GR L 1361; (July, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1361; July 22, 1948
WARLITO PACIS, represented by his guardian ad litem Martina Hilario, plaintiff-appellant, vs. VICENTE DADULLA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiff Warlito Pacis, a minor represented by his guardian, claimed ownership by inheritance of the eastern half of Lot No. 37 in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. He alleged that his father, the late lawyer Claro Pacis, acquired that half from defendant Vicente Dadulla as payment for professional services in securing a homestead title, evidenced by a private deed of cession. This deed was allegedly attached to another document dated February 17, 1939, given to Monsignor Carlos S. Inquimboy, and later burned during the war. Defendant Dadulla denied the claim, asserting he was the sole owner by virtue of Homestead Patent No. 4623 issued on January 21, 1937. He admitted mortgaging the eastern half to Claro Pacis on January 21, 1937, to secure a P1,000 debt, which mortgage was later assigned to Monsignor Inquimboy and subsequently canceled upon full payment on August 21, 1945. The trial court dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff-appellant has sufficiently proven his claim of ownership over the eastern half of the homestead lot based on an alleged private deed of cession.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The plaintiff failed to prove the existence and due execution of the alleged private deed of cession. Furthermore, the claim is legally untenable. First, the alleged cession, if it occurred around February 1939, would be void under Section 118 of the Public Land Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 141 ), which prohibits any encumbrance or alienation of a homestead grant within five years from the date of the patent issuance (December 15, 1936). Second, the claim is contradicted by the registered mortgage deed, which identified the same eastern half as the security for a P1,000 loan. It is legally incompatible for Claro Pacis to be both the owner and the mortgagee of the same property. The Court found that the P1,000 secured by the mortgage constituted the agreed professional fee. Allowing the plaintiff to claim the land after the fee had been paid would violate the homestead law’s protective intent and sanction unjust enrichment.
AI Generated by Armztrong.