arsenal vs. ac

8/13/2019 Arsenal vs. AC

1/6

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-66696 July 14, 1986

FRANCISCA ARSENAL an REME!IO ARSENAL, petitioners,vs.T"E INTERME!IATE APPELLATE COURT, "EIRS OF TORCUATO SURALTA, anSPOUSES FILOMENO PALAOS an MA"INA LAG#AS, respondents.

Ruben Gamolo for respondent Filomeno Palaos.

GUTIERRE$, JR., J.:

he !uestion to be resolved in this case is "ho a#on$ the t"o alle$ed purchasers of afour%hectare portion of land $ranted in ho#estead has ac!uired a valid title thereto.

he facts as stated b& the trial court are'

On (anuar& ), *+-, the defendant ilo#eno Palaos secured OC No.P%/+0 1E2h. 34 fro# the Re$ister of Deeds of 5u6idnon for 7ot 8*, Pls%**/, consistin$ of 8),8/+ s!. #. #ore or less, situated at for#er barrioof 9itaotao no" a #unicipalit& of 5u6idnon, b& virtue of :o#esteadPatent No. V%/;s possession over thefour%hectare portion that he had purchased in *+). On March /8,*+


2/6

of rancisca 3rsenal. I##ediatel& he as6ed Palaos for e2planation butthe latter told hi# that he sold onl& three hectares to 3rsenal. Plaintiffapproached rancisca 3rsenal for a satisfactor& arran$e#ent but sheinsisted on abidin$ b& her contract. 5ecause of their disa$ree#ent,rancisca 3rsenal re$istered her Deed of Sale on Dece#ber


3/6

:E INERMEDI3E 3PPE773E COAR ERRED IN NODISMISSIN? :E 3PPE37ED C3SE OR 73C9 O C3ASE O3CION.

II

:E INERMEDI3E 3PPE773E COAR ERRED IN 3IRMIN?:E RI37 COAR>S 3R?AMEN O :E EEC :3 :E

5ENEI O :E PRO:I5IION IN :E PA57IC 73ND 73B3?3INS :E DISPOS37 O 3N 73ND ?R3NED O 3 CIIENANDER :3 73B DOES NO INSARE O 3N :IRD P3R,:ENCE, PEIIONERS COA7D NO 3V3I7 O :E S3IDPRO:I5IION.

III

:E INERMEDI3E 3PPE773E COAR ERRED IN 3IRMIN?:E RI37 COAR>S 3R?AMEN :3 :E PEIIONERS COA7DNO 39E 3DV3N3?E O :E 73C9 O 3PPROV37 5 :ECOMMISSION ON N3ION37 INE?R3ION O :E S37E M3DE5 RESPONDEN ORCA3O SAR373.

IV

:E INERMEDI3E 3PPE773E COAR ERRED IN ?IVIN? OOMAC: BEI?: O :E 377E?ED 53D 3I: O PEIIONERS.

V

:E INERMEDI3E 3PPE773E COAR ERRED IN 3IRMIN?

:E DECISION O :E RI37 COAR DEC73RIN? RESPONDENORCA3O SAR373 O 5E :E 7E?IIM3E OBNER O :EDISPAED 73ND 3ND IN ORDERIN? :E RE?ISER O DEEDSO 5A9IDNON O C3NCE7 C NO. %)8)+ 3ND ORDERIN? :EISSA3NCE O 3NO:ER I7E OR :E PORION DESI?N3ED3S 7O 8l%3 O :E SA5DIVISION P73N 7RC%P7D%*+8-*.

VI

:E INERMEDI3E 3PPE773E COAR ERRED IN 3IRMIN?:E 3B3RD O MOR37 D3M3?ES 3ND 3ORNE>s EES OPRIV3E RESPONDENS.

In resistin$ respondent Suralta>s clai#, the petitioners rel& heavil& on the nullit& of thecontract of sale e2ecuted in *+) bet"een the respondents Palaos and Suralta. he&alle$e that because the previous sale "as void fro# the be$innin$, it cannot be ratifiedand No a#ount of bad faith on the part of the petitioners could #a6e it valid andenforceable in the courts of la".

hese ar$u#ents are i#pressed "ith #erit.

he la" on the #atter "hich is the Public 7and 3ct 1Co##on"ealth 3ct No. *-*, asa#ended4 provides'

Sec. **8. E2cept in favor, of the ?overn#ent or an& of its branches,units or institutions, lands ac!uired under free patent or ho#esteadprovisions shall not be sub=ect to encu#brance or alienation fro# thedate of the approval of the application and for a ter# of five &ears fro#and after the date of issuance of the patent or $rant nor shall the&beco#e liable to the satisfaction of an& debt contracted prior to thee2piration of said period, but the i#prove#ents or crops on the land#a& be #ort$a$ed or pled$ed to !ualified persons, associations, orcorporations.

No alienation, transfer, or conve&ance of an& ho#estead after five&ears and before t"ent&%five &ears after issuance of title shall be valid

"ithout the approval of the Secretar& of 3$riculture and NaturalResources, "hich approval shall not be denied e2cept on constitutionaland le$al $round 13s a#ended b& Co#. 3ct No. -non%Christian ilipinos> or national cultural #inorities,"hen proper, shall be valid if the person #a6in$ the conve&ance orencu#brance is able to read and can understand the lan$ua$e in "hichthe instru#ent or conve&ance or encu#brance is "ritten. Conve&ancesand encu#brances #ade b& illiterate non%Christians or literate non%Christians "here the instru#ent of conve&ance is in a lan$ua$e notunderstood b& the said literate non%Christian shall not be valid unlessdul& approved b& the Chair#an of the Co##ission on NationalInte$ration. 13s a#ended b& Rep. 3ct No. ;8)/, approved (une *8,*+


4/6

Sec. */-. 3n& ac!uisition, conve&ance, alienation, transfer, or othercontract #ade or e2ecuted in violation of an& of the provisions ofsections one hundred and ei$hteen, one hundred and t"ent&, onehundred and t"ent&%one, one hundred and t"ent&%t"o, and onehundred t"ent&%three of this 3ct shall be unla"ful and null and voidfro# its e2ecution and shall produce the effect of annullin$ andcancellin$ the $rant, title, patent, or per#it ori$inall& issued, reco$ni@edor confir#ed, actuall& or presu#ptivel&, and cause the reversion of thepropert& and its i#prove#ents to the State.

he above provisions of la" are clear and e2plicit. 3 contract "hich purports of alienate,transfer, conve& or encu#ber an& ho#estead "ithin the prohibitor& period of five &earsfro# the date of the issuance of the patent is void fro# its e2ecution. In a nu#ber of cases,this Court has held that such provision is #andator& 1De los Santos v. Ro#an CatholicChurch of Midsa&ap, +- Phil. -04.

Ander the provisions of the Civil Code, a void contract is ine2istent fro# the be$innin$. Itcannot be ratified neither can the ri$ht to set up the defense of its ille$alit& be "aived. 13rt.*-0+, Civil Code4.

o further distin$uish this contract fro# the other 6inds of contract, a co##entator hasstated that'

he ri$ht to set up the nullit& of a void or non%e2istent contract is notli#ited to the parties as in the case of annullable or voidable contractsFit is e2tended to third persons "ho are directl& affected b& the contract.1olentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, p. a totall& distincttransaction fro# the pro#issor& note and the deed of #ort$a$e>, asfound b& the Court of 3ppeals, for it "as e2ecuted onl& in co#plianceand fulfill#ent of the vendor>s previous pro#ise, under the perfectedsale of (anuar& -, *+;8, to e2ecute in favor of his vendee the for#al actof conve&ance after the lapse of the period of inhibition of five &earsfro# the date of the ho#estead patent. Bhat is #ore, the e2ecution ofthe for#al deed of conve&ance "as postponed b& the parties precisel&

to circu#vent the le$al prohibition of their sale.


5/6

he la" prohibitin$ an& transfer or alienation of ho#estead land "ithinfive &ears fro# the issuance of the patent does not distin$uish bet"eene2ecutor& and consu##ated salesF and it "ould hardl& be in 6eepin$

"ith the pri#ordial ai# of this prohibition to preserve and 6eep in thefa#il& of the ho#esteader the piece of land that the State had$ratuitousl& $iven to the#, 1Pascua v. alens, - O.?. No. + GSupp.H-*;F De los Santos v. Ro#an Catholic Church of .Midsa&ap, ?.R. No.7%s patent.

he respondents Palaos and Suralta ad#itted that the& e2ecuted the subse!uent contract

of sole in *+); in order to cure the defects of their previous contract. he ter#s of thesecond contract corroborate this fact as it can easil& be seen fro# its ter#s that no ne"consideration passed bet"een the#. he second contract of sale bein$ #erel&confir#ator&, it produces no effect and can not be bindin$.

Not"ithstandin$ the above circu#stances of the case, ho"ever, "e still thin6 that thepetitioners> clai# to the land #ust fail.

he petitioner>s vie" that the court erred in $ivin$ too #uch "ei$ht to their alle$ed badfaith has no #erit. he issue of bad faith constitutes the funda#ental barrier to their clai#of o"nership.

he findin$ of bad faith b& the lo"er court is bindin$ on us since it is not the function of thisCourt to anal&@e and revie" evidence on this point all over a$ain 1S"eet 7ines, Inc. v.Court of 3ppeals, */* SCR3 )s clai# over the land "hich is anchored on the contracts previousl& e2ecuted "e

"ould in effect be $ivin$ life to a void contract.

here is another observation "orth& of consideration. his Court has ruled in a nu#ber ofcases that the reversion of a public land $rant to the $overn#ent is effected onl& at theinstance of the ?overn#ent itself 1?aca&an v. 7eano, */* SCR3 /


6/6

); Phil. s fees andliti$ation e2penses.

B:EREORE, the decision of the Inter#ediate 3ppellate Court is REVERSED and SE3SIDE. (ud$#ent is hereb& rendered'

1a4 Declarin$ null and void the sale of the four%hectare portion of the ho#estead torespondent orcuato Suralta and his heirsF

1b4 Declarin$ null and void the sale of the sa#e portion of land to the petitioners rancisca3rsenal and Re#edio 3rsenal'

1c4 Orderin$ the Re$ister of Deeds of 5u6idnon to cancel ransfer Certificate of itle No.%)8)+ as to the disputed four%hectare portion and to reissue an Ori$inal Certificate of itlefor the portion desi$nated as 7ot 8*%3 of the Subdivision Plan 7RC%P7D%*+8-* preparedb& ?eodetic En$ineer 5enito P. 5albuena and approved b& the Co##ission on 7andRe$istration, in favor of the respondents ilo#eno Palaos and Mahina 7a$"asF

1d4 Orderin$ the respondents ilo#eno Palaos and Mahina 7a$"as to rei#burse the heirsof the respondent orcuato Suralta the su# of EI?: :ANDRED NINE PESOS1P8+0.004, the price of the sale. he value of an& i#prove#ents #ade on the land and theinterests on the purchase price are co#pensated b& the fruits the respondent Suralta andhis heirs received fro# their lon$ possession of the ho#estead.

his =ud$#ent is "ithout pre=udice to an& appropriate action the ?overn#ent #a& ta6ea$ainst the respondents ilo#eno Palaos and Mahina 7a$"as pursuant to Section */- ofCo##on"ealth 3ct No. *-*, as a#ended.

SO ORDERED.

Feria (Cairman!" Fernan" Alampa# and Paras" $$." concur.

arsenal vs. ac

Documents