G.R. No. L-14937. May 23, 1961.
MAGDALENA AGUILOR, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FLORENCIO BALATICO and GREGORIO AGUILOR, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Hilario Aguilor was the registered owner of a parcel of land. He was first married to Fausta Unday, with whom he had a daughter, Magdalena. After Fausta’s death, Hilario cohabited with Beatriz Asuncion. Beatriz had a child, Inocencio Melchor, from a previous relationship. Upon Inocencio’s death, his children (the Ga plaintiffs) survived. The plaintiffs, claiming to be heirs, sued to repurchase the land, alleging Hilario only mortgaged it to the defendants in 1949. They argued the land was conjugal property of Hilario and Fausta, and later improved by Hilario and Beatriz.
The defendants contended the transaction was an absolute sale, evidenced by a notarized deed. They presented tax declarations and receipts showing possession and payment of taxes since the sale. They also noted the plaintiffs had previously filed a case alleging a sale, which contradicted their present mortgage claim. The trial court found the deed of sale to be a public document enjoying a presumption of regularity and truth.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether Hilario Aguilor was the absolute owner of the land, capable of selling it without the plaintiffs’ consent, thereby rendering the sale to the defendants valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, upholding the validity of the sale. The legal logic proceeds from the established facts. First, the document of sale (Exhibit 1) is a public document, creating a presumption that it was executed according to its terms. The plaintiffs failed to present clear evidence to rebut this presumption and prove the transaction was merely a mortgage. Their prior judicial admission in a previous complaint, where they alleged a sale, further weakened their current contradictory claim.
Second, and decisively, Hilario Aguilor was the absolute owner at the time of the sale. The land was originally part of a homestead patent granted to Juan Aguilor in 1924. Hilario acquired title to the specific lot only in 1939 via a cadastral court order, long after the dissolution of his conjugal partnership with Fausta Unday upon her death in 1918. Therefore, the property was his exclusive capital, not conjugal. The Court applied the doctrine from Naval v. Jonsay: where occupation begins during a first marriage but the patent title is applied for and granted after that marriage has ended (with Hilario being a widower), the land belongs exclusively to the patentee. Consequently, Hilario had full capacity to alienate the property.
Finally, the prohibition against alienation under the Public Land Act (Section 118) for five years from the patent’s issuance was inapplicable, as the patent was issued in 1924 and the sale occurred in 1949, well beyond the prohibitory period. Thus, the sale was valid, and the plaintiffs had no right to repurchase.