G.R. No. L-16641; June 24, 1965
FE RECIDO, PETRA RECIDO and SIMON MERCADO, petitioners, vs. ALFONSO T. REFASO, GERONIMA MANLUGON and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Jose Recido applied for a homestead on December 27, 1927. The application was approved on August 15, 1929, and the “Order for Issuance of Patent” was issued on March 27, 1941. Jose Recido died before the patent was issued. The property passed to his only children and legal heirs, Petra Recido and Fe Recido. On June 14, 1948, Petra Recido sold her one-half undivided share to the spouses Alfonso Refaso and Geronima Manlugon. On January 26, 1949, the same spouses bought the remaining one-half from Simon Mercado, who had acquired it from Fe Recido. The Homestead Patent No. V-2862 was issued on June 10, 1949, and Original Certificate of Title No. P-522 was issued on July 21, 1949, both in the name of the deceased Jose Recido. On April 4, 1955, Petra and Fe executed an extrajudicial partition where Petra renounced her rights in favor of Fe, leading to the cancellation of the OCT and the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-21394 in Fe’s name. The Refasos sued the Recidos and Simon Mercado. Petra claimed her sale was invalid due to the prohibition against alienation of homesteads. Fe and Mercado claimed their transaction was a mortgage, not a sale, and Fe added that her sale was void due to her minority and the homestead prohibition. The Court of First Instance declared Petra’s sale valid but annulled Fe’s sale due to her minority. The Court of Appeals awarded the whole land to the Refasos, holding Petra’s sale valid and finding that Fe had sold her share to Mercado, who then sold it to the Refasos. The Recidos and Mercado filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

1. Whether Petra Recido’s sale of her homestead share in 1948 was valid or void under the legal prohibition against alienation of homesteads.
2. Whether Fe Recido’s sale of her homestead share to Simon Mercado in 1949 was valid or voidable given her status as a minor and the homestead prohibition.
3. Whether the transactions were sales or mortgages.

RULING

1. Petra Recido’s sale was VALID. The prohibition against the sale of a homestead under the Public Land Act covers the period from the date of application and for five years after the date of issuance of the patent. The Supreme Court, citing Tinio v. Frances, ruled that the patent is deemed issued upon the promulgation of the Director of Lands’ order for its issuance, which occurred in 1941. Therefore, the sale in 1948 was made seven years after the issuance, beyond the five-year prohibition period, and was valid.
2. Fe Recido’s sale to Simon Mercado was VALID and BINDING. The Court of Appeals’ factual finding that the transaction was a sale, not a mortgage, was upheld. As to Fe’s minority, the contract was voidable, not void, under Article 1390 of the New Civil Code, and required a proper action in court for annulment. Fe, being a married minor, was an emancipated minor capable of contracting with parental consent. The burden to prove the lack of such consent rested on Fe, which she failed to discharge. Furthermore, she did not file a separate action or a cross-claim against Mercado to annul the contract, and her answer in the case was not equivalent to such an action. Consequently, the sale remained in force. Additionally, the sale occurred in 1949, which was also beyond the five-year prohibition period from the 1941 issuance of the patent.
3. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ findings that the transactions were sales, not mortgages, and declined to disturb these factual determinations.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, declaring the Refaso spouses as the owners of the entire homestead and ordering the cancellation of Fe Recido’s TCT No. T-21394 and the issuance of a new certificate in the name of the Refaso spouses. No costs were awarded.