G.R. No. 195247, June 29, 2015
ANASTACIO TINGALAN, substituted by his heirs, namely: ROMEO L. TINGALAN, ELPEDIO L. TINGALAN, JOHNNY L. TINGALAN and LAURETA T. DELA CERNA, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES RONALDO and WINONA MELLIZA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Anastacio Tingalan, a member of the Bukidnon Tribe, was the original owner in fee simple of a five-hectare property in Dalwangan, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, evidenced by OCT No. P-8757 (Free Patent) issued on October 4, 1976. On March 28, 1977, within five years from the patent’s issuance, Anastacio sold the property to respondent-spouses Ronaldo and Winona Melliza via a Deed of Absolute Sale. The respondents took possession, and the Owner’s Duplicate Certificate of Title and Tax Declaration were issued in their names; they paid the corresponding taxes. Around 23 years later, in 2000, an adverse claim was filed by a third party, Elena Tunanan. Anastacio demanded the respondents vacate the property, but they refused, asserting ownership based on the 1977 Deed. Anastacio filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession, arguing the sale was null and void for being executed within the five-year prohibitory period under the Public Land Act, and that, as a member of a cultural minority, the Deed required approval from the Chairman of the Commission on National Integration. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, upheld the sale, and ordered the cancellation of Anastacio’s title and tax declaration, a ruling affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals, which held the action was barred by laches due to Anastacio’s 24-year delay in asserting his rights.

ISSUE

Whether the contract of sale executed within the five-year prohibitory period under the Public Land Act is valid and whether the action to annul it is barred by laches.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The contract of sale entered into on March 28, 1977, is null and void ab initio for being contrary to law and public policy, as it violated Section 118 of the Public Land Act, which prohibits any alienation or encumbrance of lands acquired under free patent within five years from the date of issuance of the patent. As a void contract, it is imprescriptible and cannot be ratified. The Court rejected the application of laches, emphasizing that an action to declare the nullity of a void contract does not prescribe. The lower courts erred in dismissing the complaint based on laches. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals were REVERSED and SET ASIDE.