right to repurchase or that they would be entitled to repurchase only their share as heirs of their deceased father who died after instituting the present case for reconveyance.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT TO REPURCHASE EXTENDS TO THE WHOLE PROPERTY IN INSTANT CASE; PURPOSE OF THE LAW. — The law clearly grants the applicant, his widow or legal heirs the right to repurchase the property covered by a free patent or a homestead title within five years from the date of the conveyance. Speaking specifically of the present case, that right is not limited to the repurchase of the share corresponding to their father only, because the latter is already dead, but refers to the repurchase of the property — meaning the whole of it. This, in our opinion, is the only logical meaning to the law which - because its purpose is to enable the family of the applicant or grantee to keep their homestead (Lustado v. Piñol, L-10825, September 27, 1957) must be literally construed in order to carry out that purpose.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF QUIT-CLAIM ON PROPERTY. — The quit-claim executed by Dominga Barcelona can not have the effect of depriving her children of their right to repurchase. Assuming that it is valid, it binds her alone.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals the dispositive part of which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs Dominga Barcelona, Justina Curamen and Felicidad Curamen, and against the defendants Juanita Curitana and her minor children namely Ruperto, Darwin, Regalado and Erlinda, all surnamed Rivera, directing the said defendants:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. To reconvey all the three parcels of land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint as covered by Original Certificates of Title Nos. P-594 and 6289 and/or all their rights and interests therein to the plaintiffs upon payment by the plaintiffs of the sum of P4,000.00 together with whatever amounts might have been paid by the defendants to the R.F.C., now D.B.P., on account of the mortgage;

2. To execute the necessary deed of reconveyance and such other instruments to effect the said reconveyance within five days from receipt of the aforementioned amounts from the plaintiffs; and

3. To pay the plaintiffs P500.00 as attorney’s fees, and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

Silvino Curamen commenced the present action for reconveyance on May 18, 1957 against the spouses Ernesto Rivera and Juanita Curitana. Upon his death during the pendency of the case below, he was substituted as party plaintiff by his daughters Justina and Felicidad. Whether or not his widow was also made a party is now in question.

Rivera also died on December 18, 1958, for which reason his minor children Ruperto, Darwin, Regalado and Erlinda were substituted in his place, and because of their minority their mother was appointed as their guardian ad litem.

It is not disputed that pursuant to a free patent issued on March 22, 1950, original certificate of title No. P-594 was issued on the same date in the name of Silvino Curamen, married to Dominga Barcelona, covering lots 1 and 2, F-61908, both situated in Pantabañgan, Nueva Ecija, containing an area of 6.6775 hectares.

Pursuant to a homestead title issued on November 1, 1938 in the name of Silvino Curamen, widower, over another parcel of land with an area of 20.5278 hectares, situated in the same municipality, original certificate of title No. H-6289 was likewise issued on the same date in his name.

On November 21, 1950, the Curamen spouses mortgaged the three parcels of land above-mentioned to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation — hereinafter referred to as the RFC — to secure payment of a P3,500.00 loan payable within five years. The deed of mortgage was registered in accordance with law. Because the mortgagors failed to pay the amortizations due, the RFC foreclosed the mortgage and the properties were sold at public auction on September 9, 1955, with the RFC as the highest bidder. The certificate and final deed of sale executed in the latter’s favor were registered on September 1, 1965, and, as a result, the original certificates of title covering the mortgaged properties were cancelled and transfer certificates of title Nos. NT-20845 and 20846 were issued in favor of the RFC.

It is also admitted that on April 1, 1955 the Curamen spouses sold their right to repurchase the properties to the Rivera spouses for the sum of P4,000.00, but under the condition that the latter would continue to pay the mortgage obligation to the RFC — presumably for the purpose of repurchasing the properties. In this connection the trial court found — by admission made on the witness stand by Juanita Curitana — that she was still paying the mortgage debt to the RFC up to the time of the trial.

Subsequently, the Curamens sought to repurchase the properties or their right to repurchase them by offering to the Riveras the sum of P4,000.00 together with whatever amounts the latter had already paid to the RFC on account of the mortgage obligation, and demanded execution of the proper deed of reconveyance. Because the Riveras ignored this demand, the present action was instituted.

As reason for their refusal the Riveras relied, in part, upon a quit-claim deed allegedly executed by Dominga Barcelona on October 27, 1958, whereby, for the total sum of P4,000.00, she ceded and transferred to them her rights and interest in the properties in question. His Honor, the trial judge, while not ruling expressly that the deed was void, expressed doubts as to its authenticity or voluntariness by making the observation that the document was only thumbmarked by Dominga Barcelona who was admittedly illiterate and about 75 years of age at the time of its alleged execution in Caranglan, Nueva Ecija, and appears to have been acknowledged only on October 30, 1958 before a Notary Public in Manila.

Petitioner Juanita Curitana denied that Silvino Curamen had ever offered to repurchase said lands from her and her husband, and further claimed that because in 1955 said lands were still uncultivated they had to spend P1,500.00 for clearing, and P5,000.00 for irrigation canals.

According to the lower court, however, her testimony regarding expenditures for the improvement of the properties, was "not worthy of belief, because she was in no financial position to accumulate such cash for such expenses", she being only a sari-sari store-owner with an operating capital of P200 to P500 from 1948 to 1955. The court further observed that she never claimed that she and her husband had tenants working for them, and had further admitted that she herself had never gone to the lands in question before 1955.

The foregoing findings and conclusions of the trial court having been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are now beyond our power to review.

We shall now therefore limit ourselves to considering the main questions raised by petitioner, namely, that the Court of Appeals erred: in holding that Dominga Barcelona is not one of the plaintiffs (below) in this case, as well as in altogether disregarding the quit-claim deed executed by her; and finally, in affirming in toto the decision of the lower court.

The first two questions are interrelated, and the last depends, more or less entirely upon their resolution.

There is some confusion in the record on the question of whether or not Dominga Barcelona was really made a party in this case upon the death of her husband. This matter, however, is not decisive of the merits of this appeal. Neither is the quit-claim allegedly executed by her, considering our view regarding its legal effect upon the right of the other respondents herein to repurchase the properties in question.

Under the law, every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions of existing laws shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow or legal heirs, within five years from the date of the conveyance. Assuming that the original grantees, Silvino Curamen and his widow, had lost their right to repurchase the properties — in the case of the first because of the sale of his right to repurchase made on April 1, 1955, and in that of the second because of the quit-claim already referred to — it does not necessarily follow that their legal heirs had likewise lost their right to repurchase or that they would be entitled to repurchase only their share as heirs of their deceased father who died after instituting the present case for reconveyance. The law clearly grants them the right to repurchase the property covered by a free patent or a homestead title within five years from the date of the reconveyance. Speaking specifically of the present case, that right is not limited to the repurchase of the share corresponding to their father only, because the latter is already dead, but refers to the repurchase of the property — meaning the whole of it. This, in our opinion, is the only logical meaning to be given to the law which — because its purpose is to enable the family of the applicant or grantee to keep their homestead (Lustado v. Piñol, L-10825, September 27, 1957) — must be liberally construed in order to carry out that purpose.

The quit-claim executed by Dominga Barcelona can not have the effect of depriving her children of their right to repurchase. Assuming that it is valid, it binds her alone.

The record is not clear as to whether or not at the time the appealed decision was rendered the defendants in that court had already repurchased the properties from the RFC. Said decision, however, would seem to imply that they had done so because its dispositive part orders said defendants to reconvey to the plaintiffs all the three parcels of land described in the complaint and/or all their rights and interest therein, under the conditions therein set forth. But if such is not the case, the proper relief to be granted to the heirs of Curamen is to require Juanita Curitana Rivera and her co-parties to reconvey to the plaintiffs below the right to repurchase the properties from the RFC from whom they may proceed to repurchase the properties.

MODIFIED AS ABOVE INDICATED, the decision appealed from is affirmed in all other respects. With costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., did not take part.




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






July-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24990 July 3, 1968 - WILLIAM C. PFLEIDER v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24804 July 5, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIANO PARAYNO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28561 July 8, 1968 - BARNEY FRENCH v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL

  • A.C. No. 102 July 15, 1968 - PAFLU v. HON. EMILIO C. TABIGNE

  • G.R. No. L-21175 July 15, 1968 - PASCUALA SOTTO PAHANG v. FILEMON SOTTO

  • G.R. No. L-18414 July 15, 1968 - ANTONIO M. PEREZ, ET AL v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. L-24843 July 15, 1968 - MEMBERS OF THE CULT OF SAN MIGUEL ARCANGEL v. PEDRO NARCISO

  • G.R. No. L-24419 July 15, 1968 - LEONORA ESTOQUE v. ELENA M. PAJIMULA

  • G.R. No. L-24997 July 18, 1968 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. TERESITA OSETE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21027 July 20, 1968 - JUAN GUTIERREZ, ET AL. v. LUCIANO T. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22002 July 20, 1968 - CANUTO A. LIM, ET AL. v. TOMAS V. SABARRE

  • G.R. No. L-24099 July 20, 1968 - CLOTILDE CORREOS, ET AL. v. LADISLAO VALENZUELA Y PEREZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24951 July 20, 1968 - IN RE: JOSE CHUA CHU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26197 July 20, 1968 - ADELO C. RIVERA v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CORP., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18598 July 23, 1968 - TAN GUAN v. HON. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22682 July 23, 1968 - GORGONIO PABILING v. ISIDORO PARINACIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23796 July 23, 1968 - LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ET AL v. HON. FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23934 July 25, 1968 - HIDPION P. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26353 July 29, 1968 - PERLA C. PACURSA v. SIMEON DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26568 July 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO MALILLOS

  • G.R. No. L-28842 July 29, 1968 - FAUSTINO CORTEZ v. HON. ONOFRE VILLALUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24955 July 29, 1968 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24566 July 29, 1968 - ACCFA v. ALPHA INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24576 July 29, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-24444-45 July 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO DORIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-24396 July 29, 1968 - SANTIAGO P. ALALAYAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24072 July 29, 1968 - ANTONIO MA. CUI, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-24020-21 July 29, 1968 - FLORENCIO REYES, ET AL v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19852 July 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANSUETO JAMERO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23133 July 29, 1968 - VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23606 July 29, 1968 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-20158 July 29, 1968 - CANDELARIO ALMENDRAS, ET AL v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21059 July 29, 1968 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22320 July 29, 1968 - MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ, ET AL v. HON. GREGORIO LANTIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20619 July 29, 1968 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL v. HON. JUDGE HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20794 July 29, 1968 - DY EN SIU CO, ET AL v. LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23919 July 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. HON. GUILLERMO S. SANTOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24984 July 29, 1968 - PHIL. COMM., ELEC. & ELECTRICITY WORKERS’ FED., ET AL v. HON. JUDGE RAMON O. NOLASCO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24388 July 29, 1968 - REGAL MANUFACTURING EMP., ASSO., ET AL v. HON. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27741 July 29, 1968 - R.B. INDUSTRIAL DEV. CO., LTD., ET AL v. HON. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28524 July 29, 1968 - ERNESTO NAVARRO, ET AL v. HON. TITO V. TIZON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24348 July 30, 1968 - FELICIDAD VIERNEZA v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-22304 July 30, 1968 - SAMAR MINING CO., INC. v. FRANCISCO P. ARNADO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22159 July 31, 1968 - EMILIANO CASTRO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24472 July 31, 1968 - PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. PROSPERO GABATIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24924 July 31, 1968 - CRESENCIA ANTONEL, ET AL v. LAND TENURE ADMI., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26192 July 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MANA-AY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24414 July 31, 1968 - DIONICIA J. CID, ET AL v. NANCY W. BURNAMAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22663 July 31, 1968 - HOC HUAT TRADING, ET AL v. HON. GUILLERMO S. SANTOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23245 July 31, 1968 - JUANITA RIVERA v. SILVINO CURAMEN

  • G.R. No. L-23491 July 31, 1968 - TAURUS TAXI CO., INC., ET AL v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-24140 July 31, 1968 - VICENTE ARRIETA v. MALAYAN SAWMILL COMPANY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24557 July 31, 1968 - CITY OF MANILA v. TARLAC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24668 July 31, 1968 - ANDRES LAPITAN v. SCANDIA INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24987 July 31, 1968 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25550 July 31, 1968 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INS. CO., v. HON. W. DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-27072 July 31, 1968 - SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD, ET AL v. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26082 July 31, 1968 - NORBERTO DE LA REA v. HON. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-27084 July 31, 1968 - ANGELA ESTATE, INC., ET AL v. CFI NEGROS OCCI., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22542 July 31, 1968 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. SALVADOR CELORIO, ET AL

  • A.C. No. 122-J July 31, 1968 - NICOLAS SUPERABLE, JR. v. HON. GODOFREDO ESCALONA

  • G.R. No. L-13938 July 31, 1968 - PEDRO BUTIONG v. SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22577 July 31, 1968 - BENJAMIN WENCESLAO, ET AL. v. CARMEN ZARAGOZA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23261 July 31, 1968 - ERNESTO VELUZ v. SOCORRO VELUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23689 July 31, 1968 - MAYO LOPEZ CARILLO, ET AL v. ALLIED WORKER’S ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24514 July 31, 1968 - SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., INC., ET AL v. JUDGE ARSENIO SOLIDUM, ET AL