G.R. No. 109307 November 25, 1999
TEODORA SALTIGA DE ROMERO, et al., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over a 12-hectare homestead land, Lot 23 Pls-35. The property was originally acquired by Eugenio Romero but, due to legal restrictions, the homestead application was successively placed in the names of his sons Eutiquio and then Lutero Romero, allegedly in trust for all his children. After Eugenio’s death, his widow Teodora purportedly subdivided the land among six children, including Lutero and petitioners Mindalina, Lucita, Presentacion, and Gloriosa. Lutero later obtained the homestead patent, and Original Certificate of Title No. P-2,261 was issued in his name on April 26, 1967.
In 1969, Lutero was allegedly coerced by a local mayor into signing three affidavits stating he sold portions of the land to his sisters and their husbands. He later repudiated these affidavits. In 1975, Lutero mortgaged the entire lot to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Upon discovering the title was solely in Lutero’s name, his sisters filed an action for reconveyance (Civil Case No. 591). Lutero and his wife countered with an action for annulment of the affidavits and recovery of possession (Civil Case No. 1056). The Regional Trial Court declared the affidavits void and ordered petitioners to surrender possession to Lutero.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the petitioners have a valid claim for reconveyance of portions of the homestead land based on an implied trust, and whether the 1969 affidavits of sale are valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that no implied trust was created in favor of the petitioners. For an implied trust to arise under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, the property must be acquired through mistake or fraud. The evidence showed that Lutero applied for the homestead patent in his own name, complied with the requisite cultivation and residency requirements, and properly obtained the title. There was no showing that this acquisition was through mistake or fraud against his siblings. The claim of a family trust arrangement was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
Furthermore, the 1969 affidavits of sale were declared null and void. Under Section 118 of the Public Land Act, lands acquired under homestead patent cannot be alienated or encumbered within five years from the issuance of the patent. The title was issued to Lutero on April 26, 1967, and the purported sales via affidavits occurred in January 1969, well within the five-year prohibitory period. Consequently, such conveyances are void ab initio as they contravene explicit public policy aimed at preserving homesteads for the grantee and their family. The Court also declined to grant DBP’s prayer to be dropped from the case, as it did not appeal the lower court’s decision.