GR L 3324; (May, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3324; May 23, 1951
Quinciano Isaac, et als., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Tan Chuan Leong, et als., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The plaintiffs-appellants, heirs of Benito Isaac, filed a complaint to repurchase a parcel of land situated in Unisan, Quezon Province, which was originally acquired by Benito Isaac under Homestead Patent No. 11340 granted on September 13, 1917, and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 174 issued on October 1, 1917. The land was sold by the heirs to defendant Tan Chuan Leong on September 6, 1944. The action for repurchase was based on Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (reproducing Section 117 of Act No. 2874 ), which grants a right of repurchase within five years from the date of conveyance for lands acquired under homestead or free patent provisions. The Court of First Instance of Quezon dismissed the complaint, holding that Section 119 could not be applied retroactively to a homestead granted in 1917 (under Act No. 926 , which did not contain such a repurchase right) without impairing the obligation of contracts, as the patent constituted a contract between the government and the patentee.
ISSUE
Whether Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (and its predecessor, Section 117 of Act No. 2874 ) applies to a sale made in 1944 of a homestead patent granted in 1917, thereby entitling the heirs of the original grantee to repurchase the land.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court. The provision (Section 117 of Act No. 2874 , approved November 29, 1919) is applicable to the sale made on September 6, 1944. Applying the law to this sale does not give it retroactive effect, as the sale occurred long after the law’s enactment. The fact that the homestead was granted before the law’s passage is immaterial because the repurchase right is beneficial to the grantee or heirs and does not impair any vested right of the purchaser. The appellees, at the time of purchase in 1944, ought to have known of the existing legal provision in force since 1919. Homestead laws are designed to keep land with destitute citizens, and the legislature intended such protective provisions to apply to already granted homesteads insofar as they do not impair contractual obligations. The case was remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. (Padilla, J., dissented, arguing that the laws should not apply retroactively to a homestead granted under Act No. 926 , which contained no repurchase right.)