GR L 4094; (November, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4094 November 29, 1951
VICTOR CASTRO, ROSARIO VIÑA, CONCEPCION VIÑA, PACITA VIÑA and CARLOS PIÑA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. JUAN ORPIANO and SEGUNDINA RIVERA, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Jose Castro, married to Fidela Viña, obtained a homestead patent for a parcel of land on December 6, 1936. On December 18, 1939, within five years from the issuance of the patent, Castro and his wife sold the property to defendant Segundina Rivera for P2,710. The deed of conveyance was not registered, and no new certificate of title was issued to the vendee. During the Japanese occupation, Jose Castro, his wife, and all their children were killed. The surviving statutory next of kin were Castro’s brother (Victor Castro) and Mrs. Castro’s brothers and sisters (the other plaintiffs). These heirs instituted an action to recover the land plus damages, contending that the sale was invalid as it violated the prohibition against alienation of a homestead within five years from the patent’s issuance.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiffs, as brothers and sisters of the deceased homesteaders, have a valid cause of action to recover the homestead property that was sold within the five-year prohibitory period, despite the defendants’ claim that any forfeiture would only benefit the Government.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. The sale executed within five years from the issuance of the homestead patent is illegal and void ab initio under Section 116 of Act No. 2874 , as amended. Upon the annulment of such a void contract, the property is restored to the vendor or, upon his death, to his heirs. The plaintiffs, as the surviving brothers and sisters and statutory heirs in the absence of descendants or ascendants, have a superior right to the possession and use of the property over the purchaser. The Court clarified that while the Government might potentially assert a claim for reversion of the land to the public domain due to the violation, that is a matter between the State and the grantee or his heirs. Until the Government takes such action, the heirs’ right to possession is unquestionable. The purchaser’s claim is reduced to a right to recover the purchase price and interest, which must be pursued by filing a claim in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased vendors. The appealed judgment was reversed, and a new judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs.