G.R. No. L-67386. February 28, 1985.
FELIX LACORDA and CONCORDIA A. LACORDA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ROLANDO OLIVA, CYNTHIA OLIVA and DANTE PARCON, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, Felix and Concordia Lacorda, sold their homestead, measuring over 18 hectares, to spouses Rolando and Cynthia Oliva on April 2, 1975. Two years later, in 1977, the Oliva spouses sold the same property to Dante Parcon for the identical purchase price. On February 16, 1980, within the five-year period prescribed by Section 119 of the Public Land Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 141 ), the petitioners formally offered to repurchase the homestead from both Parcon and the Oliva spouses for the original sale price, expressing readiness to pay.
The offer was not accepted, prompting the petitioners to file a suit for reconveyance in the Court of First Instance of Davao. The trial court dismissed their complaint and upheld Parcon’s ownership. This decision was affirmed in its entirety by the Intermediate Appellate Court, leading to the petitioners’ elevation of the case to the Supreme Court via the instant petition.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners are entitled to exercise their statutory right to repurchase the homestead under Section 119 of the Public Land Act.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioners were not entitled to repurchase. The legal logic centers on the purpose and spirit of the homestead law. While the petitioners’ offer was made within the five-year repurchase period, both lower courts found as a factual matter that the petitioners did not intend to resume cultivation of the land for their livelihood. Instead, the factual finding was that their true intent was to resell portions of the property for a substantial profit.
The Court emphasized that the statutory right of repurchase is a protective measure designed to preserve and promote the welfare of homesteaders and their families by ensuring they have land for cultivation and subsistence. It is not a tool for commercial speculation. Citing precedent, notably Simeon vs. Peña, the Court held that allowing a homesteader to recover land under this benevolent policy, only to immediately dispose of it for profit, constitutes a misuse of the law’s intent. The right is contingent on the homesteader’s genuine need to resume agricultural use. Since the petitioners’ purpose was contrary to this legislative objective, they forfeited the privilege of repurchase, notwithstanding technical compliance with the statutory timeframe. The factual findings of the lower courts on this intent are binding and conclusive.