G.R. No. L-46935; April 18, 1941
GREGORIO REYES UY UN, petitioner, vs. MAMERTA PEREZ e ISIDORO VILLAPLANA, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Gregorio Reyes Uy Un, initiated an action in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas to recover ownership and possession of a 10-hectare agricultural land in Guinayangan, Tayabas, including improvements consisting of coconut trees. The land was originally possessed by Martin Villaplana since the Spanish Government, declared for tax purposes in 1902, and planted with coconut trees, the oldest being about 60 years old. On May 27, 1916, Martin Villaplana sold the land to his son, Vicente Villaplana (husband of respondent Mamerta Perez). On December 7, 1922, Vicente Villaplana applied for a Free Patent over the land. Vicente Villaplana incurred a debt of P291.05 to the petitioner on February 13, 1931. After being sued for payment and sentenced to pay on May 5, 1933, a writ of execution was issued. The sheriff sold the property at public auction to the petitioner on September 21, 1934. The Free Patent title was issued to Vicente Villaplana on April 20, 1935. Possession was delivered to the petitioner on December 13, 1934, but the respondents repossessed the land in July 1935 and were later ejected via a preliminary prohibitory injunction. The Court of Appeals declared the sheriff’s sale of the land null and void, but declared the sale of the improvements valid, ordering them sold to satisfy the amount paid by the petitioner at the auction (P379.85).

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the land as public land subject to the provisions of the Public Land Act ( Act No. 2874 ) and, consequently, in declaring the sheriff’s sale of the land null and void.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The land remained public land until the issuance of the Free Patent title on April 20, 1935. Therefore, at the time of the sheriff’s sale on September 21, 1934, Vicente Villaplana was not yet the owner of the land. The sheriff could not convey a title that the judgment debtor (Vicente Villaplana) did not yet possess, rendering the sale null and void. The petitioner’s reliance on jurisprudence (Cariño vs. Insular Government, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. The Director of Lands, Susi vs. Razon) declaring that possession under specified conditions converts land to private property was distinguished. In this case, the possessor (Vicente Villaplana) himself recognized the land as public by applying for a Free Patent under the Public Land Act. Furthermore, Section 116 of Act No. 2874 , as amended, prohibits the encumbrance or alienation of lands acquired by free patent, except to the government, from the date of the application approval and for five years after the issuance of the title. The Court of Appeals correctly declared the sheriff’s sale of the land null and the sale of the improvements valid.