GR 21203; (October, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21203 October 20, 1970
FELIPA JOLATORIA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. SIMPLICIO APOLINARIO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Francisco Lasina was granted Homestead Patent No. 1653 on January 9, 1919, under Act No. 926, covering Lot No. 83 in Basilan City, and Original Certificate of Title No. 61 was issued in his name. On June 12, 1923, Francisco Lasina sold the homestead to Angel Bernardo for P450.00. On October 17, 1924, Angel Bernardo sold a 10-hectare portion of the land to the spouses Simplicio Apolinario and Pilar Garcia Apolinario, who thereafter occupied and cultivated it for about 30 years, introducing considerable improvements. After Francisco Lasina’s death, his widow, Felipa Jolatoria, and his children filed a complaint on July 16, 1954, against the Apolinario spouses, alleging they inherited the entire Lot No. 83 and that the defendants illegally took possession of a portion after WWII. They sought recovery of possession and damages. The defendants claimed the land was validly sold by Lasina to Bernardo and then to them. Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to allege the sale by Lasina to Bernardo was fictitious, fraudulent, and without consideration. The trial court, after trial, dismissed the complaint, ruling the sale was valid under Act No. 926. Plaintiffs appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the sale of the homestead by Francisco Lasina to Angel Bernardo, and the subsequent sale by Bernardo to the Apolinario spouses, were valid and effective.
RULING
The sales were valid and effective. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that Francisco Lasina acquired a vested right to the homestead under Act No. 926 before its repeal by Act No. 2874. Section 4 of Chapter I of Act No. 926, which governed homesteads, only prohibited the land from being liable for debts contracted prior to the patent’s issuance; it did not prohibit alienation. The prohibition on alienation found in Section 35 of Act No. 926 applied only to lands acquired under Chapter IV concerning “free patents,” not to homesteads. Applying the precedent in Balboa vs. Farrales, the Court ruled that Lasina’s vested right under Act No. 926 included the right to alienate the land. Therefore, the sale to Bernardo in 1923 was valid, and the subsequent sale to the Apolinario spouses was likewise valid. The complaint was correctly dismissed.