G.R. No. L-19252; May 29, 1964
TUMIPUS MANGAYAO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. QUINTANA LASUD, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellees, Tumipus Mangayao and Guimanda Bubungan, are illiterate non-Christian Subanos. They filed a complaint to recover a 14-hectare agricultural land in Zamboanga del Sur, originally covered by a homestead patent in their name. They alleged they were deceived into signing an absolute deed of sale (Annex A) over the property to the defendants-appellants, the literate spouses Quintana and Santay Lasud, based on the fraudulent representation that the document was merely a mortgage to secure a P5,000 loan. The defendants refused to allow redemption. The amended complaint specifically asserted the deed’s nullity for lack of the required executive approval under applicable laws.
The parties submitted a stipulation of facts. They admitted the plaintiffs’ illiteracy and non-Christian status, the defendants’ literacy, the existence of the deed of sale, and that the land was mortgaged to the Philippine Development Bank. Crucially, they stipulated that the deed of sale was approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources but was NOT approved by the Provincial Governor of Zamboanga del Sur or his authorized representative, as specifically required by law.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the deed of absolute sale, executed by illiterate non-Christians and lacking the approval of the provincial governor, is null and void ab initio or merely voidable.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, declaring the deed of sale null and void ab initio. The legal logic rests on the mandatory and prohibitory nature of Sections 145 and 146 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu, and Section 120 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (the Public Land Act). These laws explicitly provide that conveyances of real property by illiterate non-Christian inhabitants are not valid unless approved by the designated executive authority (the provincial governor or the Commissioner of Mindanao and Sulu). Section 146 categorically states contracts made in violation “shall be null and void.”
The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the contract was merely voidable. The required executive approval is not a mere ratification but an essential requisite for the very validity and existence of the contract. Without it, the contract is absolutely void from the beginning. The Court clarified that the function of approval, following the abolition of the Department of the Interior, devolved upon the Office of the President. It also held that a subsequent approval by the Provincial Governor obtained during the pendency of the case was irrelevant, as it came after the plaintiffs had withdrawn their consent and filed the action to annul the void contract.
The Court found the defense of in pari delicto (both parties at fault) inapplicable, as the fault was not equivalent given the defendants’ literacy versus the plaintiffs’ illiteracy. The applicable rule is Article 1416 of the Civil Code, allowing the protected party (the plaintiffs) to recover. The order for the defendants to pay off the mortgage to the Development Bank was proper, as it protected the bank’s interest and the defendants had mortgaged the land in bad faith after the lawsuit began. The appealed decision was affirmed in full.