Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 109 views

    Homera v. Casa, 157 SCRA 232 (1988)

    Uploaded by

    Lovely Grace Hechanova
    The plaintiffs purchased 2 hectares of land from the defendants that was part of a homestead lot. The deed of sale stated the land would be conveyed after the 5-year prohibitory period under the Homestead Patent Law. However, the defendants obtained an original certificate of title for the entire lot, including the 2 hectares. The Supreme Court ruled the deed of sale was void as it was intended to circumvent the prohibition on transferring homestead rights within 5 years. As the deed was void, the plaintiffs had no rights they could enforce against the defendants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Homera v. Casa, 157 SCRA 232 (1988)

    Uploaded by

    Lovely Grace Hechanova
    109 views1 page
    The plaintiffs purchased 2 hectares of land from the defendants that was part of a homestead lot. The deed of sale stated the land would be conveyed after the 5-year prohibitory period under the Homestead Patent Law. However, the defendants obtained an original certificate of title for the entire lot, including the 2 hectares. The Supreme Court ruled the deed of sale was void as it was intended to circumvent the prohibition on transferring homestead rights within 5 years. As the deed was void, the plaintiffs had no rights they could enforce against the defendants.

    Original Description:

    land title and deeds

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiffs purchased 2 hectares of land from the defendants that was part of a homestead lot. The deed of sale stated the land would be conveyed after the 5-year prohibitory period under the Homestead Patent Law. However, the defendants obtained an original certificate of title for the entire lot, including the 2 hectares. The Supreme Court ruled the deed of sale was void as it was intended to circumvent the prohibition on transferring homestead rights within 5 years. As the deed was void, the plaintiffs had no rights they could enforce against the defendants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    109 views1 page

    Homera v. Casa, 157 SCRA 232 (1988)

    Uploaded by

    Lovely Grace Hechanova
    The plaintiffs purchased 2 hectares of land from the defendants that was part of a homestead lot. The deed of sale stated the land would be conveyed after the 5-year prohibitory period under the Homestead Patent Law. However, the defendants obtained an original certificate of title for the entire lot, including the 2 hectares. The Supreme Court ruled the deed of sale was void as it was intended to circumvent the prohibition on transferring homestead rights within 5 years. As the deed was void, the plaintiffs had no rights they could enforce against the defendants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Case Digests: Land Titles and Deeds

    #8 Homera v. Casa, 157 SCRA 232 (1988)


    Case Title, GR SABAS H. HOMENA and ILUMINADA JUANEZA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. DIMAS CASA AND MARIA CASTOR
    Number, Date and the REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF COTABATO, defendants-appellees.
    GR No. L-32749. January 22, 1988.
    Ponente YAP, J.
    Topic Reason for prohibition and the right to repurchase
    Facts • Sabas Homena and Iluminada Juaneza (plaintiffs) purchased from the Spouses Dimas Casa and Maria
    (Petitioner; Castor (defendants) 2 hectares of a homestead. The deed of sale (deed) stated that the 2 hectare potion
    Respondent) would be conveyed to the plaintiffs only after the 5 year prohibitory period under the Homestead Patent
    Law shall have elapsed. Under the Public Land Act, the homestead owner was prohibited from
    transferring his rights for a period of 5 years. However, the defendants did not abide by the deed.
    Instead, the defendants applied for a homestead patent and were issued an OCT covering the entire lot
    including the 2 hectare portion.
    • The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants for unlawful acts of dispossession disturbing
    plaintiffs’ possession of the 2 hectare portion. The plaintiffs also sought to annul the OCT issued in favor
    of defendants on the grounds that the homestead patent was obtained through fraud by stating in their
    application that the entire lot was not claimed and occupied by another person. The plaintiffs also
    assailed the validity of the homestead patent, only with respect to the 2 hectare portion. CFI dismissed
    the complaint on the grounds that the deed was made to circumvent the Public Land Act and is void.
    • The defendants argued that the deed that was executed prior to the approval and issuance of the
    homestead patent is void because the deed involved public land at the time of its execution and
    therefore cannot be conveyed to plaintiffs.
    Issue and • Is the sale of a homestead or a portion thereof before the issuance and approval of the homestead
    Ruling patent, as well as an agreement between the homestead owner-vendor and the vendee to convey
    (Doctrine) the homestead or a portion thereof only after the lapse of the 5 year prohibitory period valid? – NO,
    VOID
    o Under the Public Land Act, the homestead owner is prohibited from transferring his homestead
    rights for a period of 5 years.
    o In this case, the deed was intended to circumvent the law and is therefore illegal and void
    considering that the plaintiffs' cause of action rests upon the deed wherein the defendants sold to
    the plaintiffs the 2 hectare portion of the homestead, which the defendants were still applying for,
    on the understanding that the actual conveyance thereof to plaintiffs would be made only after the
    lapse of the 5-year period during which the homestead owner was prohibited from transferring his
    rights, under the Public Land Act.
    o As parties to a void contract, the plaintiffs have no rights which they can enforce, and therefore
    cannot even invoke the doctrine of implied trust.
    Dispositive • SC denied the petition and affirmed the CFI decision.

    Page 9 of 56

    You might also like