G.R. No. 171146; December 7, 2011
RODOLFO MORLA, Petitioner, vs. CORAZON NISPEROS BELMONTE, ABRAHAM U. NISPEROS, PERLITA NISPEROS OCAMPO, ARMANDO U. NISPEROS, ALBERTO U. NISPEROS, HILARIO U. NISPEROS, ARCHIMEDES U. NISPEROS, BUENAFE NISPEROS PEREZ, ARTHUR U. NISPEROS, AND ESPERANZA URBANO NISPEROS, Respondents.

FACTS

Spouses Alfredo Nisperos and Esperanza Urbano (the Nisperos spouses) were the original homesteaders of a tract of public land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-1542. On June 8, 1988, they sold a 50,000-square meter portion (the subject land) of their homestead to brothers Ramon and Rodolfo Morla (the Morla brothers) via a Partial Deed of Absolute Sale. On August 2, 1988, the Morla brothers executed a written contract (the “1988 contract”) in Ilocano, acknowledging the sale and agreeing to give the Nisperos spouses a period of ten (10) years within which to repurchase the land for ₱275,000.00. On June 27, 1994, the Nisperos spouses filed a Complaint for Repurchase and/or Recovery of Ownership Plus Damages against the Morla brothers. The parties agreed at pre-trial that the sole issue for resolution was the validity of the 1988 contract stipulating the ten-year repurchase period. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Summary Judgment in favor of the Nisperos spouses, ordering the Morla brothers to reconvey the land and accept the repurchase price of ₱275,000.00, which the Nisperos spouses had deposited with the court. The RTC held the 1988 contract valid, ruling that the law prohibits shortening, not prolonging, the redemption period. The Morla brothers’ motion for reconsideration, arguing they were no longer real parties-in-interest due to a purported 1994 sale of the land to other parties, was denied by the RTC. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision but deleted the award of attorney’s fees. The Morla brothers’ motion for reconsideration, which introduced for the first time a purported 1978 contract of sale, was denied. Petitioner Rodolfo Morla (Ramon having died) elevated the case via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the 1988 contract, which granted the Nisperos spouses a ten-year period to repurchase the subject homestead land, is valid and enforceable.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The 1988 contract is valid and enforceable.
The Court held that the ten-year repurchase period agreed upon by the parties is not contrary to law, public policy, morals, or good customs. Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (the Public Land Act), which grants a homesteader or his heirs a five-year period from the date of conveyance to repurchase the homestead, is a right conferred by law for the benefit of the homesteader. Its purpose is to give the homesteader every chance to preserve the land granted by the State. This right can be waived, and such waiver may be express or implied. More importantly, the period within which to exercise this right of repurchase may be extended by agreement of the parties. The law does not prohibit an extension; it only prohibits any stipulation that shortens the five-year period. The 1988 contract, being a voluntary agreement that extended the repurchase period, is consistent with the protective spirit of the law and the principle of freedom to contract. The Court also found no merit in the petitioner’s other arguments, including the belated claim of a prior 1978 sale and the alleged unenforceability of the 1988 contract for not being in a public instrument, as the requirement of a public instrument is for convenience, not for validity or enforceability between the parties.