GR 50405 06; (August, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-50405-06 August 5, 1981
VICENTA P. TOLENTINO and JOSE TOLENTINO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, CONSUELO B. DE LA CRUZ, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Ceferino de la Cruz died, leaving a homestead land to his heirs, the De la Cruzes. In 1962, the De la Cruzes sold this land to the spouses Tolentino. The Tolentinos mortgaged the property to the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). Upon the Tolentinos’ default, BPI foreclosed and bought the land at a sheriff’s sale in 1967. Meanwhile, in February 1967, the De la Cruzes filed an action to repurchase the homestead under Section 119 of the Public Land Act. The Tolentinos were declared in default for failure to file a timely answer. The lower court allowed the repurchase, and after the De la Cruzes paid BPI, a writ of possession was issued in their favor in 1969.
The Tolentinos filed a petition for relief from judgment, alleging excusable mistake in the procedural deadlines, and moved to quash the writ of possession, claiming non-service of the decision. The trial court denied these motions. The Tolentinos then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the writ of possession, which was denied. Their subsequent petition for relief from judgment was also denied by the trial court and this denial was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of the Tolentinos’ petition for relief from judgment and in upholding the validity of the repurchase by the De la Cruzes.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals with modification. The Court held that the heirs of a homestead grantee possess the right to repurchase the homestead within five years from the date of conveyance, as provided under Section 119 of the Public Land Act. This right is a statutory privilege designed to preserve the homestead for the family of the grantee. The De la Cruzes, as heirs, validly exercised this right by filing the repurchase action within the statutory period. The Tolentinos’ procedural default did not negate this substantive right.
Regarding the petition for relief from judgment, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in its denial. The Tolentinos’ claim of excusable negligence in missing the filing deadline was not substantiated by compelling evidence. The courts below correctly found that the judgment had become final and executory. However, the Supreme Court modified the decision to allow the Tolentinos to redeem the other non-homestead properties that were included in the foreclosure sale to BPI, applying the one-year equity of redemption period from the registration of the sheriff’s sale. This separate right of redemption for the foreclosed mortgages was distinct from the homestead repurchase.