LAW ON NATURAL RESOURCES whether appellants exercised their right to repurchase

effectively, we have only to consider their filing of the

HOMESTEAD (Secs. 12-21, CA 141, as amended) action for the "repurchase of the subject house and lots,
annulment of title and damages" on 20 March 1986
(1) STA. IGNACIA RURAL BANK, INC. v. COURT OF against the appellee bank and the appellee-spouses,
APPEALS, G.R. No. 97872, 1 March 1994. which was filed within the five-year period to repurchase.
The question now of whether the appellant had actually
Under homestead, the original owner has the right two tendered, deposited or consigned in court the
repurchase within 2 years under the Rural Bank Act and redemption price for the subject house and lots becomes
with an extended period of 5 years under C.A. 141. immaterial in view of the filing of said action to
repurchase which has been equivalent to an offer to
FACTS. On 14 January 1980, Sta. Ignacia Rural redeem and has the effect per se of preserving their right
Bank, Inc. (defendant bank) extended to the spouses of recovering the disputed house and lots.
Conrado Pablo and Juanita Gonzales (plaintiff-spouses)
a loan totalling P12,109.75. As a security, they executed ISSUES.
in favor of the defendant bank a Real Estate Mortgage 1. Did the time frame under the Rural Bank Act
over their residential house and two lots covered by Free supersede the repurchase time period under the
Patent Title, OCT No. P-7941 located at Poblacion Public Land Act involving the foreclosure sale
Norte, Mayantoc, Tarlac. They defaulted in the payment property acquired via a homestead patent?
of their obligation, as a result of which, the mortgage 2. When does the 5-year repurchase period under C.A.
was foreclosed. On 28 July 1981, the subject house and 141 be reckoned?
lots of the plaintiff-spouses were sold at public auction 3. Do plaintiff-spouses have the right to repurchase the
with the defendant bank as the highest bidder for land?
P13,168.35.
RULINGS.
Thereafter, the Certificate of Sale was executed in
favor of the defendant bank on 29 September 1981 and 1. NO. It is well-known that the homestead laws
the same was registered with the Register of Deeds of were designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of
Tarlac on 5 November 1981. The ownership of the the State to land-destitute citizens for their home and
subject house and lots was consolidated in favor of the cultivation. Pursuant to such benevolent intention the
defendant bank virtue of the final deed of sale executed State prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the
on 5 November 1983. On 19 December 1984, the homestead (Section 116) within five years after the grant
defendant bank sold the aforementioned real estates to of the patent. After that five-year period the law impliedly
spouses Alberto Lucas and Nelia Rico (defendant- permits alienation of the homestead, but in line with the
spouses) for P47,500.00, and Transfer Certificates of primordial purpose to favor with the homesteader and
Title Nos. 184687 and 184688 over the house and lots his family the statute provides that such alienation or
were subsequently issued in the name of said conveyance (Section 117) shall be subject to the right of
defendant-spouses. Hence, the complaint for the repurchase by the homesteader, his widow or heirs
repurchase of the subject house and lots, annulment of within five years. This Section 117 is undoubtedly a
title and damages filed on 20 March 1986 by the plaintiff- complement of Section 116. It aims to preserve and
spouses. keep in the family of the homesteader that portion of
public land which the State had gratuitously given to him.
ID., RULING OF THE LOWER COURT. The lower It would, therefore, be in keeping with this fundamental
court dismissed the case saying that while Section 119, idea to hold, as we hold, that the right to repurchase
C.A. 141 provides for a five-year period of redemption exists not only when the original homesteader makes the
involving homestead and free patent lands, Section 5, conveyance, but also when it is made by his widows or
R.A. No. 720, as amended, provides for a two-year heirs. This construction is clearly deducible from the
redemption period in mortgage loans with rural banks. terms of the statute.
R.A. 720, as amended, being a special law and of later
enactment prevails over C.A. 141 which is a general law. Because of such underlying policy and reason, the
The Certificate of Sale was registered on 5 November right to repurchase under Section 119 cannot be waived
1981. The redemption period is counted from the by the party entitled thereto, and applies with equal force
registration of the certification of foreclosure sale to both voluntary and involuntary conveyances. And, as
(Gorospe vs. Santos, 69 SCRA 191). Pursuant to early as 1951, in Cassion v. Banco Nacional Filipino, the
Section 5, R.A. 720, therefore, plaintiffs' right to redeem Court declared that such right is available in foreclosure
within the two-year period has already expired. sales of lands covered by homestead or free patent.
Consistently therewith, the Supreme Court have ruled in
ID., RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. The a number of cases that said Section 119 prevails over
court reversed the decision of the trial court. Citing Oliva statutes which provide for a shorter period of redemption
vs. Lamadrid (21 SCRA 737), it essentially said that R.A. in extrajudicial foreclosure sales.
720 does not apply to properties under Torrens Title, a
homestead, or free patent. The reckoning date would be 2. AFTER THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD PROVIDED
when the sheriff had registered the sale which will be 5 IN THE RURAL BANK ACT. The Court has consistently
November 1981. Moreover, for purposes of ascertaining pronounced in many cases that there is no conflict
Page 1 of 15
between laws providing for a shorter period and C.A. There were several litigations in this case, viz: (You may
141 – there is no express repeal. They reveal the clear focus on No. 2, 5, & 9 only)
intent of the law on redemption in foreclosure sales of
properties acquired under the free patent or homestead [1] PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DAR. On 10 May
statutes which have been mortgaged to banks or 1993, Mejia filed a petition with the DAR, for the
banking institutions — i.e., to resolutely and unqualifiedly exclusion of the property from PD No. 27. The case was
apply the 5-year period provided for in Section 119 of docketed as Administrative Case No. A-0204-0001. On
C.A. No. 141 and to reckon the commencement of the 26 August 1993, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
said period from the expiration of the one-year period of (PARO) issued an Order recommending the denial of the
redemption allowed in extrajudicial foreclosure. If such petition. Mejia appealed the Order to the DAR Regional
be the case in foreclosure sales of lands mortgaged to Director.
banks other than rural banks, then, by reason of the
express policy behind the Rural Banks' Act, and [2] CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS WITH THE RTC.
following the rationale of the Court’s ruling in Oliva, it is Instead of pursuing his appeal before the DAR, Mejia
with greater reason that the 2-year redemption period in opted to take advantage of the ruling of the Court in Alita
Section 5 of the Rural Banks' Act should yield to the v. Court of Appeals and filed a complaint on 20 June
period prescribed in Section 119 of C.A. No. 141. 1994 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Isabela
Moreover, if the Court is to be consistent, the 5-year against the respondents Filomena Gabayan, Albin
repurchase period under C.A. No. 141 should begin to Rueme, Ernesto Mejia, Carlos Ramos, Josefina Lacadin
run only from the expiration of the 2-year period under and Pedro Gavino, for declaratory relief, and for the
the Rural Banks' Act. The TOTAL redemption period recovery of the possession of the property covered by
would therefore be 7 years (2 years under the Rural TCT No. 75164 with damages and plea for injunctive
Bank Act and an extended 5 years under C.A. 141). relief. The respondents on the other hand said that they
were in possession of the land under a tenancy and they
3. YES. The plea for repurchase was not time- are beneficiaries of the Agrarian Reform Law. They also
barred at the time it was made. The repurchase was claimed that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case.
made on 20 March 1986, within the extended The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner and against
redemption period. the respondents ordering them to vacate in a summary
judgement.
X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
[3] COURT OF APPEALS. The Court of Appeals
(2) MEJIA v. GABAYAN, dismissed the appeal from respondents for not filing on
G.R. No. 149765, 12 April 2005. time. The case was remanded to the RTC for execution.

FACTS. Arturo Mejia is the registered owner of a [4] DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR. The DAR Regional
parcel of land located in Sinamar, San Mateo, Isabela, Director granted Mejia’s exemption from the
with an area of 10.400 hectares covered by Transfer Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), but
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 75164 which was issued by ordering him to allow the respondents-tenants to remain
the Register of Deeds of Isabela on 3 July 1974. The lot in possession of the property and to execute Leasehold
was a portion of a large tract of land covered by a Contracts in their favor in accordance with Rep. Act No.
homestead patent granted by the President of the 3844. Petitioner appealed.
Philippines to Dalmacio Mejia on 11 December 1936, on
the basis of which Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. [5] SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM. In a
T-4184 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Isabela. parallel development, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform
issued an Order dated 27 December 1996 in
On 13 August 1978, the President of the Philippines, Administrative Case No. A-0204-0001 affirming the
through the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, issued Resolution of the Regional Director with modifications,
Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) over portions of the thus: (1) Only that portion of TCT No. T-75164 which
property covered by TCT No. 75164 to four petitioner is personally cultivating (3.6691 hectares) shall
beneficiaries: (1) Carlos P. Ramos; (2) Danceso T. be exempt from P.D. No. 27 and R.A. No. 6657, thus
Gavino; (3) Francisca Rueme; and (4) Pedro Gavino. constituting as part of his retained area; (2) The
They are tenants of the property and the land is being petitioner may choose from the tenanted portion as an
awarded under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform addition to compromise his aggregate area of retention
Program (CARP). The certificates were filed with the which should not exceed five (5) hectares; and (3)
Office of the Register of Deeds. Upon learning of the CLTs/Eps recalled or cancelled by the previous Order
issuance of the said certificates, Mejia filed a petition shall be re-issued (however this time as CLOAs since
with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in 1983 the subject landholding is a homestead land not covered
for their cancellation. However, no action was taken on by P.D. No. 27), except those within the landowner is
the said petition. In the meantime, the Courts decision in retained area which shall be under the leasehold
Alita v. Court of Appeals was promulgated, wherein it system. It additionally ruled that RTC has no jurisdiction
was held that properties covered by homestead patents over the action of Mejia.
were not covered by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27.
[6] SUPREME COURT. Mejia filed a petition for
Certiorari which was denied in a Resolution stating that
Page 2 of 15
the appropriate remedy is a petition for Review before farm; Provided, That landowners whose lands
the CA. have been covered by PD 27 shall be allowed to
keep the area originally retained by them
[7] WRIT OF EXECUTION FOR RTC RULING. The trial thereunder; Provided, further, That original
court issued a writ of execution, as prayed for, on 7 May homestead grantees or their direct compulsory
1997. The sheriff, in the company of policemen, placed heirs who still own the original homestead at the
bamboo poles with red flags on the four (4) corners of time of the approval of this Act shall retain the
the property. One Ambot Rueme, son of respondent same areas as long as they continue to cultivate
Balbino Rueme, removed the bamboo poles, upon which said homestead.
the sheriff placed bamboo poles anew on the four
corners of the property. For this, Ambot was Indisputably, homestead grantees or their direct
subsequently charged with contempt. Mejia, however, compulsory heirs can own and retain the original
failed to take actual possession of the property. homesteads, only for as long as they continue to
cultivate them. That parcels of land are covered by
[8] DAR STATUS QUO ORDER. In view of the homestead patents will not automatically exempt them
conflicting rulings of the RTC and the DAR Secretary, from the operation of land reform. It is the fact of
the Chief of the Legal Division of the DAR issued a continued cultivation by the original grantees or their
status quo order and requested the Philippine National direct compulsory heirs that shall exempt their lands
Police to implement the same. from land reform coverage.

[9] OTHER STEPS. Petitioner wanted to implement the In the present case, as previously pointed out,
RTC decision which was favorable to him. Respondents neither petitioner nor her heirs are personally cultivating
insisted to implement the Decision of DAR which was the subject homesteads. The DAR and the CA found
favorable to them. Mejia was driven away from the that respondents were the ones who had been
property. Mejia charged respondents for contempt of cultivating their respective portions of the disputed
Court for which they were found guilty. Mejia petitioned properties.
the RTC to execute its judgement. Ultimately, the
execution was held in abeyance in view of the conflicting However, petitioner can retain five (5) hectares in
rulings. Meanwhile, the DAR Decision became final and accordance with Section 6 of RA 6657, which requires
executory. Thus this petition. no qualifying condition for the landowner to be entitled to
retain such area. This ruling is in line with Association of
ISSUES: Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of
1. MAIN – Up to what extent are the rights of the Agrarian Reform, from which the Court quotes:
parties?
2. Can the respondents be ejected from the property? In any event, assuming that the petitioners have
3. Who has jurisdiction over the case? not yet exercised their retention rights, if any,
under PD No. 27, the Court holds that they are
RULING: entitled to the new retention rights provided for
1. MAIN: As gleaned from the pleadings of the by RA No. 6657, which in fact are on the whole
parties, the respondents had been in actual possession more liberal than those granted by the decree.
of the property and cultivated the same as agricultural Petitioners heirs, however, are not entitled to
tenants long before the petitioner filed his complaint in awards of three (3) hectares each, since they
the RTC. The Court ruled in Paris v. Alfeche that, under are not actually tilling the parcels or directly
the circumstances, the only right of the petitioner is to managing the farm.
retain five (5) hectares of the subject property, in
accordance with Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657. The said 2. NO. Section 22 of RA 6657 expressly states that
Act lays down the rights of homestead grantees as actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be
follows: ejected or removed therefrom. Furthermore, there is no
reason for ejecting the tillers with respect to the area of
SEC. 6. Retention Limits. Except as otherwise five hectares, which petitioner may choose to retain.
provided in this Act, no person may own or
retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or
agricultural land, the size of which shall vary farm workers on the land prior to the approval of this Act
according to factors governing a viable family- shall be respected. The current provision on retention
sized farm, such as commodity produced, removes the necessity, present under PD 27, of ejecting
terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as actual tillers. Under the current law, landowners who do
determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform not personally cultivate their lands are no longer required
Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no to do so in order to qualify for the retention of an area
case shall retention by the landowner exceed not exceeding five hectares. Instead, they are no
five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be required to maintain the actual tiller of the area retained
awarded to each child of the landowner, subject should the latter choose to remain therein.
to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at
least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is 3. THE DAR SECRETARY. The RTC had no
actually tilling the land or directly managing the jurisdiction over the complaint of the petitioner for the
Page 3 of 15
declaration of his rights under Rep. Act No. 6657 and its ID., RULING OF THE RTC. The trial court stated
precursors, inclusive of the issue of whether or not the that although respondent claims that the Eniceo heirs
petitioner is entitled to a retention area and, if so, how sold to him the Antipolo property, respondent did not
big an area is he entitled to. Such matters are within the testify in court as to the existence, validity and
exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary to delve into genuineness of the purported deed of sale and his
and resolve. Since the RTC had no jurisdiction on the possession of the duplicate owners copy of OCT No.
action of the petitioner, its decision and the writs of 535. The trial court stated that as owner of a property
execution issued by it are null and void. consisting of hectares of land, respondent should have
come to court to substantiate his claim and show that the
X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X allegations of the Eniceo heirs and petitioner are mere
fabrications.
(3) KINGS PROPERTIES CORPORATION v. GALIDO,
G.R. No. 170023, 27 November 2009. The trial court noticed that respondent did not
register the deed of sale with the Register of Deeds
FACTS. On 18 April 1966, the heirs of Domingo immediately after its alleged execution on 10 September
Eniceo, namely Rufina Eniceo and Maria Eniceo, were 1973. Further, respondent waited for 22 long years
awarded with Homestead Patent No. 112947 consisting before he had the sale approved by the DENR
of four parcels of land designated as Lots 1, 3, 4, & 5, Secretary. The trial court declared that respondent slept
located in San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal. The Antipolo on his rights. The trial court concluded that respondent’s
property with a total area of 14.8882 hectares was failure to register the sale and secure the cancellation of
registered under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. OCT No. 535 militates against his claim of ownership.
535. The grant was subject to a condition that it shall not The trial court believed that respondent has not
be subject to incumbrance for a period of five (5) years established the preponderance of evidence necessary to
next following the date of the patent, and shall not be justify the relief prayed for in his complaint.
liable for the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to
the expiration of that period; that the land shall not be ID., RULING OF THE CA. The CA ruled that the
alienated, transferred or conveyed after five (5) years deed of sale in favor of respondent, being a notarized
and before twenty-five (25) years next following the document, has in its favor the presumption of regularity
issuance of title, without the approval of the Secretary of and carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with
Agriculture and Natural Resources. respect to its due execution. The CA added that whoever
asserts forgery has the burden of proving it by clear,
On 10 September 1973, a deed of sale covering the positive and convincing evidence because forgery can
Antipolo property was executed between Rufina Eniceo never be presumed. The CA found that petitioner and
and Maria Eniceo as vendors and respondent as the Eniceo heirs have not substantiated the allegation of
vendee. Rufina Eniceo and Maria Eniceo sold the forgery.
Antipolo property to respondent for P250,000. On 5 April
1988, thinking that the OCT was lost in the process, the The CA pointed out that laches has not set in. One
Eniceo heirs registered with the Registry of Deeds of of the requisites of laches, which is injury or prejudice to
Marikina City and also filed a petition for the issuance of the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the
a new owners duplicate copy of OCT No. 535 with complainant or the suit is not held to be barred, is
Branch 72 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo, wanting in the instant case. The CA added that
Rizal. unrecorded sales of land brought under the Torrens
system are valid between parties because registration of
ID., PETITIONER. Petitioner says that he has an the instrument is merely intended to bind third persons.
adverse claim. Sometime in February 1995, he was Respondent Galido was favored.
offered to buy the Antipolo property and decided to buy
it. On 14 March 1995, respondent caused the annotation ISSUE: Should the adverse claim of respondent
of his adverse claim in OCT No. 535. over the Antipolo property be barred by laches?

On 20 March 1995, the Eniceo heirs allegedly RULING: NO. The contract between the Eniceo
executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of petitioner heirs and respondent executed on 10 September 1973
covering lots 3 and 4 of the Antipolo property for was a perfected contract of sale. A contract is perfected
P500,000 Lots 1 and 5 were also sold for P1,000,000. once there is consent of the contracting parties on the
On 17 August 1995, the Secretary of the Department of object certain and on the cause of the obligation. In the
Environment and Natural Resources approved the deed present case, the object of the sale is the Antipolo
of sale between the Eniceo heirs and respondent. property and the price certain is P250,000.

ID., RESPONDENT. On 16 January 1996, The contract of sale has also been consummated
respondent filed a civil complaint with the trial court because the vendors and vendee have performed their
against the Eniceo heirs and petitioner. Respondent respective obligations under the contract. In a contract of
prayed for the cancellation of the certificates of title sale, the seller obligates himself to transfer the
issued in favor of petitioner, and the registration of the ownership of the determinate thing sold, and to deliver
deed of sale and issuance of a new transfer certificate of the same to the buyer, who obligates himself to pay a
title in favor of respondent. price certain to the seller. The execution of the notarized
Page 4 of 15
deed of sale and the delivery of the owners duplicate failure to secure the approval of the Secretary
copy of OCT No. 535 to respondent is tantamount to a does notipso factomake a sale void. The
constructive delivery of the object of the sale. In Navera absence of approval by the Secretary does not
v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that since the sale ipso facto make a sale made after the expiration
was made in a public instrument, it was clearly of the 5-year period, for in such event the
tantamount to a delivery of the land resulting in the requirement of Section 118 of the Public Land
symbolic possession thereof being transferred to the Act becomes merely directory or a formality. The
buyer. approval may be secured later, producing the
effect of ratifying and adopting the transaction as
Petitioner alleges that the deed of sale is a forgery. if the sale had been previously authorized.
The Eniceo heirs also claimed in their answer that the
deed of sale is fake and spurious. However, as correctly X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
held by the CA, forgery can never be presumed. The
party alleging forgery is mandated to prove it with clear (4) REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS,
and convincing evidence. Whoever alleges forgery has G.R. No. 100709, 14 November 1997.
the burden of proving it. In this case, petitioner and the
Eniceo heirs failed to discharge this burden. FACTS: Sometime in December, 1972, respondent
Morato filed a Free Patent Application No. III-3-8186-B
Petitioner invokes the belated approval by the DENR on a parcel of. On January 16, 1974, the patent was
Secretary, made within 25 years from the issuance of approved and the Register of Deeds of Quezon at
the homestead, to nullify the sale of the Antipolo Lucena City issued on February 4, 1974 Original
property. The sale of the Antipolo property cannot be Certificate of Title No. P-17789. Both the free patent and
annulled on the ground that the DENR Secretary gave the title specifically mandate that the land shall not be
his approval after 21 years from the date the deed of alienated nor encumbered within five years from the date
sale in favor of respondent was executed. Section 118 of of the issuance of the patent.
Commonwealth Act No. 141 or the Public Land Act (CA
141), as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 456, Subsequently, the District Land Officer in Lucena
reads: City, acting upon reports that respondent Morato had
encumbered the land in violation of the condition of the
Sec. 118. Except in favor of the government or patent, conducted an investigation. Thereafter, it was
any of its branches, units, or institutions, or established that the subject land is a portion of the
legally constituted banking corporations, lands Calauag Bay and not suitable to vegetation. Moreover,
acquired under free patent or homestead on October 24, 1974, a portion of the land was
provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance mortgaged by respondent Morato to respondents Nenita
or alienation from the date of the approval of the Co and Antonio Quilatan for P10,000.00. The spouses
application and for a term of five years from and Quilatan constructed a house on the land. Another
after the date of the issuance of the patent or portion of the land was leased to Perfecto Advincula on
grant x x x February 2, 1976 at P100.00 a month, where a
warehouse was constructed.
No alienation, transfer, or conveyance of any
homestead after five years and before twenty-five years On November 5, 1978, petitioner filed an amended
after the issuance of title shall be valid without the complaint against Morato, spouses Nenita Co and
approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Antonio Quilatan, and the Register of Deeds of Quezon
Resources, which approval shall not be denied except for the cancellation of title and reversion of a parcel of
on constitutional and legal grounds. land to the public domain, subject of a free patent in
favor of respondent Morato, on the grounds that the land
In Spouses Alfredo v. Spouses Borras, the Court is a foreshore land and was mortgaged and leased
explained the implications of Section 118 of CA 141. within the five-year prohibitory period.
Thus:
Petitioner’s Arguments. The grant of Free Patent
A grantee or homesteader is prohibited from and the subsequent issuance of Original Certificate of
alienating to a private individual a land grant Title Josefina L. Morato were subject to the conditions
within five years from the time that the patent or provided for in CA) No. 141. Nine months and eight
grant is issued. A violation of this prohibition days after the grant of the patent Morato, in violation of
renders a sale void. This, however, expires on the terms of the patent, mortgaged a portion of the land
the fifth year. From then on until the next 20 to Nenita Co, who thereafter constructed a house
years, the land grant may be alienated provided thereon. Likewise, on February 2, 1976 and within the
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural five-year prohibitory period, Morato leased a portion of
Resources approves the alienation. The the land to Perfecto Advincula at a monthly rent of
Secretary is required to approve the alienation P100.00 who, shortly thereafter, constructed a house of
unless there are constitutional and legal grounds concrete materials on the subject land. Further, the
to deny the approval. In this case, there are no defense of indefeasibility of title is inaccurate. The
apparent or legal grounds for the Secretary to original certificate of title issued to Morato contains the
disapprove the sale of the Subject Land. The seeds of its own cancellation: such certificate specifically
Page 5 of 15
states on its face that it is subject to the provisions of contract impairs the use of the property by the grantee.
Sections 118, 119, 121, 122, 124 of CA No. 141, as During the term of the lease, the grantee of the patent
amended. cannot enjoy the beneficial use of the land leased. As
already observed, the Public Land Act does not permit a
Private Respondent’s Arguments. The mortgage grantee of a free patent from encumbering any portion of
executed over the improvement cannot be considered a such land. Such encumbrance is a ground for the
violation of the said grant since it can never affect the nullification of the award.
ownership.
Prior to the fulfillment of the requirements of law,
RTC’s Ruling. Case dismissed. There was no Respondent Morato had only an inchoate right to the
violation of the 5-year period ban against alienating or property; such property remained part of the public
encumbering the land, because the land was merely domain and, therefore, not susceptible to alienation or
leased and not alienated. It also found that the mortgage encumbrance. Accordingly, if the requirements are not
to Nenita Co and Antonio Quilatan covered only the complied with, the State as the grantor could petition for
improvement and not the land itself. the annulment of the patent and the cancellation of the
title.
ISSUES:
1. Can the patent and certificate of title issued by to Morato cannot use the doctrine of the indefeasibility
Morato be cancelled and annulled? (Since the of her Torrens title to bar the state from questioning its
certificate of title becomes indefeasible after one transfer or encumbrance. The certificate of title issued to
year from issuance of the title) her clearly stipulated that its award was subject to the
2. Is the questioned land part of the disposable land conditions provided for in Sections 118, 119, 121, 122
and not a foreshore land? and 124 of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141. Because
she violated Section 118, the reversion of the property to
RULING: the public domain necessarily follows, pursuant to
Section 124.
1. YES. A homestead patent, one registered under
the Land Registration Act, becomes as indefeasible as a 2. NO. The application for a free patent was made
Torrens Title (Pamintuan v.San Agustin). Indefeasibility in 1972. From the undisputed factual findings of the
of the title, however, may not bar the State, thru the Court of Appeals, however, the land has since become
Solicitor General, from filing an action for reversion foreshore. Accordingly, it can no longer be subject of a
(Heirs of Gregorio Tengo v. Heirs of Jose Aliwalas). free patent under the Public Land Act. When the sea
moved towards the estate and the tide invaded it, the
Sec. 118 provides that “lands acquired under free invaded property became foreshore land and passed to
patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to the realm of the public domain. The subject land in this
encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval case land in this case, being foreshore land, should
of the application and for a term of five years from and therefore be returned to the public domain.
after the date of issuance of the patent or grant”.
X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
Sec. 124 provides, “any acquisition, conveyance,
alienation, transfer, or other contract made or executed (5) LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS,
in violation of any of the provisions of sections one G.R. No. 127827, 5 March 2003
hundred and eighteen, one hundred and twenty, one
hundred and twenty-one, one hundred and twenty-two, FACTS: Fermin Lopez occupied, possessed, and
and one hundred and twenty-three of this Act shall be declared for taxation purposes a parcel of public land.
unlawful and null and void from its execution and shall He filed a homestead application over the land, but his
produce the effect of annulling and cancelling the grant, application was not acted upon until his death in 1934.
title, patent, or permit originally issued, recognized or When he died, he was survived by his heirs, the Lopez’s.
confirmed, actually or presumptively, and cause the
reversion of the property and its improvements to the Following Fermins death, Hermogenes, being the
State.” eldest child, worked and introduced additional
improvements on the land. In 1936, he inquired from the
The foregoing legal provisions clearly proscribe the Bureau of Lands the status of his late father’s application
encumbrance of a parcel of land acquired under a free for a homestead grant. An official of the bureau informed
patent or homestead within five years from the grant of him that the application remained unacted upon and
such patent. Furthermore, such encumbrance results in suggested that he file a new application. Following the
the cancellation of the grant and the reversion of the suggestion, Hermogenes filed a homestead application
land to the public domain. in his own name, which was docketed as No. 138612.
After ascertaining that the land was free from claim of
It is indisputable that Morato cannot fully use or any private person, the Bureau approved his application.
enjoy the land during the duration of the lease contract. In 1939, Hermogenes submitted his final proof of
This restriction on the enjoyment of her property compliance with the residency and cultivation
sufficiently meets the definition of an encumbrance requirements of the law. The land was surveyed and a
under Section 118 of the Public Land Act, because such resulting plan, H-138612, was approved by the Director
Page 6 of 15
of Lands, who thereafter ordered the issuance of the part of alienable public land. As he applied for it in his
homestead patent. own name, his application inures to his sole benefit.
After complying with the cultivation and residency
Unaware that he has been awarded a homestead requirements, he became a grantee of a homestead
patent, Hermogenes executed an Extra-judicial Partition patent over it, thereby making him its absolute and
of the disputed land with his brothers - petitioner exclusive owner.
Eleuterio, Juan, and Nazario. However, the three
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of their share in the X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
land in favor of Hermogenes. The succeeding year,
Hermogenes applied with the Land Registration (6) FONTANILLA SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS
Commission for the registration of the property in his GR No. 119341, 29 November 1999.
name. To his surprise, he found that the land has been
registered in the names of Fernando Gorospe, Salvador FACTS: Spouses Crisanto and Feliciana Duaman
de Tagle, Rosario de Tagle, Beatriz de Suzuarrequi and were awarded a homestead patent over a parcel of land,
Eduardo Santos, who collectively opposed his and consequently, Original Certificate of Title No. I-2720
application. covering the same was issued to them. Upon their
death, private respondent Luis Duaman, one of their
Hermogenes filed a complaint for the annulment of children, inherited a four-hectare portion of the
the free patent and title against these persons before the homestead. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 33441
Court of First Instance. covering the said portion was issued in his name. On 21
July 1976, in order to expedite the loan application of his
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS: Fermin, their two sons, Ernesto and Elpidio Duaman, with the
predecessor-in-interest, has complied with all the Development Bank of the Philippines, private respondent
requirements of the Public Land Act pertaining to a transferred to them the ownership of his share in the
homestead grant, and is therefore entitled to a patent as homestead. Accordingly, TCT No. 33441 was cancelled
a matter of right. They claim that Fermin filed a and in lieu thereof, TCT No. T-97333 was issued in the
homestead application over the land, cultivated at least names of Ernesto and Elpidio.
one-fifth of it, and resided on it for at least one year.
Upon his death, they argue that they became its co- On 8 August 1985, in view of the imminence of
owners through succession. foreclosure of the said lot by the bank, Ernesto and
Elpidio sold the two-hectare portion thereof to Eduardo
ISSUE: Was Fermin Lopez, the common Fontanilla, Sr. for P30,000.00. The vendee named in the
predecessor-in-interest, entitled to the grant of deed of sale was Ellen M. T. Fontanilla. Pursuant to the
homestead patent? sale, TCT No. 172520 covering the two-hectare portion
(subject lot) was issued in the name of Ellen M. T.
RULING: NO. The record is bereft of any evidence Fontanilla. Sometime later, private respondent informed
as to when Fermin exactly filed his homestead Eduardo Fontanilla of his desire to repurchase the
application over the lot in controversy, but it must have subject lot.
been filed after 1920, the year he first occupied and
possessed the land, and before 1934, the year he died. Luis Duaman files with the Regional Trial Court a
During this period, Act No. 2874 was the governing law, case against the petitioners for the “Repurchase of the
which requires that for an application to be valid, it must Homestead and Delivery of Title No. T-97333.
be approved by the Director of Lands.
RTC’S Decision: Dismissed for failure to state a
The application of Fermin unfortunately remained cause of action.
unacted upon up to the time of his death. It was neither
approved nor denied by the Director, as the Bureau CA’s Decision: Private respondent could still
failed to process it. Hence, he could not have acquired exercise the right to repurchase under Section 119 of the
any vested rights as a homestead applicant over the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
property because his application was never acted upon. amended) despite the fact that it was not him but his
A valid application is sadly lacking in the case of Fermin. sons who conveyed the subject lot to petitioners.
This circumstance prevented him from acquiring any
vested right over the land and fully owning it at the time Petitioner’s (Fontanilla) Arguments: Petitioners,
of his death. Conformably, his heirs did not inherit any urge the Court to deviate from this salutary principle
property right from him. arguing that private respondent could no longer avail
himself of the right to repurchase under Section 119
The failure of the Bureau of Lands to act on the because he was not the vendor of the subject lot. Only
application of Fermin up to the time of his death, the vendor allegedly has the right to repurchase.
however, prevented his heirs to be subrogated in all his Petitioners further argue that Ernesto and Elpidio cannot,
rights and obligations with respect to the land applied by themselves, exercise said right as they are not "legal
for. heirs" of the homesteader.

However, at the time Hermogenes applied for a Further, petitioners also aver that assuming
homestead grant over the disputed property, it was still arguendo that private respondent can still exercise his
Page 7 of 15
right to repurchase under Section 119, the same is FACTS: The case involves a 13,552-square meter
already time-barred. In support of this averment, portion of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate
petitioners reckon the five-year period to repurchase of Title (OCT) No. P-11880 in the name of the Heirs of
from 21 July 1976 when private respondent conveyed Victor Flores, namely: Julio, Benito, Dolores, and
the subject lot to his sons. When the complaint was filed Virginia, herein petitioners. OCT No. P-11880 was
with the lower court on 20 June 1989, more than five (5) issued pursuant to Homestead Patent No. 138892 given
years had lapsed and prescription of the right to on November 12, 1973.
repurchase had allegedly already set in.
On December 20, 1976 petitioners, together with
ISSUES: their mother Luisa Viernes, executed a Deed of
1. Does the private respondent, Luis Duaman, who Confirmation and Quitclaim in favor of Vicente T. Lazo.
was not the vendor who executed the deed of sale, Through this document, petitioners agreed to sell, cede,
have the right to repurchase the subject land? convey, grant, and transfer by way of QUITCLAIM the
2. Does the homestead applicant, his widow or his subject property to Lazo. Thereafter, respondent,
legal heirs have the right to repurchase the Marciano Bagaoisan, bought the subject property from
homestead every time (beyond 5 years) the same is Lazo.
conveyed to a third party or sold to persons outside
the family circle? On April 4, 1983, Viernes and petitioner Virginia
Flores-Dalere executed a Palawag A Nasapataan
RULING: (Affidavit), attesting to the fact that they conveyed to
Lazo the subject property through the Deed of
1. Yes. There is nothing in Section 119 which Confirmation and Quitclaim. Affiants also attested that
provides that the "applicant, his widow, or legal heirs" Lazo and his predecessors-in-interest had been in
must be the conveyor of the homestead before any of possession of the disputed portion since 1940 and that
them can exercise the right to repurchase. Rather, what the same was mistakenly included in the patent
said law plainly provides is that the "applicant, his application of Victor Flores.
widow, or legal heirs" shall be entitled to repurchase the
homestead within five (5) years from the date of Respondent filed an action for ownership, quieting of
conveyance. In this case, there is no dispute that private title, partition and damages against petitioners, praying
respondent is the legal heir of spouses Crisanto and that he be declared as the true owner of the subject
Feliciana Duaman, the homesteaders. property and that the entire property covered by OCT
No. P-11880 be partitioned among them.
2. Yes. The transfer of the subject lot by the father RTC and CA Ruling:
(private respondent Luis) to his sons (Ernesto and
Elpidio) is not the "conveyance" contemplated by Recognized plaintiff Marciano Bagaoisan as owner
Section 119 because the subject lot remains in the of the parcel of land. (CA) the Deed of Confirmation and
family of the homesteaders, the transferee being their Quitclaim merely confirmed petitioner’s non-ownership of
direct descendants. The avowed fundamental policy of the subject property.
Section 119, e.g., "to preserve and keep in the family of
the homesteader that portion of the public land which the Respondent’s Arguments: He was a tenant of
State had gratuitously given to him,” is clearly not Lazo and that he had been working on the subject
violated by said conveyance. property since time immemorial. He bought the property
in 1977, he possessed the land as owner and paid real
Since the transfer of the subject lot by private property tax thereon. The subject property was
respondent to his sons does not fall within the purview of erroneously covered by OCT No. P-11880 and that
Section 119, it necessarily follows that the five-year petitioners have previously recognized such fact,
period to repurchase cannot be reckoned from the date considering that they executed an affidavit
of said conveyance. Rather, the date of conveyance for acknowledging the erroneous inclusion of the property in
the purpose of counting the five-year period to their title.
repurchase under Section 119 is that "alienation made to
a third party outside of the family circle" which in this Petitioner’s Arguments: They did not relinquish
case was the conveyance of the subject lot to petitioners ownership or possession of the land to Lazo. While
on 8 August 1985. Accordingly, private respondent's admitting that they executed the Deed of Confirmation
complaint for the repurchase of the subject lot, which and Quitclaim in favor of Lazo, they were misled into
was filed on 20 June 1989, was not time-barred as not signing the same, with Lazo taking advantage of their
more than five (5) years had lapsed since the date of its lack of education. Further, it was too late for respondent
conveyance to petitioners. to assert title to the disputed portion because the title
covering the same had already become indefeasible one
X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X year after it was issued.

(7) FLORES v. BAGAOISAN, ISSUE: Did the Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim
G.R. No. 173365, 15 April 2010. violate Sec. 118 of the Public Land Act (prohibition of the
alienation of lands acquired through a homestead
patent)?
Page 8 of 15
 Ruling: YES. Without going into petitioner’s covered only by Tax Declaration No. 5537. The
allegation that they were unaware of the contents of the petitioners failed to pay the loan and it was foreclosed.
Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim, the court Rural Bank of Isulan (Cotabato) Inc. was the highest
nonetheless hold that the deed is void for violating the bidder. The respondent bank then took possession of
five-year prohibitory period against alienation of lands the foreclosed property. Unknown to respondent bank, a
acquired through homestead patent as provided under Free Patent title (Original Certificate of Title No. P-
Section 118 of the Public Land Act. 19766) had been issued in favor of petitioners on August
4, 1976 or before the foreclosure sale. More than
The use of the words confirmation and quitclaim in seventeen (17) years after the foreclosure sale,
the title of the document was an obvious attempt to petitioner Basilio Hilaga sent a letter conveying his
circumvent the prohibition imposed by law. The desire to redeem the subject property.
conveyance of a homestead before the expiration of the
five-year prohibitory period following the issuance of the Petitioners filed a complaint for Redemption of
homestead patent is null and void and cannot be Foreclosed Mortgaged Property before the Regional
enforced, for it is not within the competence of any Trial Court of Surallah, South Cotabato.
citizen to barter away what public policy by law seeks to
preserve. There is, therefore, no doubt that the Deed of Petitioner’s contention. Petitioners alleged that the
Confirmation and Quitclaim, which was executed three mortgage and subsequent foreclosure of the subject
years after the homestead patent was issued, is void property had not been annotated on the title nor
and cannot be enforced. registered with the Register of Deeds. Also, no
annotation and consolidation of ownership was made in
Further, it would be well to mention that the favor of the respondent bank. Thus, the one (1)-year
execution of the Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim redemption period under Act No. 3135, which
within the five-year prohibitory period also makes the commences from the date of registration of the sale, has
homestead patent susceptible to cancellation, and the not yet started.
subject property being reverted to the public domain. It is
the Solicitor General, on behalf of the government, who Respondent’s contention. Respondent bank
is by law mandated to institute an action for reversion. averred that when the real estate mortgage in its favor
was executed, the parcel of land was merely covered by
Regarding the indefeasibility of the title one year a tax declaration. That unknown to the respondent bank,
after its issuance, An OCT issued on the strength of a petitioners proceeded to apply for and cause the
homestead patent partakes of the nature of a certificate issuance in 1976 of a free patent and torrens title to the
issued in a judicial proceeding and becomes land; hence, they are estopped to claim that the parcel of
indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of land mortgaged is covered by a free patent and torrens
one year from the date of the promulgation of the title.
Director of Lands order for the issuance of the patent.
After the lapse of such period, the sole remedy of a Ruling of the RTC. RTC rendered judgment in favor
landowner, whose property has been wrongfully or of the Plaintiffs, ordering the defendant Bank to allow the
erroneously registered in another’s name is to file an plaintiffs to exercise their right of redemption under Act
action for reconveyance so long as the property has not 3135
passed to an innocent purchaser for value. In order that
an action for reconveyance based on fraud may prosper, Ruling of the CA. On appeal, the CA reversed the
it is essential for the party seeking reconveyance to trial court. The right of petitioners to redeem their
prove, by clear and convincing evidence, his title to the foreclosed property can only be exercised within two (2)
property and the fact of fraud. In the present case, the years from the date of foreclosure, as provided under
parties instituted a Deed of Confirmation and Quitclaim, Republic Act No. 720 or the Rural Banks' Act, as
and not an action for reconveyance. amended by Republic Act No. 2670.

X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X ISSUE: Can petitioners still redeem their foreclosed

property?
(8) SPS. HILAGA v. RURAL BANK OF ISULAN,
G.R. No. 179781, 7 April 2010. RULING: NO. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 720, as
amended by Republic Act Nos. 2670 and 5939,
FACTS: Petitioners Basilio and Norma B. Hilaga specifically provides for the redemption period for lands
were the owners of a parcel of land, identified as Lot No. foreclosed by rural banks. Loans may be granted by
172-A, Pls-212-D-7, located at Barrio Lopez Jaena, rural banks on the security of lands without Torrens titles
Municipality of Norala, Province of South Cotabato and where the owner of private property can show five years
containing an area of 46,868 square meters, more or or more of peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted
less. possession in the concept of an owner.

Petitioners obtained a loan from respondent Rural When a homestead or free patent land is foreclosed,
Bank of Isulan Inc., in the amount of P2,500.00. To the homesteader or free patent holder, as well as their
secure the loan, they executed a Real Estate Mortgage heirs shall have the right to redeem the same within two
over the above-mentioned property which was then years from the date of foreclosure in case of a land not
Page 9 of 15
covered by a Torrens title or two years from the date of Maximo Labanon executed a document
the registration of the foreclosure in case of a land denominated as Assignment of Rights and Ownership to
covered by a Torrens title. safeguard the ownership and interest of his brother
Constancio Labanon. Again, Maximo Labanon executed
If the mortgagor fails to exercise such right, he or his a sworn statement reiterating his desire that his elder
heirs may still repurchase the property within five (5) brother Constancio, his heirs and assigns shall own the
years from the expiration of the two (2)-year redemption eastern portion of the lot.
period pursuant to Section 119 of the Public Land Act
(C.A. No. 141). If the land is mortgaged to parties other After the death of Constancio Labanon, his heirs
than rural banks, the mortgagor may redeem the executed an extra-judicial settlement of estate with
property within one (1) year from the registration of the simultaneous sale over the aforesaid eastern portion of
certificate of sale pursuant to Act No. 3135. If he fails to the lot in favor of Alberto Makilang, the husband of
do so, he or his heirs may repurchase the property within Visitacion Labanon, one of the children of Constancio.
five (5) years from the expiration of the redemption Subsequently, the parcel of land was declared for
period also pursuant to Section 119 of the Public Land taxation purposes in the name of Alberto but the heirs of
Act. Maximo Labanon caused to be cancelled from the
records of the Provincial Assessor of Cotabato the said
In the present case, petitioners admit that when the tax declaration.
property was mortgaged, only the tax declaration was
presented. Although a free patent title was subsequently Petitioners filed a complaint for Specific
issued in their favor on August 4, 1976, petitioners failed Performance, Recovery of Ownership, Attorneys Fees
to inform the creditor rural bank of such issuance. As a and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Injunction and
result, the certificate of sale was not registered or Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order against
annotated on the free patent title. Petitioners are respondents. The lower court dismissed the complaint
estopped from redeeming the property based on the free and on appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the lower
patent title which was not presented during the court.
foreclosure sale nor delivered to the Register of Deeds
for annotation of the certificate of sale as required under Petitioners argue that respondents can no longer
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 720, as amended. question Maximo Labanon’s ownership of the land after
its registration under the principle of indefeasibility of a
Petitioners cannot fault respondent for the non- Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT).
registration of the certificate of sale because petitioners
did not inform the respondent bank that a Torrens title ISSUE: Can the Original Certificate of Title issued in
had already been acquired by them on August 4, 1976. the name of Maximo Labanon be now considered
By their silence and inaction, petitioners misled the indefeasible and conclusive?
respondent bank to believe that their only proof of
ownership was the tax declaration. RULING: Respondents are not precluded from
challenging the validity of the Original Certificate of Title.
X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
The principle of indefeasibility of a TCT is embodied
(9) HEIRS OF LABANON v. HEIRS OF LABANON, in Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529,
G.R. No. 160711, 14 August 2004. amending the Land Registration Act. The legal provision
does not totally deprive a party of any remedy to recover
FACTS: During the lifetime of Constancio Labanon, the property fraudulently registered in the name of
prior to the outbreak of WWII, he settled upon a piece of another. Section 32 of PD 1529 merely precludes the
alienable and disposable public agricultural land situated reopening of the registration proceedings for titles
at Brgy. Lanao, Kidapawan, Cotabato. Constancio covered by the Torrens System, but does not foreclose
cultivated the said lot and introduced permanent other remedies for the reconveyance of the property to
improvements that still exist up to the present. Being of its rightful owner.
very limited educational attainment, he found it difficult to
file his public land application over said lot. Constancio The mere possession of a certificate of title under
then asked his brother, Maximo Labanon who was better the Torrens system does not necessarily make the
educated to file the corresponding public land application possessor a true owner of all the property described
under the express agreement that they will divide the therein for he does not by virtue of said certificate alone
said lot as soon as it would be feasible for them to do so. become the owner of the land illegally included.

During the time of the application it was Constancio Undeniably, respondents are not precluded from
who continued to cultivate the said lot in order to comply recovering the eastern portion of Original Certificate of
with the cultivation requirement set forth under Title with an area subject of the Assignment of Rights
Commonwealth Act 141 on Homestead applications. and Ownership previously owned by their father,
Due to industry of Constancio, the Homestead Constancio Labanon. The action for Recovery of
Application was approved and eventually, Original Ownership before the RTC is indeed the appropriate
Certificate of Title No. P-14320 was issued in favor of remedy.
Maximo Labanon. X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
Page 10 of 15
(10) VDA. DE PANALIGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, The law is unambiguous. Tender of the payment of
G.R. No. 112611, 31 July 1996. the repurchase price is not among the requisites of the
law and is unnecessary, contrary to the petitioners'
FACTS: On August 13, 1956, the spouses claims. It is not even necessary for the preservation of
Gaudencio Superioridad and Socorro Barrios acquired a such a right of redemption to make an offer redeem or
79,509 square meter parcel of land located at Barrio 5, tender of payment of purchase price within five years.
Norala, South Cotabato under Homestead Patent No. V- The filing of an action to redeem within that period is
5988. Consequently Original Certificate of Title No; P- equivalent to a formal offer to redeem. There is not even
6776 (V-5988) over the subject Lot No. 744 was issued a need for consignation of the redemption price. It is thus
in their names. immaterial that private respondents did not readily
deposit the repurchase price with the Clerk of Court.
The spouses Superioridad sold the subject property
to Ariston Panaligan and Clara Atong for P25,000.00. X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
After a little over a year, the spouses Panaligan sold the
said lot to their four children, similarly for a consideration (11) MORLA v. BELMONTE,
of P25,000.00. Lot No. 744 was subdivided into four lots, G.R. No. 171146, 7 December 2011.
each with an area of 19,887 square meters, and the
corresponding transfer certificates of title were issued in FACTS: Spouses Alfredo Nisperos and Esperanza
favor of their four children. Urbano were the original homesteaders of an 80,873-
square meter tract of public land situated in Caliguian,
Spouses Superioridad, filed a complaint for Burgos, Isabela] by virtue of Original Certificate of Title
repurchase of land under Section 119 of Commonwealth (OCT) No. P-1542, issued on May 4, 1951.
Act No. 141 against the spouses Panaligan and their
children who were now the titled owners of the property On June 8, 1988, the Nisperos spouses executed a
in question. Partial Deed of Absolute Sale wherein they sold a
portion of Lot No. 4353 with an area of 50,000 square
Panaligans countered that private respondents meters to the brothers Ramon and Rodolfo Morla for the
abandoned their rights to the property in question, that sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
there was neither valid tender of payment nor (₱250,000.00).
consignation in court and that they are not desirous of
preserving the land for homestead purposes but for gain The Morla brothers acknowledged and confirmed in
and speculative purposes. writing that they had bought from the Nisperos spouses
the subject land, and that they had agreed to give the
After trial on the merits, the lower court ruled in favor Nisperos spouses a period of ten (10) years within which
of private respondent spouses Superioridad. On Appeal, to repurchase the subject land for the price of Two
petitioners alleged that respondents’ right to repurchase Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (₱275,000.00).
had already expired. CA affirmed the decision of the
lower court. Nisperos spouses filed a Complaint for Repurchase
and/or Recovery of Ownership Plus Damages against
Petitioners point out that during the hearings of the the Morla brothers. They alleged that the deed of sale
case in the trial court, private respondents could not was registered by the Morla brothers only when they had
readily deposit the P25,000.00 repurchase price with the signified their intention to repurchase their property.
Clerk of Court. Petitioners assailed that the Court of Thus, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 225544 for
Appeals failed to appreciate that private respondents are the subject land was issued in favor of the Morla
guilty of laches. brothers, and TCT No. 225545, for the remaining 30,870
square meters of Lot No. 4353, to the Nisperos spouses.
ISSUE: Do respondents have the right to
repurchase under CA 141? The Morla brothers claimed that the Nisperos
spouses had no cause of action, as the repurchase of
RULING: YES. The right of repurchase sought to be the subject land was improper for being outside the five-
exercised by private respondents and allowed both the year period provided under Section 119 of
trial and appellate courts, is based on Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141.
Commonwealth Act No. 141, the Public Land Act. Said
privilege is a part of the public policy to provide a home The Nisperos spouses deposited the amount of
and decent living for destitutes, aimed at promoting a ₱275,000.00, with the clerk of court of the RTC for the
class of independent small landholders which is the repurchase of the subject land.
bulwark of peace and order.
The RTC rendered its judgment in favor of Nisperos
It is uncontroverted that private respondent spouses Spouses. The RTC said that the only issue to be
sold the land to petitioners on January 13, 1973 and that resolved was the validity of the 1988 contract, which the
a suit for reconveyance was filed on October 20, 1977. Morla brothers neither attacked nor denied. The RTC
Said suit was clearly within the five-year period to held that it was clear from the 1988 contract, which the
repurchase granted under the aforequoted legal Morla brothers executed, that they had bound
provision. themselves to its terms and conditions. The RTC further
Page 11 of 15
proclaimed that what was prohibited was the shortening FACTS: Petitioner is the registered owner of a
of the five-year redemption period under Section 119 of parcel of land situated in Bukidnon with an area of
Commonwealth Act No. 141, and not its prolongation. 10.6146 hectares, more or less, covered by TCT No. T-
8275 and another property with an area of 13.2614
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTCs decision. It hectares covered by OCT No. P-4985, also Bukidnon.
declared that the RTC did not err in allowing the The property are tenanted by private respondents who
Nisperos spouses to repurchase the subject land. It are recipients of Emancipation Patents in their names
upheld the validity of the 1988 contract and concurred pursuant to Operation Land Transfer under P.D. 27
with the RTCs rationale that the arrangement to prolong notwithstanding the fact that neither the tenants nor the
the period for redemption of the subject land was not Land Bank of the Philippines has paid a single centavo
prohibited by law as it was in line with the intent of for the said land. Petitioner and the tenants have not
Section 119 to give the homesteader or patentee every signed any Land Transfer Production Agreement.
chance to preserve for himself and his family the land Petitioner and her children have been deprived of their
that the State had gratuitously given to him as a reward property without due process of law and without just
for his labor in cleaning and cultivating it. compensation, Subsequently, the tenants have already
stopped paying rentals as of December 1988.
ISSUE: May the parties a deed of sale of a land
covered by a homestead patent extend or prolong the 5- PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS: The tenants are not
year period of repurchase under Section 119 of Act 141, supposed to acquire the subject land and the
under a private writing subsequently executed by them? Emancipation Patents precipitately issued to them are
null and void for being contrary to law. Petitioner claims
RULING: YES. Since the subject land was acquired that she owns the subject property covered by OCT No.
by the Nisperos spouses pursuant to a homestead P-4985 as original homestead grantee who still owned
patent, the applicable law is Commonwealth Act No. the same when Republic Act No. 6657 was approved,
141, or the Public Land Act. Section 119 thereof thus she is entitled to retain the area to the exclusion of
specifically speaks about repurchases of a homestead or her tenants.
free patent land by the applicant, his widow, or legal
heirs, within a period of five years from the date of the As regards TCT No. 8275, petitioner has applied for
conveyance. retention of seven hectares per Letter of Retention', are
covered by Homestead Patents, and as decided by the
Nowhere in Commonwealth Act No. 141 does it say that Supreme Court in the cases of Patricio vs. Bayug (112
the right to repurchase under Section 119 thereof could SCRA 41) and Alita vs. Court of Appeals (170 SCRA
not be extended by mutual agreement of the parties 706), the homesteaders and their heirs have the right to
involved. Neither would extending the period in Section cultivate their homesteads personally, which is a
119 be against public policy as the evident purpose of superior right over that of tenant-farmers.
the Public Land Act, especially the provisions thereof in
relation to homesteads, is to conserve ownership of RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT: That petitioner's
lands acquired as homesteads in the homesteader or his right to retain seven (7) hectares is not absolute since
heirs. What cannot be bartered away is the she owns other agricultural landholdings, thus
homesteader’s right to repurchase the homestead within disqualifying her to retain the area. The criteria set forth
five years from its conveyance, as this is what public under P.D. 27 were observed before the generation of
policy by law seeks to preserve. the Emancipation Patents; that under Executive Order
No. 228, the tenant-farmers under P.D. 27 are deemed
The 1988 contract was executed freely and willingly full owners of the lands they till and the lease rentals
between petitioner and his late brother, and the Nisperos paid by them should be considered as amortization
spouses. The freedom of contract is both a constitutional payments; that under LOI 474, petitioner who owns more
and statutory right, and the contracting parties may than seven (7) hectares of lands are not entitled to
establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and retention.
conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they
are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public The Adjudicator a quo rendered the decision in
order, or public policy. The 1988 contract neither favor or petitioners cancelling the Emancipation Patents
shortens the period provided under Section 119 nor issued to tenants-respondents and that the Register of
does away with it. Instead, it gives the Nisperos spouses Deeds of Malaybalay, Bukidnon shall cancel all
more time to reacquire the land that the State Emancipation Patents registered under the names of
gratuitously gave them. The 1988 contract therefore is tenants-respondents. That back rentals due to the shall
not contrary to law; instead it is merely in keeping with be given to the said petitioner
the purpose of the homestead law.
Ruling of the Court Appeals: It ruled that she could
X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X not retain her homesteads, since she was not the actual
cultivator. It also held that she and her heirs had not
(12) PARIS v. ALFECHE, been deprived of their right to retain the area mandated
G.R. No. 139083, 30 August 2011. by law, because they had other agricultural landholdings.
Finally, it ruled that she had not been deprived of her
properties without just compensation, since tenant-
Page 12 of 15
farmers of agricultural lands under P.D. 27 are deemed Subsequently, by virtue of a notarized Deed of
owners of the land they till and the lease rentals paid by Relinquishment, Renunciation of Rights and Quitclaim,
them shall be considered as amortization payments. Comia voluntarily conveyed a 3,000-square-meter said
lot to the spouses Abelgas. It was stated in the said
ISSUE: Deed that the subject portion was the sole property of
1. Are petitioner’s homesteads exempted from land the spouses and it had only been included in the title of
reform? Comia for it adjoined his land. Based on the Subdivision
2. Can the tenants be ejected? Survey, the 3,000-sqm portion bordered Lot No. 919-E
owned by Jose Abelgas, Jr.
RULING:
By virtue of this subsequent voluntary dealing over
1. NO. Indisputably, homestead grantees or their the property, the Register of Deeds cancelled OCT No.
direct compulsory heirs can own and retain the original P-8553 in the name of Comia. (TCT) No. T-46030 was
homesteads, only for "as long as they continue to issued in the names, Sps. Comia and Sps Abelgas, as
cultivate" them. That parcels of land are covered by co-owners of Lot No. 919-B.
homestead patents will not automatically exempt them
from the operation of land reform. It is the fact of Thereafter, the spouses subdivided their 3,000-sqm
continued cultivation by the original grantees or their portion into twelve (12) lots. Using their TCTs, the
direct compulsory heirs that shall exempt their lands Abelgas, used the lots to secure their loan obligations
from land reform coverage. with Rural Bank of Pinamalayan, Inc., Rural Bank of
Socorro, Inc., and the Philippine National Bank. Said lots
In the present case, as previously pointed out, were issued in favor of RBSI for failure of the Spouses to
neither petitioner nor her heirs are personally cultivating meet their obligations with said bank.
the subject homesteads. The DAR and the CA found
that respondents were the ones who had been Comia claimed that he was the sole owner of Lot
cultivating their respective portions of the disputed No. 919-B; and that the Deed of Relinquishment,
properties. Renunciation of Rights and Quitclaim, which resulted in
the issuance of TCT Nos. T-46030, and T-4634 to
However, petitioner can retain five (5) hectares in 46375, is fictitious and nonexisting.
accordance with Section 6 of RA 6657, which requires
no qualifying condition for the landowner to be entitled to Respondent assailed the encumbrances in favor of
retain such area. the mortgagee banks as void ab initio and obtained in
bad faith as these were executed within the period of
Petitioner's heirs, however, are not entitled to prohibition to dispose lands subject of a free patent
awards of three (3) hectares each, since they are not under Section 118 of the Public Land Act (CA 141).
actually tilling the parcels or directly managing the farm.
RULING OF RTC: The Deed as signed by him
2. NO. There is no justification for ejecting voluntarily relinquished the subject parcel of land in favor
respondents. Besides, Section 22 of RA 6657 expressly of its rightful owner and possessors the spouses
states that "actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall Abelgas. The trial court also upheld the validity of the
not be ejected or removed therefrom." Furthermore, mortgages, since encumbrances made in favor of banks
there is no reason for ejecting the tillers with respect to are exempted according to the amendatory laws of the
the area of five hectares, which petitioner may choose to Public Land Act.
retain.
RULING OF CA: The CA modified the RTCs
The current provision on retention removes the Decision. While the appellate court sustained the due
necessity, present under PD 27, of ejecting actual tillers. execution of the Deed of Relinquishment, Renunciation
Under the current law, landowners who do not of Rights and Quitclaim, it construed the document as an
personally cultivate their lands are no longer required to alienation prohibited by CA 141. The CA pronounced
do so in order to qualify for the retention of an area not that in an attempt to circumvent the law, it was made to
exceeding five hectares. Instead, they are now required appear that the 3,000 square meters adjoining the land
to maintain the actual tiller of the area retained, should of Comia was owned by the spouses. However, based
the latter choose to remain therein. on testimonial evidence, Abelgas purchased the said
portion contrary to law.
X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
Likewise, the CA nullified the mortgages, as the
(13) ABELGAS v. COMIA, exemption of the banks had been removed by
G.R. No. 163125, 18 April 2012. Commonwealth Act 456amending Section 118 of
Commonwealth Act 141, which took effect on 8 June
FACTS: Comia obtained a free patent situated in 1939. Nevertheless, the banks may recover the value of
Oriental Mindoro with an area of 6,790 square meters. the loans with interest. In view of the Deeds nullity, and
Pursuant to this free patent, the property was was in the absence of escheat proceedings, the CA restored
originally registered as Original Certificate of Title No. P- to Comia Lot No. 919-B.
8553.
Page 13 of 15
 ISSUE: Does the prohibition on Section 118 of CA RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT: Homestead Patent
141 apply? was issued in the name of Charles. The Homestead
Patent was registered and OCT No. RP-110 (P-6339)
RULING: NO. For the prohibition in Section 118 of was issued in Charles's name, covering the same
CA 141 to apply, the subject property must be acquired property. Thereafter, Charles sold the subject property to
by virtue of either a free patent or a homestead patent. JMC Farm Incorporated (JMC), which was then issued
In this case, the 3,000-sqm portion subdivided into TCT No. 18529. JMC obtained a loan from respondent in
twelve (12) lots as evidenced by TCT Nos. T-4634 to with real estate mortgage over several parcels of land
46375 has not been shown to be under a free patent. As including the subject property. JMC failed to pay; hence,
it appears, what was submitted to the mortgagee banks after extra-judicial foreclosure and public sale,
were TCTs not derived from a free patent. respondent, being the highest bidder, acquired the
subject property and was issued TCT No. T-51382 in its
Thus, the encumbrances thereon are not null and name.
void, as these do not fall within the ambit of the
prohibition. This being the case, it cannot be said that Title over the subject property was protected by the
the banks were in bad faith for accepting the Torrens system, as it was a buyer in good faith and for
encumbered properties that did not originate from a free value; and that it had been in continuous possession of
patent. In any event, at the time of the mortgage, the the subject property since November 1989, way ahead
Rural Banks Act (Republic Act No. 720), as amended by of petitioner's alleged possession in February 1997.
Republic Act No. 5939, already allows banks to accept
free patents as security for loan obligations. RTC RULING: RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner
on the ground that petitioner's title emanated from a title
Absent any finding of nullity, we sustain the RTCs older than that of the respondent. There were substantial
ruling that the alienation and encumbrances are valid. and numerous infirmities in the Homestead Patent of
Consequently, there is no cause to cancel the Charles. There was no record in the Bureau of Lands
subsequent TCTs and the resulting mortgages thereon. that Charles was a homestead applicant or a grantee of
Homestead Patent No. 113074. Upon inquiry, the RTC
X ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X also found that a similar Homestead Patent bearing No.
V-113074 was actually issued in favor of one Mariano
(14) RABAJA RANCH DEVELOPMENT Costales over a parcel of land with an area of 8.7171
CORPORATION v. AFP RETIREMENT AND hectares. Charles's Homestead Patent was fraudulent
SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM, and spurious, and respondent could not invoke the
G.R. No. 177181, 7 July 2009. protection of the Torrens system, because the system
does not protect one who committed fraud or
FACTS: Rabaja Ranch Development Corporation misrepresentation and holds title in bad faith.
(petitioner), a domestic corporation, is a holder of (TCT)
No. T-88513 covering the subject property particularly CA RULING: The CA reversed and set aside the
identified as Lot 395, Pls 47, with an area of 211,372 RTC's Decision upon the finding that Charles's
square meters more or less, and located Oriental Homestead Patent was earlier registered than Jose's
Mindoro. Free Patent. The CA held that Jose slept on his rights,
and thus, respondent had a better right over the subject
Respondent Armed Forces of the Philippines property. Further, the CA opined that while "it is
Retirement and Separation Benefits System is a interesting to note that petitioner's claim that Homestead
government corporation, which manages the pension Patent No. V-113074 was issued to Mariano Costales,
fund of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and per Certification issued by the Lands Management
is duly organized under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. Bureau, there is nothing on record which would show
361, as amended by P.D. No. 16566 (respondent). that said Homestead Patent No. V-113074 and
Respondent is a holder of TCT No. T-51382 covering the Homestead Patent No. 113074 granted to Charles were
same subject property. one and the same."

Petitioner filed a Complaintfor Quieting of Title ISSUE: Who between the petitioner and respondent
and/or Removal of Cloud from Title before the RTC. has a better right over the subject property?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS: A Free Patent was RULING: RESPONDENT. Settled is the rule that no
issued in the name of Jose Castromero Jose. the Free valid TCT can issue from a void TCT, unless an innocent
Patent was registered, and (OCT) No. P-2612 covering purchaser for value had intervened. An innocent
the subject property was issued. Sometime in the first purchaser for value is one who buys the property of
half of 1982, Jose sold the subject property to Spouses another, without notice that some other person has a
Veloso and TCT No. T-17104 was issued in favor of the right to or interest in the property, for which a full and fair
latter. Spouses Veloso, in turn, sold the subject property price is paid by the buyer at the time of the purchase or
to petitioner for the sum of ₱634,116.00 and TCT No. T- before receipt of any notice of the claims or interest of
88513 was issued in petitioner’s name. Petitioner some other person in the property. The protection given
alleged that it was the lawful owner and possessor of the to innocent purchasers for value is necessary to uphold
subject property.
Page 14 of 15
a certificate of title's efficacy and conclusiveness, which
the Torrens system ensures.

Clearly, respondent is an innocent purchaser in

good faith and for value. Thus, as far as respondent is
concerned, TCT No. 18529, shown to it by JMC, was
free from any flaw or defect that could give rise to any
iota of doubt that it was fake and spurious, or that it was
derived from a fake or spurious Homestead Patent.
Likewise, respondent was not under any obligation to
make an inquiry beyond the TCT itself when,
significantly, a foreclosure sale was conducted and
respondent emerged as the highest bidder.

Respondent's transfer certificate of title, having been

derived from the Homestead Patent which was
registered under the Torrens system on May 27, 1966,
was thus vested with the habiliments of indefeasibility.

---oOo---

Page 15 of 15