G.R. No. 166190; September 20, 2006
HEIRS OF VENANCIO BAJENTING and FELISA S. BAJENTING, et al., represented by VENENCIO A. BAJENTING, Attorney-in-Fact, petitioners, vs. ROMEO F. BAÑEZ, SPOUSES JONATHAN and SONIA LUZ ALFAFARA, respondents.

FACTS

Venancio Bajenting applied for and was granted a free patent over a parcel of land in Davao City, resulting in the issuance of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-5677 in his name in 1976. After his death, his heirs, including his widow Felisa, executed an Extrajudicial Settlement with Deed of Absolute Sale on May 31, 1993, selling the land to respondents Romeo Bañez and the spouses Alfafara. The deed, however, was not notarized, and the sale lacked the required approval from the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources. The owner’s duplicate certificate of title was delivered to the respondents, but only a portion of the purchase price was paid.
Subsequently, the heirs sought to repurchase the property under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (the Public Land Act), which grants a right of repurchase to the patent applicant, widow, or legal heirs within five years from the conveyance. The respondents refused. The heirs then filed a complaint for Quieting of Title, Repurchase of Property, and Recovery of Title plus Damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC dismissed the complaint, ruling the sale was valid and the repurchase right was not properly exercised. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the heirs of Venancio Bajenting can validly exercise their right to repurchase the land under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic is anchored on the application and purpose of Section 119 of the Public Land Act. The Court clarified that the five-year period for repurchase is counted from the date of the actual conveyance, which in this case was the execution of the deed of sale on May 31, 1993. The heirs’ filing of the complaint on May 31, 1995, was well within this period. The Court emphasized that the right of repurchase is a special privilege granted by statute to protect homesteaders and free patent holders from exploitation, and its exercise is not dependent on the perfection or validity of the sale. Even assuming the sale was void for lack of the required Secretary’s approval, the heirs’ right to repurchase subsists as it is a statutory right separate from the contract of sale. The respondents’ failure to pay the full purchase price did not negate this right but merely gave the heirs an alternative remedy for collection. Consequently, the heirs were ordered to repurchase the property by paying the unpaid balance of the purchase price (P150,000.00) to the respondents.