GR L 54191; (May, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-54191 May 8, 1990
ISAAC MAGISTRADO and FELISA BAGASINA, petitioners, vs. DOROTEA ESPLANA and PELAGIA OLIVA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Isaac Magistrado and Felisa Bagasina were the registered owners of nine parcels of riceland in Iriga, Camarines Sur, having acquired them through free patent titles issued by the government. On April 12, 1967, they sold these lands, along with one unregistered parcel, to respondents Dorotea Esplana and Pelagia Oliva for P18,000.00. Subsequently, on March 23, 1971, the petitioners filed an action for legal redemption against the respondents, invoking their right under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 , which allows vendors a five-year period to repurchase lands acquired by free patent.
The trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but modified the judgment significantly. The appellate court found that the nine parcels of land were not public agricultural lands but were private properties, having been owned, possessed, and cultivated by various individuals since time immemorial before the petitioners’ free patent applications. It held that the Director of Lands had no authority to issue free patents over private lands.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners are legally entitled to repurchase the lands from the respondents under Section 119 of the Public Land Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 141 ).
RULING
No, the petitioners are not entitled to repurchase. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification. The legal redemption right under Section 119 of the Public Land Act applies only to sales of lands acquired under free patent or homestead that are part of the public domain. The Court upheld the appellate court’s factual finding, which is conclusive, that the nine parcels were private properties long before the petitioners obtained their free patents. Evidence showed these lands had been cultivated as ricelands by various individuals as their own private properties for years prior to the applications.
Since the lands were private, the Director of Lands had no authority to dispose of them as public lands. Consequently, the free patents and the resulting certificates of title issued to the petitioners were null and void. The legal provision on redemption presupposes a valid grant of public land; it cannot be invoked when the patent itself is void for covering private property. The Court cited De la Concha v. Magtira, which held that the Public Land Law applies only to lands of the public domain. The Court modified the appellate decision by ordering the cancellation of the petitioners’ original certificates of title but clarified that the lands, being private, should not be reverted to the government. Instead, the respondents, as buyers, retain ownership. The action for legal redemption therefore had no cause of action.