GR 172720; (September, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172720 September 14, 2015
ELISEO MALTOS and ROSITA P. MALTOS, Petitioners vs. HEIRS OF EUSEBIO BORROMEO, Respondents
FACTS
On February 13, 1979, Eusebio Borromeo was issued Free Patent No. 586681 over an agricultural land, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-9053. On June 15, 1983, within the five-year prohibitory period, Eusebio Borromeo sold the land to Eliseo Maltos. Eusebio Borromeo died on January 16, 1991. His heirs claimed he instructed them to nullify the sale. On June 23, 1993, the heirs filed a Complaint for Nullity of Title and Reconveyance against the Maltos Spouses and the Register of Deeds. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling the sale was null and void for being within the prohibitory period under the Public Land Act, but also held the heirs failed to establish their status as heirs in a special proceeding. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding the property should revert to the state, but pending a reversion action by the government, the property should be reconveyed to the heirs upon their refund of the purchase price to the Maltos Spouses. The Maltos Spouses filed a Petition for Review.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the reconveyance of the property to the heirs of Eusebio Borromeo, pending a reversion action by the state, despite finding the sale within the prohibitory period void.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals. The sale of the agricultural land covered by a free patent within the five-year prohibitory period under Section 118 of the Public Land Act is void. The consequence of such a void sale is the reversion of the land to the public domain. However, reversion under Section 101 of the Public Land Act is not automatic; the Office of the Solicitor General must institute a proper action for reversion. Until such an action is filed and a final judgment of reversion is rendered, the court cannot order the cancellation of the title or the reconveyance of the property. The Court of Appeals erred in ordering the reconveyance to the heirs and the cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title, as this preempts the state’s right to seek reversion. The proper remedy for the heirs is to await the filing of a reversion suit by the state, where they may then intervene. The Supreme Court reinstated the Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of the complaint but modified it to be without prejudice to any appropriate reversion proceedings by the Office of the Solicitor General.