G.R. No. 48429; September 30, 1942
MACAMPON DE PORKAN, administrator of the intestate estate of Quiama (Moro), MOXIREM QUIAMA, LUPIAN QUIAMA, SENING QUIAMA and IBA QUIAMA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ALEJANDRA NAVARRO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On January 13, 1919, Quiama, a Moro, applied to purchase a 42-hectare public agricultural land in Davao. On September 17, 1929, he executed a document (Exhibit 2—Segundo) ceding 30 hectares of this land to his niece, Alejandra Navarro, in consideration of P26,931.36 in advances she made for clearing and cultivating the land to comply with the Public Land Act (Act No. 2874). Navarro took possession of this portion. In 1934, a patent and Original Certificate of Title No. 1066 were issued in Quiama’s name. Quiama died in 1935. On May 10, 1937, his widow and children executed a deed (Exhibit H) conveying 21 hectares of the same portion to Navarro for P15,000 and leased the remaining 9 hectares to her (Exhibit I) until December 31, 1939, for P1,000. In 1937, Quiama’s administrator, widow, and children sued to recover the 30 hectares and damages, alleging the documents (Exhibits 2—Segundo, H, and I) were null and void. Navarro counterclaimed for reimbursement of her advances and cultivation expenses. The trial court declared the documents void and offset the parties’ monetary claims.

ISSUE

Whether the contracts of conveyance and encumbrance (Exhibits 2—Segundo, H, and I) executed by Quiama (a Moro) and later by his heirs are valid without the required governmental approvals.

RULING

The contracts are null and void for lack of the required governmental approvals. Section 29 of Act No. 2874 (Public Land Act) requires the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources’ approval for any conveyance or encumbrance of a homestead applicant’s rights after the second installment is paid and cultivation has begun; without such approval, the act is void. Section 118 of the same Act requires the Director of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes’ approval for conveyances and encumbrances by persons belonging to non-Christian tribes. Furthermore, Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Mindanao and Sulu require the provincial governor’s approval for contracts relating to real property made by any person with any Moro in the Department of Mindanao and Sulu. The documents in question lacked these approvals. The defense that no approval was needed because all parties were from a non-Christian tribe is untenable, as the law makes no such distinction. The defense that Exhibit 2—Segundo was outside Section 29’s scope after the patent and title were issued is also untenable, as the contract was executed prior to issuance, and Section 118 applies regardless of when the conveyance was made. The trial court’s offsetting of the plaintiffs’ claim for damages against the defendant’s claim for advances is affirmed, as evidence supports Navarro made the advances, and equity is served given her possession, the improvements made, the products she enjoyed, and the parties’ relationship. The appealed judgment is affirmed.