G.R. No. L-19242. February 29, 1964.
Sigbe Lasud, Lumagus Mamadud and Primitiva Mamadud, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Santay Lasud and Guinantana Cia, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The land in dispute was originally a homestead granted to the deceased father of plaintiff Sigbe Lasud and defendant Santay Lasud. Upon their father’s death, the siblings inherited the property as co-owners. On July 14, 1955, Sigbe Lasud sold her one-half share, interest, and participation in the land to her brother Santay Lasud and his wife for P550.00. The sale was registered, leading to the cancellation of the original certificate of title and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title solely in Santay Lasud’s name.
Subsequently, on August 10, 1959, Sigbe Lasud filed an action to compel Santay Lasud to reconvey her one-half share back to her. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint, finding the action barred by prescription under the Civil Code provisions on annulment or repurchase. Sigbe then filed an amended complaint, anchoring her right to repurchase on Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (the Public Land Act), which grants a right of redemption to the homesteader or his heirs within five years from the date of conveyance. She alleged she had offered to repurchase but was refused.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff-appellant, as an heir of the original homesteader, can exercise the right of redemption under Section 119 of the Public Land Act against her co-heir and brother, who is also a direct heir of the same homesteader.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing the action, holding that the statutory right of redemption under the Public Land Act does not apply to a sale between co-heirs within the immediate family of the original homesteader. The legal logic centers on the purpose and spirit of the homestead law. Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 is designed to preserve and keep the land granted by the State within the family of the homesteader. It authorizes redemption from any vendee to prevent the land from passing outside the family circle.
In this case, the vendee, Santay Lasud, is not a stranger or a third party outside the family. He is the son of the original homesteader and a direct heir, just like the plaintiff-appellant Sigbe Lasud. The sale was between a brother and a sister, both children of the grantee. Such a transaction does not remove the land from the family of the homesteader; it merely consolidates ownership within the same family unit. Therefore, the conveyance does not contravene the fundamental policy the law seeks to uphold. The right of redemption is intended for cases where the land is alienated to outsiders, not for intra-family transfers among the homesteader’s immediate heirs. Since the sale was between co-heirs, the provision is inapplicable, and the action for reconveyance based on it must fail.