Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    Gayappanao v. IAC, 199 SCRA 309 (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Lovely Grace Hechanova
    The Supreme Court ruled that a sale of a portion of homestead land to one of the homesteader's children during the 5-year prohibitory period was void, despite the vendor and vendee being family. The Court found that any sale or encumbrance of homestead land during this period is prohibited, with the only exception being sales to the government. Allowing sales to descendants could set a dangerous precedent and enable homesteaders to circumvent the ban by selling to family members. The petition was granted and the sale was declared void.

    Copyright:

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

    Gayappanao v. IAC, 199 SCRA 309 (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Lovely Grace Hechanova
    37 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that a sale of a portion of homestead land to one of the homesteader's children during the 5-year prohibitory period was void, despite the vendor and vendee being family. The Court found that any sale or encumbrance of homestead land during this period is prohibited, with the only exception being sales to the government. Allowing sales to descendants could set a dangerous precedent and enable homesteaders to circumvent the ban by selling to family members. The petition was granted and the sale was declared void.

    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 Supreme Court ruled that a sale of a portion of homestead land to one of the homesteader's children during the 5-year prohibitory period was void, despite the vendor and vendee being family. The Court found that any sale or encumbrance of homestead land during this period is prohibited, with the only exception being sales to the government. Allowing sales to descendants could set a dangerous precedent and enable homesteaders to circumvent the ban by selling to family members. The petition was granted and the sale was declared void.

    Copyright:

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

    Gayappanao v. IAC, 199 SCRA 309 (1991)

    Uploaded by

    Lovely Grace Hechanova
    The Supreme Court ruled that a sale of a portion of homestead land to one of the homesteader's children during the 5-year prohibitory period was void, despite the vendor and vendee being family. The Court found that any sale or encumbrance of homestead land during this period is prohibited, with the only exception being sales to the government. Allowing sales to descendants could set a dangerous precedent and enable homesteaders to circumvent the ban by selling to family members. The petition was granted and the sale was declared void.

    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

    #7 Gayappanao v. IAC, 199 SCRA 309 (1991)


    Case Title, GR SEVERINO GAYAPANAO, TEODORO GAYAPANAO, LAURO GAYAPANAO, SALVADOR GAYAPANAO,
    Number, Date RAYMUNDA GAYAPANAO-RAMOS, HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO GAYAPANAO and HEIRS OF ROBERTO GAYAPANAO,
    petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and SIMEONA GAYAPANAO-
    NOVENARIO, respondents.

    G.R. No. 68109. July 17, 1991.


    Ponente FERNAN, C.J.
    Topic Reason for prohibition and the right to repurchase
    Facts • Constantino Gayapanao homestead application covering a 10 hectare land was approved on September
    7, 1931 and the final order of the Director of Lands for the issuance of patent was issued on December
    10, 1937. On November 15, 1938, Constantino executed a deed and sold a 2 hectare portion of the 10
    hectare homestead land in favor of one of his children Simeona (respondent). The Homestead Patent
    Title was issued in the name of Constantino on July 13, 1939.
    • Constantino died intestate. Petitioners who are the other children of Constantino filed a Complaint for
    Partition and Accounting with Prayer for Appointment of Receiver against their sibling Simeona who
    was then occupying the homestead lot.
    • Petitioners argue that the contract of sale between Simeona and their father was void for having been
    executed within the 5-year prohibitory period
    • Respondent argues that the prohibition against the alienation or encumbrance of the homestead land
    refers to an alienation or encumbrance in favor of a third person outside the family circle of the original
    homesteader. Since the conveyance was made in favor of Simeona who is one of the children of the
    original homesteader and who is the “continuity of the personality of her father for all legal intents and
    purposes,” such sale is “not in contravention of the policy of the State, which is to preserve and keep to
    the homesteader and his 8 family the land granted to him by the State
    Issue and • Whether the sale of a 2 hectare homestead land during the 5 year prohibitory period is void despite
    Ruling the vendor being the father and the vendee the child? – YES
    (Doctrine) o A sale of homestead within the 5 year prohibitive period is void ab initio and the same cannot be
    ratified nor can it acquire validity through the passage of time. The prohibition is mandatory.
    ▪ Lands acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to
    encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of 5
    years from the date of issuance of the patent or grant, nor shall they become liable to the
    satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period. Nevertheless, the
    improvements or crops of the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons,
    associations, or corporations.
    o The sale to a descendant is not one of the exceptions contemplated by law. The only exception is
    the sale or encumbrance of a homestead in favor of the government or any of its branches, units or
    institutions, at any time and even during the 5-year prohibitory period.
    ▪ It is dangerous precedent to allow the sale of a homestead during the 5-year prohibition to
    anyone, even to the homesteader’s own son or daughter.
    ▪ A clever homesteader who wants to circumvent the ban may simply sell the lot to his
    descendant and the latter after registering the same in his name would sell it to a third person.
    This way, public policy would not be subserved.
    Dispositive • SC granted petition.

    Page 8 of 56

    You might also like