GR L 32032; (August, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32032 August 28, 1984
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LANAO DEL NORTE, BRANCH IV, HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE HERNANDO PINEDA; ALEJO VILLAROS; and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LANAO DEL NORTE, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Alejo Villaros was issued Homestead Patent No. 51621 and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. 917 for a parcel of land in Lanao del Norte. Within one year from the issuance of the patent, Villaros sold the property to Marta Roxas for P315.00. Consequently, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General, filed a complaint for reversion before the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte. The complaint alleged that the sale violated Section 118 of the Public Land Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 141 ), which prohibits any alienation or encumbrance of a homestead grant within five years from the issuance of the patent. The Republic prayed for the nullification of the patent and title, the cancellation of all derivative certificates of title, and the reversion of the land to the public domain.
Villaros moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of laches, estoppel, and prescription. The respondent court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the action, filed approximately eleven years and six months after the cause of action accrued, was barred by prescription. The Republic’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether or not the State’s action for reversion of a homestead grant, based on a violation of the statutory prohibition against alienation within five years, is barred by prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the State’s action is not barred by prescription. The Court reversed and set aside the orders of the respondent court.
The legal logic is clear and established. The complaint for reversion was filed by the Republic of the Philippines in its sovereign capacity to enforce a public law designed to preserve homestead grants for the benefit of the grantee and his family. Section 118 of the Public Land Act expressly declares any alienation within the five-year prohibitory period null and void, and Section 124 provides that such a violation constitutes a cause for the reversion of the property to the State. Crucially, the statute of limitations does not run against the State when it sues to assert a public right or to enforce a public policy. The Court, citing the precedent in Republic vs. Ruiz (23 SCRA 348), reiterated that the government’s right to bring an action for reconveyance based on such a violation is imprescriptible. This doctrine was reaffirmed in Republic vs. Mina (114 SCRA 945). Therefore, the lower court erred in applying the principle of prescription to bar the State’s suit. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.