GR 48525; (August, 1942) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48525 ; August 24, 1942
JOAQUIN VILLACORTA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. VICENTE ULANDAY, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
1. The land in question was granted to Domingo Barinto via Homestead Patent No. 21064, issued by the Governor-General on December 16, 1932.
2. The patent was transcribed in the registration book of Nueva Ecija on April 12, 1937, and a corresponding certificate of title was issued.
3. On August 26, 1937, Domingo Barinto executed a notarial deed of sale over the land in favor of the defendant, Vicente Ulanday. This deed was not registered. Barinto later contested its authenticity, claiming he signed it believing it was a power of attorney.
4. On March 13, 1939, Domingo Barinto sold the same land to the plaintiff, Joaquin Villacorta, for P1,600. Villacorta immediately registered the deed and obtained a transfer certificate of title in his name.
5. Villacorta filed an action to recover possession of the land from Ulanday and to enjoin him from molesting his possession.
6. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that Villacorta’s purchase was null and void because it occurred within five years from the date of the registration of the homestead patent (April 12, 1937), in violation of Section 116 of Act No. 2874 (the Public Land Act), which prohibits alienation of homestead lands for five years.
ISSUE
Whether the five-year prohibition period against the alienation of homestead lands under Section 116 of Act No. 2874 should be counted from (a) the date of issuance of the homestead patent, or (b) the date of its registration in the register of deeds’ office.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s decision.
1. Interpretation of the Five-Year Period: The Court held that the five-year period under Section 116 of Act No. 2874 must be counted from the date of issuance of the patent or grant (December 16, 1932), and not from the date of its registration (April 12, 1937). This interpretation is based on the clear language of the English text of the law, which is controlling. The Court reaffirmed its prior ruling in Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija vs. Director of Lands.
2. Validity of the Sales:
* The sale from Barinto to Ulanday (August 26, 1937) was null and void because it was executed within five years from the patent’s issuance date (December 16, 1932).
* The sale from Barinto to Villacorta (March 13, 1939) was valid because it was executed after the lapse of the five-year period from the patent’s issuance.
3. No Automatic Reversion: The Court rejected Ulanday’s contention that the void sale to him caused the land to automatically revert to the Government, thereby leaving Barinto with nothing to sell to Villacorta. The Court ruled that reversion under the Public Land Act is not automatic; the Government must take affirmative action to cancel the patent and title. Furthermore, Ulanday, as a party to an unlawful contract, cannot benefit from its invalidity.
4. Disposition: The Court declared Villacorta’s title valid, ordered Ulanday to deliver possession of the land to Villacorta, and perpetually enjoined Ulanday from interfering with Villacorta’s possession. Costs were assessed against Ulanday.