GR 28918; (September, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28918 September 29, 1970
PACIENCIA BENIGA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. RUFINA BUGAS, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The land in controversy is a portion of Lot 2031, Pls-646, covered by Free Patent No. 232966 issued to Antonio Mabascog on May 3, 1963. Before his death on September 5, 1966, Mabascog, a widower without descendants or ascendants, donated the land inter vivos to Rufina Bugas on September 22, 1965. At the time of the donation, both donor and donee were unaware of the patent’s issuance. The patent was inscribed in the Registry Book on January 13, 1966. Upon Mabascog’s death, his heirs—the plaintiffs, who are children of his four deceased sisters—sued to recover possession. The trial court declared the donation null and void for violating the prohibitory period against alienation under the Public Land Act but held the donee’s possession was in good faith and not accountable for fruits gathered.
ISSUE
Whether the donation of a parcel of land acquired under a free patent, executed within five years from the issuance of the patent but before its registration and without knowledge of its issuance by the parties, is valid.
RULING
No, the donation is null and void. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The prohibition against alienation under Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 , as amended, commences from the date of approval of the patent application and lasts for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant. The period is not computed from the date of registration or from the date the parties acquired knowledge of the issuance. Since the donation was executed on September 22, 1965, within five years from the patent’s issuance on May 3, 1963, it falls within the prohibited period and is void. Ignorance of the patent’s issuance does not exempt the parties from the prohibition, as the date of issuance is a matter of official record, and equity cannot be invoked to frustrate the law’s mandatory policy. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the net indemnity for fruits due from the defendant from the time of judicial summons.